Stormlight Archive: Battle of ethics

[IndigoAjah he/him]

So this is kind of a theory and kind of a set of observations. It's not that groundbreaking : we knew some of this ever since we heard the words "Journey over Destination".

 

Stormlight Archive covers many key topics: how we treat the voiceless, societal injustice, religion, war and the appropriateness of it, science and when that's good and bad, mental health, finding a way to keep on going, self-acceptance, sacrifice etc. But ethical conflict, more openly than most series (even though you can see the seeds of this focus in WoT, especially the books Sanderson finished), is especially prevalent.

I have hypothesised the Orders of Knights radiant as pairs of contrasting internal Vs external approaches to sets of moral laws (Windrunners internal justice based morality Vs Skybreakers external law based morality, by Truthwatchers looking for external truth as the driver for decisions Vs Internal honesty for Lightweavers, Bondsmiths internal responsibility Vs Stonewards external duty etc).

Honor seems heavily based on ethical rules, and rules are a big part of his overall picture with the Oathpact, his song being very structured, Oaths binding his Radiants. Essentially, a very deontological approach to morality and decision making, where something is right or wrong based on inherent values and rules.

 

Now, we see Odium also bound by rules but his forces are much more bound by tradition and hierarchy rather than rules, a different ethical code of sorts. "Do what you are told/what has always been done".

Then other antagonists in the series notably follow other ethical approaches. 

Taravangian follows an "ends justify the means approach", one he boils down to "anything is acceptable to guarantee some people survive". Not quite utilitarian, but in the same vein.

Moash has become nihilism, rejecting his feelings, rejecting responsibility, amoral and not accepting anything matters or that existence is good. 

Amaran and the Sons of Honor took on "Ends Justify the Means" in a more Utilitarian manner. Nale also followed this path in the guise of following his rules for a while (he would do anything justifying it with "legality" for his aim of preventing Nahel bonds forming, a sham of actual Skybreaker ethics). The Ghostbloods take on an Assassin's Creed approach to "anything can be justified" with a touch of Will To Power. Other antagonists like Sadeas are simply amoral, not caring about ethics but trying to take advantage for their own gain. 

 

What can this tell us about the series? Well, first of all, that Honor and thus the Radiants are correct shouldn't be taken for granted. I think it's likely Sanderson favours a deontological approach to ethics but I hope he doesn't oversimplify it to "other approaches = bad". Especially as we will need to see a balance between Roshar's Shards eventually. It might be that Rules being followed is a key, but we might also see that maybe, like the Jedi, the Radiants and their Spren need to accept more flexibility to survive and win. That will be an interesting choice for the author. In reality decisions often have to take both inherent rightness, consequence and intent into account.

Also, what is Cultivation's ethical drive? Does she have one? What we haven't seen covered from an ethics perspective here is Intent based ethics or Virtue Ethics, so maybe she's linked to one of these? Or more true existentialism? That would seem Autonomy's domain though.

It also raises questions, for me, about Jasnah who we've seen apply ethics via pure logic. She's used consequence based decision making a lot, and questioned the value of hope in a speech that touched on that. Will she turn, based on this? Or will she, as she's also suggested, land on a Rational Deontology, Kant's Categorical Imperative where actions become right by applicability?

 

Anything you think we can expand on from this?