FistOfLegend

I disagree with the premise of your argument, Moogle, as it seems to hinge on applying generalities to specifics. Letting a murderer go free is always wrong. That statement is untrue. Letting a murderer go free is a general action, which is either right or wrong based on the specific details involving the specific case. It would be more accurate to say: Letting a murderer go free is generally wrong. Example: You are a soldier in a castle. Nasty Creatures are attacking the castle and slaughtering everyone. You manage to gather a bunch of innocents (women, children, elderly) in a room and are protecting them from said Nasty Creatures. During your stand, you see a known murderer walking around. You can either leave the innocents unprotected and go imprison the murderer, or you can stay, protect the innocents, and as a consequence of this, the murderer goes free. Going after the murderer, in that specific case, would be wrong. Not because of any greater good argument, but simply because it would be wrong to abandon innocent people. In some other situation, it would be right to go after the murderer. "Letting a murderer go free" is a blanket statement, it is inherently grey, not black or white. Just like: "killing" is a grey statement. You cannot say: "killing is wrong" just as you cannot say "killing is right." Killing can either be right or wrong, depending on the specific situation. Killing an innocent person is wrong. Killing a murderer who is in the process of attempting another murder is right. So let's look at Dalinar's specific case. He has a known murderer, Sadeas, in front of him. However, he also has a bunch of innocents that he must protect (bridgemen, his soldiers, his soldier's women and children, and the Alethi people as a whole). He can either abandon said innocents to their fate, or he can let the murderer walk free. Going after Sadeas in that case would be wrong, because it would mean abandoning the innocents that he has a duty to protect (civil war, Desolations, etc.) Letting Amaram go free is similar. Sure, Dalinar could probably figure out SOME way to stop Amaram. But by doing so he would potentially abandon the innocents that he has a duty to protect. He chooses, rightly, to protect the innocent, and as a consequence: Amaram goes free. If he were to go after Amaram, it would not be an outside consequence that the innocents are left unprotected. It would be an actual abandonment. In one case, the positive action is protecting the innocent, and the negative consequence is letting a murderer go free. In the other case, the positive action is bringing a murderer to justice, but the negative action (not consequence) would be abandoning the innocent. In the first instance, there is only a good action, but it has some bad consequences. In the second, there would be a good action AND a bad action, which would result in horrible consequences. The First Oath demands that Dalinar do his duty, protect the innocent, at the cost of letting bad people go free. And Dalinar did not aid Sadeas. Sadeas was in a position of strength. If Dalinar were to attack Sadeas after the Tower attack, it is likely that Sadeas would have managed to survive (Dalinar and his men were exhausted), and then Dalinar would have really aided Sadeas in Sadeas' ultimate goals of causing civil war and strife. Attacking Sadeas would have played right into Sadeas' hands. The First Oath requires one to be moral, not to be a fool.

Obviously it's got to be Blushweaver.