Thoughts from a Newbie: Rose Reads Safehold

Try to persuade a jihadi fundamentalist that your points are valid. Good luck with that. Theirs is one set of morals which carries very little of what you would consider good. Achieving the goal they believe God wants IS the epitome of the Good. Success in that goal is proof that God wants it and approves of your successful actions.

Come to think of it, this is very similar to the CoGA.

Now I focus on human characteristics because every human being has those. Conviction is a relative measure but every human being has it. Getting both combatants to agree that conviction is a common good creates one step of common ground. Agree next on the elements of honor and a few more steps are created.

Simply stating that one is judged by one's actions is useless if the standard used to judge is not equally valued by the sides in conflict. Worse if the two measures have no common values at all.

There will be cases where it does come to imposing one's will on the opponent. Clyntahn is one. Does the same hold for Duchairn or Magwair? Perhaps or perhaps not. It depends on whether enough people recognize the honest conviction they hold in acting as they did once the CoGA comes to negotiate.

hanuman wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Indeed it is, yet evades the issue. Who decides what is evil? If that definition cannot be agreed to, what does one use to define evil?

That's my point. Absent an absolute definition or measure, some relative measure must be used. That is essential in being tolerant. In the context of Safehold this idea is captured in Sharleyan's speech in the Judgement Hall in Corisande. She recognized those that fought her believed in their purpose enough to fight. Some were overt in their disagreement and that was laudable. Some were duplicitous and that was contemptible. Holding a belief strongly enough openly declare enmity to Charis earned her respect. Strength of conviction can be a bridge between the two sets of loosing.

Because unless some values are shared, even the most basic negotiations are impossible. All that is left is the imposition of one set of views on the other when there is no common ground to judge the actions of the parties in conflict.

Offer violence only in defense of self and others, never in pursuit of power or greed. That is a value everyone could agree upon, I'd think.

Try to avoid harm to innocents.
Respect the person and property of others.
Remember that we're not the last generation to exist.
Humankind is a social species.
Even the weak have worth.

I can go on and on, but the abovementioned statements represent values that are precious to just about every culture I can think of, and reflect the good in human nature.

I understand and respect your point, though. I even agree with it. Yet the very fact that the values I mentioned above are held dear by the every society and every creed does indeed confirm that there is a very pragmatic, tangible and rational standard that we can apply when we wish to determine 'good' vs 'evil'.

I agree that God's Law is written on our hearts. There is a small problem, however. Satan.

To believe as we do means that some of the people who do not follow God's Law serve Satan. It further follows that some who are in conflict with believers such as we are will do so because they are evil. Some in conflict with us choose not to follow God but choose not to serve Satan either. Are both men evil?

If so, then all men who disagree with believers and do nor accept our moral code are evil and must be defeated thoroughly. If the latter man is not evil, we need to build common ground between our POVs.

Of course this ignores those instances where other believers think our specific views are in error as it applies to the subject in dispute. Sort of like the CoC and the CoGA.

n7axw wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Indeed it is, yet evades the issue. Who decides what is evil? If that definition cannot be agreed to, what does one use to define evil?

That's my point. Absent an absolute definition or measure, some relative measure must be used. That is essential in being tolerant. In the context of Safehold this idea is captured in Sharleyan's speech in the Judgement Hall in Corisande. She recognized those that fought her believed in their purpose enough to fight. Some were overt in their disagreement and that was laudable. Some were duplicitous and that was contemptible. Holding a belief strongly enough openly declare enmity to Charis earned her respect. Strength of conviction can be a bridge between the two sets of loosing.

Because unless some values are shared, even the most basic negotiations are impossible. All that is left is the imposition of one set of views on the other when there is no common ground to judge the actions of the parties in conflict.

I believe that the laws of God are written on the human heart. That meams that however we might try to rationalize them away, there are indeed values we share. Don't kill, don't steal, don't defraud, don't envy. Don't be abusive of others, honor the humanity of those who stumble. Care for and shelter the vulnerable, especially the very young and the elderly. Give of yourself in loving service to others, shun grudge bearing, shun the temptation to judge others. Offer those who have erred a helping hand up.

I know of no creed that does not enshrine these things in one way or another.

Don

Or one might also use the examples of the Jewish settlers who burned a toddler alive in his own home, or the Christians who persecute homosexuals in Uganda, or the Hindus who destroyed the Sikh temple in Amritsar, or the Buddhists who raped Hindu women in northern Sri Lanka.

Those were/are all the deeds of tiny minorities, and aberrations in the eyes of the vast majority of their nominal religious communities.

Peter, I do not disagree with you on this point. If we're going to determine whether someone's actions were 'evil' or not, we need a concrete standard by which to do so. I'm simply saying that, however ambiguous that standard might SEEM at times, it does in fact exist and is in fact a significant driving force in humanity's innate effort to understand ourselves and our world.

My point isn't that such a standard doesn't exist. My point is that combatants must AGREE on that standard. To gain agreement one must form common ground. To form common ground both sides must accept the fundamental humanity of the other. That is most easily done by recognizing elements of the opposing view that is laudable.

So getting back to the initial question. Is conviction worthy of praise? For the reasons I posted, yes. Your assertion that actions are the only way to value goodness is both accurate and useless to the question at hand if the moral standard used to judge actions aren't accepted by both sides.

Btw, gays have expressed their intolerance too. How many Christian services were disrupted in California when SSM was on the ballot there. Or the priest who was spat on near a NY celebration over the SCOTUS ruling.

hanuman wrote:Or one might also use the examples of the Jewish settlers who burned a toddler alive in his own home, or the Christians who persecute homosexuals in Uganda, or the Hindus who destroyed the Sikh temple in Amritsar, or the Buddhists who raped Hindu women in northern Sri Lanka.

Those were/are all the deeds of tiny minorities, and aberrations in the eyes of the vast majority of their nominal religious communities.

Peter, I do not disagree with you on this point. If we're going to determine whether someone's actions were 'evil' or not, we need a concrete standard by which to do so. I'm simply saying that, however ambiguous that standard might SEEM at times, it does in fact exist and is in fact a significant driving force in humanity's innate effort to understand ourselves and our world.

That people, all of us really to one extent or another, rationalize away what we know to be right doesn't mean that at rock bottom we don't know the difference between right and wrong. The shared values are there. Without them there could be no community.

Where we get into trouble, I think, is in how difficult we find it to fully acknowledge the humanity of the other, those with whom we disagree, those who are different, those who are far away... in short those who are not us and as a consequence permits the illusion that we owe them less because they are not "us."

Don

n7axw wrote:That people, all of us really to one extent or another, rationalize away what we know to be right doesn't mean that at rock bottom we don't know the difference between right and wrong. The shared values are there. Without them there could be no community.

Where we get into trouble, I think, is in how difficult we find it to fully acknowledge the humanity of the other, those with whom we disagree, those who are different, those who are far away... in short those who are not us and as a consequence permits the illusion that we owe them less because they are not "us."

Don

Totally agree with every word here, Don. Recognizing the humanity means accepting that disagreement might, and I stress might, be based on something worthwhile in that other person. So viewing attributes such as conviction, integrity, candor and honesty separately from the beliefs they support is essential to not just recognizing the humanity in others but indeed as you say actively acknowledging that common humanity.

PeterZ wrote:Try to persuade a jihadi fundamentalist that your points are valid.

Agreed, not a promising endeavour.

Sooooo, we should just sit back and applaud their faith and conviction. Right? I mean if faith and conviction are admirable qualities regardless of the manner in which they are employed and deserving of respect in and of themselves... we should admire the rather obviously extremely strong faith and conviction possessed by suicide bombers and the like. Because it's a good thing they have those qualities.



Right?

AAMOF, right. You do admire those things.

And then you get down to judging them by the standard that they have set themselves. Which, sadly, leaves little choice but to take them out back and shoot them. The Qu'ran is really pretty uncompromising on the issue. "Say not to one who meets you with a greeting 'Thou art an unbeliever!'" is a relatively mild example, but it happens to come to mind. The reminder that judgement and punishment of those who don't accept Islam is God's business appears over and over - 'surely God will lay hold of them' and other words to that effect. Doesn't say a thing about taking it up on His behalf, any more than the Gospels do.

Simply put, you don't get to pick and choose with Scripture. It's the whole package or nothing.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Try to persuade a jihadi fundamentalist that your points are valid.

Agreed, not a promising endeavour.

Sooooo, we should just sit back and applaud their faith and conviction. Right? I mean if faith and conviction are admirable qualities regardless of the manner in which they are employed and deserving of respect in and of themselves... we should admire the rather obviously extremely strong faith and conviction possessed by suicide bombers and the like. Because it's a good thing they have those qualities.



Right?

Louis R wrote:AAMOF, right. You do admire those things.

And then you get down to judging them by the standard that they have set themselves. Which, sadly, leaves little choice but to take them out back and shoot them. The Qu'ran is really pretty uncompromising on the issue. "Say not to one who meets you with a greeting 'Thou art an unbeliever!'" is a relatively mild example, but it happens to come to mind.

But if they don't interpret that text the way you do then that isn't the standards they set themselves, that's the standards you're setting them.

Only they can determine their own standards. And if their own standards tell them "God wants me to blow up that bus" then showing the faith and conviction to follow through on that is, according to statements made here, a good and admiarable thing. Because faith and conviction are good regardless of the purpose to which they are applied.


It's the same mindset that praises Abraham as such a good and godly fellow for being willing to murder his own son...

"Does conviction not merit something more than being called a pyschopath? Strong conviction and strong faith even when those convictions and faith are not shared are worthy of recognition and respect. Otherwise its oh so easy to demonize those that disagree and hold those disagreement powerfully. Especially in times of war"

Peter, THAT was your original argument. We've by now agreed that a definitive, concrete standard exists to differentiate between evil and good. You put it very nicely, in fact: 'recognising each other's humanity' (or something to that effect).

I'll argue that no matter how strong one's convictions and beliefs are, the moment they cross that point and forget or deny that the other side is also human, then they're moving into evil territory. It is at that point that one can in fact start speculating as to whether the transgressor is a psychopath or not. I do not care whether their sincerely-held religious beliefs justify their behaviour - their actions condemn them as evil.

By the way, at no point have I ever argued that gays are some kind of saints. Au contraire, I've always argued that we are fully human, with all the strengths and weaknesses inherent to the human condition. So, I really do not understand why you felt it necessary to get that shot off...