Moash, and the fans who hate him

[therunner he/him]

8 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Moash does get a systematic breakdown of his sense of self and ability to question his actions, not just taking advantage of his psychologically vulnerable state but magically inducing/heightening it. It's most evident in his relationship with Odium and the Fused, but his relationship with the Diagram subset lead by Graves was also an example of this. He framed the whole assassination attempt as patriotism and revolution, he said exactly what Moash wanted to hear. We only see their relationship after the indoctrination but it's present in their interaction.

When you mentioned indoctrination I was thinking primarily about his relationship with Odium, although there it seems to be a passive effect (on Odium's part from what I remember). Fused did not feel 'indoctriny' to me, but the praise of his Singer name could be likened to grooming.

Good point on Graves, he did seem to intentionally frame it that way to get Moash on board and drops the act after their failure (which seems to disturb Moash, if I remember correctly).

Well it seems like I have a good excuse to do a re-read of SA sometime this year, to keep an eye on this

13 minutes ago, Honorless said:

While we're comparing characters, can we also talk about Amaram, specifically the conclusion of his arc.

Meep, gtg, I'll come back and edit this later to add the Amaram stuff

Looking forward to it.

[Honorless he/him]

45 minutes ago, therunner said:

Well it seems like I have a good excuse to do a re-read of SA sometime this year, to keep an eye on this

Looking forward to it.

Thanks, I added it in!

45 minutes ago, therunner said:

Fused did not feel 'indoctriny' to me, but the praise of his Singer name could be likened to grooming.

Yup, and Leshwi & Hnanan's interactions with him did fall into this category imo. Leshwi kind of helped draw him in and framed being on Odium's side in a more positive light, as being on the Singers' side. Hnanan gave him the dagger to kill Jezrien, to push him past the point of no return.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Honorless

[+Oltux72 he/him]

4 hours ago, Honorless said:

Hmm... addressing a bit of subtext here that's often present in these types of arguments, a bit late but it's better to clear the air. Let's throw out the veneration we have for the idea of logic over emotion and neutrality over picking sides

A lot of our decision making is emotional rather than logical, we're not machines. An emotional argument isn't inherently weaker than a logical argument. For a lot of people, emotion dictates their stance and logic dictates their arguments for that stance. But the two are not inherently different things either, it's not like you can't be both at the same time, we're not Taravangian. 

We can do so, but then we admit that this boils down to personal preference. That may be correct, but then there is nothing to debate here.

4 hours ago, Honorless said:

Now, back to the topic at the current time, comparing Taravangian and Moash. If we go by their actions, not their motivations for their actions then Taravangian is more evil than Moash by the sheer no. of atrocities he's committed.

That is radically incomplete. If we go by results, then Taravangian secured survival of the species. He got a binding promise out of a Shard.

4 hours ago, Honorless said:

If we go by their motivations then it's more difficult to say, at least for me. I've always been of two minds on the idea of "for the greater good". The only difference is one is seeking to do good via what he considers necessary evil and the other is trying to cut out what he considers evil. I get why some people look at Taravangian more positively, I look at Taravangian more positively (and Moash too) but if you shift the lens a bit, both are out for blood.

Everybody is out for blood. Do I need to dig out Hoid's words on letting Roshar burn to stop Odium again? In fact Moash is the only one who can claim justice. His grandparents are dead. That much is factually true. Everybody else has to claim necessity as their justification.

4 hours ago, Honorless said:

Now, with something as big as the survival of humanity, I get where Taravangian is thinking but it's still problematic that he thinks he's solely responsible and capable of thinking for the entirety of the human race, deciding who gets to live and who becomes sacrifices.

He is. That is what his trip to the valley got him. He was the most intelligent man on Roshar. That robs him (and us) the excuse of doubt. If he chose not to act, it would mean that he'd chose the consequences. It is not out of his hands.

 

5 hours ago, Jash said:

Moash also claims his motivation is to get rid of a tyrant who is hurting his citizens. His motivation is to help people, according to his own words. 

So, again, like I don’t think this concept is hard to understand, but I’ll say it again. You accept and believe Taravangian’s reasonings and justifications for why he is doing horrible things.

No, I don't. At best he is fooling himself, at worst he is lying.

But he is factually right. Alethkar is better of with Elhokar dead. His own uncle and sister thought so. In fact, he thought so himself. There is very little room for doubt.
As soon as I know that, to ask any further means denying that objective good and evil exist. The act itself is good. That cannot depend on whether the one performing it believes so or is honest about his motivations.

 

[Honorless he/him]

39 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

We can do so, but then we admit that this boils down to personal preference. That may be correct, but then there is nothing to debate here.

Personal situation, not preference. That comment is here because someone actually claimed neutrality on the topic while taking sides.

39 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

That is radically incomplete. If we go by results, then Taravangian secured survival of the species. He got a binding promise out of a Shard.

He secured the survival of the people most dear to him. It's "radically incomplete" because you snipped that paragraph in half. We're not looking at context or consequences here, only actions. With those things added, I do agree that Taravangian has a point. My quibble with his decision is him thinking he's most qualified to make decisions on humanity's behalf.

39 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Everybody is out for blood. Do I need to dig out Hoid's words on letting Roshar burn to stop Odium again? In fact Moash is the only one who can claim justice. His grandparents are dead. That much is factually true. Everybody else has to claim necessity as their justification.

Nothing that contradicts what I said

39 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

He is. That is what his trip to the valley got him. He was the most intelligent man on Roshar. That robs him (and us) the excuse of doubt. If he chose not to act, it would mean that he'd chose the consequences. It is not out of his hands.

Standing up by oneself to take action is admirable, robbing others of choice or chance to fight, to live, is not. That being said, this is him trying to fight an extinction-level event, he does have an argument that in a situation like that, morality can go out the window.

[LuckyJim]

16 hours ago, therunner said:

Good point on Graves, he did seem to intentionally frame it that way to get Moash on board and drops the act after their failure (which seems to disturb Moash, if I remember correctly).

In his chapter at the end of WoR, he thinks that he's been "played as one of the ten fools" so he realizes that he's been taken advantage of. It does disturb him quite a bit, as he doesn't understand the full scope of what he's been dragged into and he hates himself for betraying his friend over it.

[Bejarden he/him]

14 hours ago, Honorless said:

He secured the survival of the people most dear to him. It's "radically incomplete" because you snipped that paragraph in half. We're not looking at context or consequences here, only actions. With those things added, I do agree that Taravangian has a point. My quibble with his decision is him thinking he's most qualified to make decisions on humanity's behalf.

He was qualified because Cultivation gave him the capacity to save humanity, or at least the largest part he could. And he did save all that was possible to save, or at least probable in his mind. 

One problem with comparing Moash and Taravangian is that they are completely different in every way, in terms of motivation. One wants to save humanity. The other wants to get justice for his grandparents death (whether right or wrong that’s not the point right now) Both their actions taken out of context are horrible and wrong in my opinion.

I personally believe that only in the most extreme of matters, where all other options have no feasible way of working, should you resort to killing, Moash, at least the way I read it, could have gone a different path, either becoming a powerful influence to Alethi society or confronting Elhokar without killing him.

Taravangian on the other hand could never have done what he needed to do without every death he ordered, the Diagram showed him this. It was an extreme circumstance with no other option, he needed to do it. And he never enjoyed it, and he took responsibility for the deaths. 
Again RoW really sheds light onto this conversation and if the OP could read it then we could fully have this argument.

[therunner he/him]

5 hours ago, LuckyJim said:

In his chapter at the end of WoR, he thinks that he's been "played as one of the ten fools" so he realizes that he's been taken advantage of. It does disturb him quite a bit, as he doesn't understand the full scope of what he's been dragged into and he hates himself for betraying his friend over it.

Thank you for confirming this

21 hours ago, Honorless said:

 

While we're comparing characters, can we also talk about Amaram, specifically the conclusion of his arc.

 

I've noticed there's a lot of discussion about Amaram becoming Yelig-Nar's host being an unsatisfying conclusion to the conflict between him and Kaladin. A sense satisfaction and schadenfreude is taken away by not letting Kaladin shank him or giving Amaram a sufficient political and social fall from grace, I agree with that but I also think that it's a pretty good conclusion to his character arc. Amaram was always meant to be wretched. Yes, he did not get a comeuppance but he became wholly responsible for his ignoble end by his own choices, in his desire to be the white knight. It consumed him figuratively and literally. His end actions proving his need for self-validation rather than genuine desire to improve the world. It was fitting. The only complaint I have here is that we did not spend much time exploring this aspect of his character after Dalinar tests him in WoR. Jasnah snubbing his character to Shallan, and Dalinar & Kaladin just... trying their best to ignore him. Which is also fitting in its own way, lol.

Another thing that comes up with this is Kaladin not getting to have revenge / remaining a hero with unsullied hands, which I think served his character arc well too, just look at RoW! But going more into that would be spoilers. RoW really did his character well, way better than I was expecting.

On Amaram I think i have to slightly disagree with you, while I do agree that he did care more about appearance and validation than about genuinly helping, I also think that he was a true believer in Sons of Honor cause and that is why his end on side of Odium feels wrong to me to some extent.

Personally I would think it would serve his and Kaladin's arcs better if he ended up as someone opposing Odium, but also being against coalition led by Dalinar. I can still see him trying to bind Yelig-Nar in this scenario, but it would be his hubris and need to be the one to seen to save people that would lead him to this moment.

[Frustration]

Taravangian is a dirtbag who only pretends to have morals.

I mean come on, you know something is wrong but do it anyway?

Edited June 27, 2021 by Frustration

[Honorless he/him]

1 hour ago, therunner said:

Personally I would think it would serve his and Kaladin's arcs better if he ended up as someone opposing Odium, but also being against coalition led by Dalinar.

That is a role that I would like to see filled too, but not by Amaram.

Darkeyed Radiants, the Listeners or hey, maybe even the Voidbinding Orders or Corrupted / Enlightened Radiant Orders could fill that role in the future, hopefully.

[Bejarden he/him]

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

Taravangian is a dirtbag who only pretends to have morals.

I mean come on, you know something is wrong but do it anyway?

What would you do?

Have humanity have a very large chance of dying when you know you can certainly save some of it?

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Bejardin1250 said:

What would you do?

Have humanity have a very large chance of dying when you know you can certainly save some of it?

I would watch the world burn, rather than cause one innocent to perish.

[Bejarden he/him]

Just now, Frustration said:

I would watch the world burn, rather than cause one innocent to perish.

Ok…

Thats wrong, at least in Taravangians motives and I agree with him

The ends justify the means in certain cases 

[Honorless he/him]

38 minutes ago, Frustration said:

I would watch the world burn, rather than cause one innocent to perish.

Well... they'll all have each other at the end

*looks at current events* maybe that's not a good thing

I understand the sentiment though. It's like the distance of letting something horrible happen vs doing it yourself. This can also be argued to be selfish, even with the reason that you couldn't bring yourself to harm someone else. One could argue that the only thing you're doing is avoiding dirtying your own hands.

 

Ideally, what I'd want Taravangian to do is give the maximum no. of people a fighting chance rather than get the highest chances of survival for whatever no. of people possible.

That and include more people in the decision-making. Distribute some information or hints to other powers if possible. Maybe send others to plead with the Nightwatcher.

He feels very... "mother knows best" with a side dose of I choose who gets to live

Edited June 27, 2021 by Honorless

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Honorless said:

Well... they'll all have each other at the end

*looks at current events* maybe that's not a good thing

I understand the sentiment though. It's like the distance of letting something horrible happen vs doing it yourself. This can also be argued to be selfish, even with the reason that you couldn't bring yourself to harm someone else. One could argue that the only thing you're doing is avoiding dirtying your own hands.

Life is temporary, Sin is forever.

[Bejarden he/him]

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

Life is temporary, Sin is forever.

And it’s not a sin to let someone die when you know you can save them?

[Honorless he/him]

Just now, Frustration said:

Life is temporary, Sin is forever.

You're citing religious conscientious objection?

[+Oltux72 he/him]

2 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Life is temporary, Sin is forever.

The extinction of the species would also be permanent.

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Bejardin1250 said:

And it’s not a sin to let someone die when you know you can save them?

You can't fight evil with evil, anymore than you can wash yourself clean of coal stains with mud.

1 minute ago, Honorless said:

You're citing religious conscientious objection?

Is there a better way to judge morality than by religion?

2 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

The extinction of the species would also be permanent.

Well, in order for humans to actually endure for all time God must sustain them, so therefore he only way humanity as a whole could be threatened is if God wanted it to be, so I don't think that works.

Unless you mean on Roshar's side in which case, Humanity exists outside roshar so Taravangian doesn't even have that.

[Honorless he/him]

Okay, from a religious perspective, there's an afterlife, so the people aren't really gone, and you haven't sinned by getting people killed.

I don't like that perspective because I'm not religious and where's the guarantee of souls and afterlives but yes, that's one perspective to look at it. I'm not particularly well versed in arguing scriptures but I don't think most religions look upon letting evil happen favourably.

[Honorless he/him]

Just now, Frustration said:

Is there a better way to judge morality than by religion?

Yes, morality is independent of religious beliefs

[Frustration]

Just now, Honorless said:

Yes, morality is independent of religious beliefs

How so?

[Bejarden he/him]

Just now, Frustration said:

You can't fight evil with evil, anymore than you can wash yourself clean of coal stains with mud.

5 minutes ago, Honorless said:

 

You should let 100,000 people die because you don’t want to kill 20? (Or whatever the actual number is)

Thats not right 

I agree that religion is morality but I don’t agree on your standards 

[Frustration]

Just now, Bejardin1250 said:

You should let 100,000 people die because you don’t want to kill 20? (Or whatever the actual number is)

Thats not right 

How would this situation eve exist?

reguardless I think you are looking at that the wrong way, I am not letting them die, they are being killed.

I am not responsible for other people's actions.

Does that make sense?

[Bejarden he/him]

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

How would this situation eve exist?

reguardless I think you are looking at that the wrong way, I am not letting them die, they are being killed.

I am not responsible for other people's actions.

Does that make sense?

No since regardless of context X and Y are going to die

To save X you must kill Y, but without you Y would have died anyway and you now save X so why is that wrong?

And Taravangian does not think what he is doing moral anyway and that means he knows what’s in store for him and he does it anyway, this to me is the most selfless thing to do even if I think he’s right to do what he did

[Honorless he/him]

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

How so?

This has come up in all the Jasnah atheism topics ever.

If god is good and good is god. That's... circular reasoning. Good, by itself, has to be concept independent of god otherwise it's not really a quality that can be applied to god, it would become just a synonym. Religious perspectives have also evolved over the course of human history, what is considered good has also changed. People have a consciousness about morality & ethics outside of their religious beliefs. Are you saying atheists are not good simply by not being religious? There have been religions which existed before yours. There are other religions in the world right now. To declare your own religion as the right one would be a bit presumptuous. There's plenty of moral questions which have not been answered by religion, what about them?