Kevin's Watch

Hey all... The topic is pretty much self explanatory, but I don't want to post my comment until I'm sure there isn't already an ethics specific topic that it would fit into? It seems likely but I didn't find it.

Hmm, Donaldson says himself that he is not trying to bombard us with some cheesy message in the novel, he is making a story. He is of the camp that believes that the story is the foundation of art, and any message that you take is entirely up to you based on the story. I am also in this camp. As Foamfollower says, and you will hear this a lot here, "Joy is in the ears that hear" (wow, that sounds really dumb, what with all the here/hears in that sentence, ah well, I am board posting, not writing my thesis.)

Some of the things I took from Covenant:

- Redemption is always possible, and for sometimes it's harder to forgive yourself than it is to find forgiveness.

- Love heals all hurt. No matter how messed up, confused, depressed, etc. a person is, Love will always be possible and always be good.

- Something Bannor said stays in my mind. Something like (I don’t have I Chrons with me) "Retribution is just a word to disguise hate."

- Lack of power can really Hurt. Too much power, now that kills.

And many more. These are just the things that are on the surface of my cerebrum right now.

P.S. I suppose this is a far cry from ethics... I kinda got on a role and forgot what the thread was called.

Those are pretty striking, definately.
However, I was thinking about the first part of Lord Foul's Bane. The quote is, of course:
"A real man--real in all the ways that we recognize as rea- finds himself suddenly abstracted from the world and deposited in a physical situatin which could not possibly exist: sounds have aroma, smells have color and depth, sights have texture, touches have pitch and timbre. There he is informed by a disembodied voice that he has been brought to that place as a champion for his world. He must fight to the death in single combat against a champion from another world. If he is defeated, he will die, and his world--the real world-- will be destroyed because it lacks the inner strength to survive. The man refuses to believe what he is told is true. He asserts that he is either dreaming or hallucinating, and declines to be put in the false position of fighting to the death where no "real" danger exists. He is implacable in his determination to disbelieve his apparent situation, and does not defend himself when he is attacked by the champion of the other world. Question: is the man's behavior courageous or cowardly? This is the fundamental question of ethics.


Sooo.....................Whatcha think?

AHH the fundamental question of Ethics. Why didn't you say so?

That is a little description of Covenant's dilemma when he gets to the land, and is the most important (in my mind) theme of I chrons. The question can be summarized as being "is there an objective morality?" Do our actions have meaning regardless of how they effect *real* people?

There are several implications behind this. I will begin with the shorter range ones.

Covenant, when he gets to the land and denies it's reality, goes against this "fundamental code" when he first arrives. His attitude is that The Land is madness and he must do whatever it takes before these delusions and dreams cause him permanent harm (of the psychological variety, Covenant thought that if he began to take things in the land too seriously, he would lose the thin hold he had on his own life. Only a few things were keeping that straight edge from slicing his neck open, the Land was a threat to those things.)

Of all of these things, being "healed" is absolutely the most dangerous thing that could have happened to him, and as for being being potent... he just wasn't ready.

The more time he spends in The Land, the more Covenant learns about objective emotional consequences for his actions, even in his *false* reality. These consequences manifest themselves as guilt. When Covenant learns to feel guilt for his actions in the land, he is coming closer to realization of this objective code of ethics.

The realization that finally gives him power? That his actions had meaning, regardless of the reality of the land. I don't think it was so much that the Land was both real and unreal, it was that Covenant decided that it didn’t matter. Doing good is good for the soul, whether you are *really* doing it or not. Covenant had to take responsibility for his actions, and the people who sacrificed themselves for him. Real or not, he had to give them, and himself meaning. That is where his power came from.

Why did the creator give him that slip of paper? Because he knew that Covenant wasn't a Hile Troy. It would take someone like a leper to find the strength that he needed to defeat Foul.

*phew* You asked, and you received.

Ok, I just realized that there's a place for this at the close..so I'll probably start it there instead. Sorry about that all

Great post Dreamer. Would a mod move this to the Close, or incorporate it if JemCheeta has started a new one?

--A

Wow, this thread is crucial to the meaning of the Chronicles, and it just slipped away from us didn't it? Well, this is an absolutely shameless bump. I really was awfully proud of that post, and I was really sad that the thread died shortly after.

A related question:

A soldier is brought into a land for a war he/she doesn't believe in, and so doesn't want to fight: cowardice or courage?
(same question if that soldier defects/goes awol before being shipped into the war)

Couldn't we take the 'illusion' in that context be the propaganda the soldier is served to make the war justifiable?

Perhaps Donaldson's consciencious objector dilema?

(Note: the soldier above might be wrong in his/her beliefs; the queston still stands)

I'll have to side with my man plato here... if courage is going to be looked at as positive, and cowardice as negative, then it can only be courage if it is also positive.
i.e. it will only be courageous if it's a good idea to fight in the war

dREAmINg you have clinched the "Question of Ethics" and sooo much more!!

Really great post .. the existence of an objective code of ethics (your definition - and I like it) is the fundamental aspect of life - Its more than a question!!!!!! though indeed to apply choice the question is there to be asked.
This is soooo exciting to me!! I love the way your mind works!! kudos and you are right .. this is the hinch-pin to the meaning of TCTC and to the awesomeness that is its creator!!

cant wait to discuss this further .. cos
ack i gotta go .. i meant to go a long time ago ..

FYI .. check out our discussion pages on Freewill .. and other related issues ..

awesome!! freaking well awesome!!

The Dreaming has unfortunately been absent for some time. I for one, certainly hope that he'll be back. However, there's no reason we can't take this further.

Is there any objective code of ethics? Is there anything objective at all? My immediate reaction is to say that everything is subjective. Our reations, our opinions, our everything, is coloured by the way that we see the world. Hell, the world is coloured by the way we see the world.

Objectivity may simply be the agreement of many people's subjective view. They get together, find they agree, and call that objective.

--Avatar

Avatar wrote: Objectivity may simply be the agreement of many people's subjective view. They get together, find they agree, and call that objective.

--Avatar

Oh no...that line of thought hijacked the whole 'What is Evil' thread. I think my brain ceased to function about halfway through it. For the love of humanity, stop the torture...!

(retreats into philosophy bomb shelter)

Don't think that philosophy won't find you in there too. You carry it around in your head, and it goes where you go. Pretty soon, you'll be arguing about whether there is even a world outside the shelter at all.

--A

nooooo matrix man dont go!!!!!!!!!!! and DReamiNg dude come back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets not take this round and round in a circular arguement .. mmm .. *tries to think of how to avoid that fateful inevitability*

*LOL* .. it may take me some time.

Well I am thrilled to little twitters that there is finally who not only sees .. but can see the power inherent in an objective code of ethics!!

COME BACK DrEaMiNg guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or gal .. pleaaaaasssseee come back ...

I don't disagree that an objective and universal code of ethics would be a good and powerful thing. I just question the fact of its existence. In fact, I question the possibility of its existence.

Humans are, above and beyond all other considerations, intensely subjective beings. Our subjectivity controls our lives, perhaps to a greater extent than we even realise.

To overcome all subjectivity is a seemingly impossible task. We could all easily agree on the framework for such a code, in other words, don't kill, don't steal, etc. But the practical application of it can never be objective, because then we will fail to take into account the circumstances.

And it is on those individual circumstances that each action should, at least partly, be judged.

--Avatar

I wasn't around for the beginning of the what is evil, so strike me down if I'm wrong, but you're arguing for subjectivism that can 'colour' experience? or relativism to all experience, i.e. there is no inherent value in anything over anything else? I.e. if I don't believe in the gun, I won't get shot?

Avatar wrote:I don't disagree that an objective and universal code of ethics would be a good and powerful thing. I just question the fact of its existence. In fact, I question the possibility of its existence.

Humans are, above and beyond all other considerations, intensely subjective beings. Our subjectivity controls our lives, perhaps to a greater extent than we even realise.

To overcome all subjectivity is a seemingly impossible task. We could all easily agree on the framework for such a code, in other words, don't kill, don't steal, etc. But the practical application of it can never be objective, because then we will fail to take into account the circumstances.

And it is on those individual circumstances that each action should, at least partly, be judged.

--Avatar

There is no doubt we are subjective beings .. thats actually what "subjectivity" means. Thought and perspective taking place within the thinking subject!!!

No arguement there .. its the individual perspective .. the thinking subjects view!

If we all acted .. made choices .. and measured our actions against our own subjective view .. then anything we thought would be "right" .. The flaw with this is as TC had to realise .. what we think/ believe isnt always what IS.

I dont believe humans are soley the sum total of their subjective selves. TC had to learn that it didnt matter what he believed .. what he thought .. He believed it was all a dream .. but it wasnt!

He had to come to accept that! He held on to his denial for as long as he could because his subjective view protected him from any greater responsibility: from the very consequences to his actions.

The subjective standard exists - you acknowledge this without reservation. And no one could credibly state otherwise.

But what is objectivity?? An objective code of ethics does exist in the Land .. and it exists in our world too! An objective standard is purpose driven - it takes a fundamentally impartial stance.

Is anything purely objective?? I think this is your main gripe with notions of "objectivity". Can humans be purely objective?? and you are probably right .. this may well be impossible!

But we come as close as we can dont we? Legislation is a code .. the intent of which is purpose driven .. takes concepts of public wellbeing and safety to codify acts that may breach the public wellbeing and safety.

Thus it is not legal to steal or harm - etc.

These are average standards .. and yet those charged with breaches are dealt with by the legal system and allowed to bring into their defence elements of subjectivity .. but ultimately are weighed against an "objective" standard.

As TC found it really doesnt matter what he personally believed or thought .. there was a reality beyond that of his own internal thinking.

He also had to learn and embrace the fact that his subjective desire for self-preservation had to be measured against an objective code of ethics.

and it wasn't till he embraced this that he was able to weild the power of the white gold and make the choices he made to save the earth.

jem wrote:I wasn't around for the beginning of the what is evil, so strike me down if I'm wrong, but you're arguing for subjectivism that can 'colour' experience? or relativism to all experience, i.e. there is no inherent value in anything over anything else? I.e. if I don't believe in the gun, I won't get shot?

precisely!

Now, don't construe my gun comment as my belief in a totally objective good. The farthest I'll go on this so far is that humanity has a common interest: being human. No human can escape that. Now as humans, we also have another common interest (I think) which is happiness... that is, I've never met a person who didn't do things to make themselves happy, feel good, or gain some kind of 'wisdom' that will lead them to happiness, or doing something in the current life to experience more happiness later.
So as far as I'll go is that all humans have traits in common with humanity, and want to be happy, and so all humans might be able to share some fundamental values that will further human happiness. I'm not implying objective good, for one minor reason, because it would be a very limited thing, of which we seem to be the only representatives in the entire universe. Far be it from me to simply assume that the values that lead to the good of humanity (i.e. possibly honesty, kindness, love, etc.) are naturally good for the universe. In fact, the opposite, if the natural world followed our code of ethics, they'd better all learn how to farm a bit quicker than they do now, or else they'll all be performing cruel acts to other animals.... see where I'm coming from? We don't hold it against them, because they're animals, not humans. Why would we not give that allowance to the very structure of the universe, if we give it to a starving animal?

I’m glad you guys missed me. I am having a little problem right now, and it is called World of Warcraft. It has been sucking up my life lately. I will probably be back eventually. But every moment I am not playing that damn game eats me the same way a heroine addict is eaten by his addiction.

I do believe in at least one, objectively true moral principle. You CANNOT destroy the basis for all morality, the golden rule. Just about every philosophy on earth has included this axiom.

The problem comes when deciding who thy neighbor is exactly. Some people have believed that members of certain races are not equal to themselves, and are not "thy neighbor". Some cultures have believed that other religions are not "thy neighbor".

These problems have been shriveling up gradually throughout history. However, there are many new situations that cause the suspension if this rule. For example, many powerful people can do things that harm a great many people a little bit, and because of this, immorality become impersonal, and this is where what we would call our "conscience" breaks down.

This kind of evil is something much explored by Tolkein in The Lord of the Rings. The Ring represents power. Power, even when used to do good, will corrupt. As a person gains power, his responsibility for his own actions becomes more and more clouded.

"With great power comes great responsibility" It takes a truly awesome human being to remember his morals when the stakes are raised so high. For those who have read the Gap, the actions of Warden Dios represent those of a man who got lost in power, but eventually took responsibility too. This makes Warden (and the character he is the Avatar of, Wotan) one of the most heroic characters in all of literature, and Holt one of the most Evil.

We see the same thing happen to Mac Beth. Now there is a fascinating discussion. It seems that half of all people believe that Mac Beth is the Villain of the story, and half believe he is the hero. His story is among the most believable stories of corruption in all of literature, in my opinion.

What we would call our "conscience" breaks down in other places too. When what we call "division of responsibility" happens. This is when a number of people are together and are doing immoral things. The "mob mentality"

I believe there is both an Objective and Subjective component of each person's individual morality. Hurting one's equals has always been punished in every society. As society broadens, our consciences have been more accurate in their decisions.

It is easy to be kind to a person; it is much harder to be kind to humanity. This is my own experience though. The more personal the interaction is, the more likely a person is to do the right thing, and obey his conscience. The fact that Covenant was able to take responsibility for his actions in a world that wasn't even his own is a form of heroism he does not get enough credit for. Hile Troy tried to kill himself when things went bad, Covenant only became more resolved.

Edit: Added significantly to the body of my post.

I haven't read your post yet, because I'm a bit busy myself, but I did read the beginning, and I wanted to say that I noticed the date of your dissapearance sort of coinciding with the release date. I'd be dissapeared with you, probably, if it weren't for the fact that I'm only online at work