Thoughts from a Newbie: Rose Reads Safehold

My contribution to this discussion is that the shared values are already there. There are lots of Temple Loyalists who are very uncomfortable with the way the Inquisition is acting and are caught in the bind between the behavior sanctioned in the Book of Schueler and what they have been taught by the rest of the Writ along with what they know in the marrow of their bones about right and wrong. It's not a conflict being played out between the COGA and the Church of Charis nearly so much as it is being played out in the souls of those who yearn to be loyal to the Church as they get up in the morning and ask if they like what they see gazing back at them in the mirror.

So far Thirsk and Duchairn are the clearest examples of the turmoil I am describing.

Don

At no point have I argued that only my opinion is valid or valuable. What I am saying is that there exists a concrete line that everyone can recognize as the standard for decent human behaviour. That standard is our common humanity. Even those who violate that standard can recognize it.

The above is simple fact. Here follows my belief. The fact that they do, and that they choose to violate it in any case, means that the beliefs and conviction that justify that violation cannot and should not be regarded as worthy of respect. If someone is going to torture another human being and justify it on the basis of their beliefs, then I absolutely refuse to acknowledge those beliefs as anything but depraved.

Once again, I reiterate that the standard is concrete and universal, and that the litmus test is their actions and behaviour, not their beliefs.

Unfortunately for your argument, you have, without exception, advanced examples of behaviour that crosses the line that were, until quite recently in historical terms, widely or universally regarded as right and proper. Yes, even rape, concerning which it appears that an awful lot of last year's college freshmen missed the memo. Historically, it was regarded as an infringement of property rights. A man's, BTW, not the victim's. It's within my lifetime that it has started to be legally possible for a man to rape his wife. [I don't think that one is yet universal, by any stretch.]

That you can advance these examples with every expectation of them being recognised as 'the standard for decent human behaviour' is, IMV, a Good Thing, but the fact remains that there's nothing inherent in them as the touchstone of decency. They are acquiring that status as enough opinions swing behind them. Assuming, of course, you don't want to argue that the first Decent Human Being came into the world roughly 17 years ago.

hanuman wrote:At no point have I argued that only my opinion is valid or valuable. What I am saying is that there exists a concrete line that everyone can recognize as the standard for decent human behaviour. That standard is our common humanity. Even those who violate that standard can recognize it.

The above is simple fact. Here follows my belief. The fact that they do, and that they choose to violate it in any case, means that the beliefs and conviction that justify that violation cannot and should not be regarded as worthy of respect. If someone is going to torture another human being and justify it on the basis of their beliefs, then I absolutely refuse to acknowledge those beliefs as anything but depraved.

Once again, I reiterate that the standard is concrete and universal, and that the litmus test is their actions and behaviour, not their beliefs.

hanuman wrote:At no point have I argued that only my opinion is valid or valuable. What I am saying is that there exists a concrete line that everyone can recognize as the standard for decent human behaviour. That standard is our common humanity. Even those who violate that standard can recognize it.

The above is simple fact. Here follows my belief. The fact that they do, and that they choose to violate it in any case, means that the beliefs and conviction that justify that violation cannot and should not be regarded as worthy of respect. If someone is going to torture another human being and justify it on the basis of their beliefs, then I absolutely refuse to acknowledge those beliefs as anything but depraved.

Once again, I reiterate that the standard is concrete and universal, and that the litmus test is their actions and behaviour, not their beliefs.

There is a universal standard of behavior...

I would love for this to be true, however it raises several questions.

Exactly where do those standards originate? Are they moral imperatives based on religious doctrine? What if my interpretation of those doctrines is different than yours What if my religious base is different than yours?

Is it based on right conduct or good/evil? If it is based on right conduct as defined by good or evil, what is good? What is evil? I can answer these questions for our society and Judaeo-Christian societies based on our common cultural referents. I can answer these questions based on western [or eastern] philosophical thought[the answers are different] and i can answer the questions for myself, and the last item is the only one that really matters.

We can talk about how murder is wrong, but then we need to ask why. Is it the unsanctioned taking of life, or is it the taking of life? If it is the unsanctioned taking of life, then some forms of killing are acceptable. So then we ask - is Killing acceptable, and if the answer is no - then we can not under the rules of right conduct kill - even in self defense. This seems like a bad idea.

So - the reality is that there are no 'Universal Rules of Conduct' no matter how much we would like for there to be.

shaeun wrote:

hanuman wrote:At no point have I argued that only my opinion is valid or valuable. What I am saying is that there exists a concrete line that everyone can recognize as the standard for decent human behaviour. That standard is our common humanity. Even those who violate that standard can recognize it.

The above is simple fact. Here follows my belief. The fact that they do, and that they choose to violate it in any case, means that the beliefs and conviction that justify that violation cannot and should not be regarded as worthy of respect. If someone is going to torture another human being and justify it on the basis of their beliefs, then I absolutely refuse to acknowledge those beliefs as anything but depraved.

Once again, I reiterate that the standard is concrete and universal, and that the litmus test is their actions and behaviour, not their beliefs.

There is a universal standard of behavior...

I would love for this to be true, however it raises several questions.

Exactly where do those standards originate? Are they moral imperatives based on religious doctrine? What if my interpretation of those doctrines is different than yours What if my religious base is different than yours?

Is it based on right conduct or good/evil? If it is based on right conduct as defined by good or evil, what is good? What is evil? I can answer these questions for our society and Judaeo-Christian societies based on our common cultural referents. I can answer these questions based on western [or eastern] philosophical thought[the answers are different] and i can answer the questions for myself, and the last item is the only one that really matters.

We can talk about how murder is wrong, but then we need to ask why. Is it the unsanctioned taking of life, or is it the taking of life? If it is the unsanctioned taking of life, then some forms of killing are acceptable. So then we ask - is Killing acceptable, and if the answer is no - then we can not under the rules of right conduct kill - even in self defense. This seems like a bad idea.

So - the reality is that there are no 'Universal Rules of Conduct' no matter how much we would like for there to be.

I think that they pretty much originate in the statements
"Do unto others as you would be done by" and
"Love thy neighbour as thyself"

which seem to appear in pretty much every religion, and which I personally. as a secular humanist atheist, also believe in.

Keith_w wrote:
I think that they pretty much originate in the statements
"Do unto others as you would be done by" and
"Love thy neighbour as thyself"

which seem to appear in pretty much every religion, and which I personally. as a secular humanist atheist, also believe in.

The problem here being that 'Doing unto others as I would have done to me' is based on the assumption that every person wants to be treated well. For a counter example we can take a person who likes to be abused, does that mean that our new universal laws allow for those who like to be abused to be abusive?

The same problem as far as the second quote also follows the same format... I have seen how people take care of themselves and one has to assume for the sake of this argument that everyone loves themselves. Based on behaviors observed I am not certain that I really want to be loved in those same ways.

So - the Golden Rules do not really work as a universal standard of conduct. The best I have ever been able to come up with is 'Be equitable to one another' as i can define that idea from first principles. But the ideas surrounding right and wrong. good and evil, fairness or right conduct are all tied up in the idea of culture.

Of course I am fairly certain that this comes back to the point that was being made earlier where it was being stated that not all differences can be resolved through negotiation. When the frame of reference is too far apart (for whatever reason) negotiation fails.

This can be seen with Israel and Iran today. They can not even come to the agreement that the other side has a right to exist. Without that base agreement - further diplomacy is impossible. Being forced to allow the other group to exist does not imply the acceptance of that idea by any means.

What this means for Safehold is probably that there will not be a negotiated solution that will solve all the problems being faced. The battle for Merlin has always been about hearts and minds, the battle for the EoC has been about survival...

While the goals align they are not the same.

JeffEngel wrote:

roseandheather wrote:* You were talking about when I was going to start the cross-'verse shipping? Three-way with Baron Seamount, Sonja Hemphill, and Shannon Foraker, please.

He may be too excited to pick their brains about 22 centuries of progress in weapons to get to any of the nekkid stuff.

I have to wonder if with Safeholdian views on sex and the like if he even knows what a threesome IS, the Writ doesn't seem like it's that supportive of alternative sexualities

SCC wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:[Regarding the Hemphill/Foraker/Seamount fantasy encounter] He may be too excited to pick their brains about 22 centuries of progress in weapons to get to any of the nekkid stuff.

I have to wonder if with Safeholdian views on sex and the like if he even knows what a threesome IS, the Writ doesn't seem like it's that supportive of alternative sexualities

No? How much do you have to go by on that? The Book of Bedard seems to be pretty reasonable and kind about taking people as they come and offering people a framework in which to be good to themselves and one another.

The conservatism, insofar as I've seen it built into Safehold's Writ-based influences, seems to be limited to enthusiasm over reproduction, tolerance of hierarchical relations, reference to the Writ and Church for moral leadership, and discouraging technological and scientific experimentation. That's not a little, of course, but I'm pretty sure threesomes are going to occur to quite enough horny adolescents to have worked their way into public consciousness in 900 years without falling under the Proscriptions of Jwo-jeng. (You probably could get kinky enough to infringe on them with some effort; knowing Clyntahn though, you may get a dispensation. He'd get a dispensation to try it, I'm sure. But a threesome wouldn't do it!)

I do think the Writ tries to channel sex into committed, preferably monogamous, preferably heterosexual relations as a measure of stability and to encourage population growth. But I also think the Book of Bedard particularly aims at realistic goals, and the writer(s) were savvy enough to know that they wouldn't be able to prevent sex outside married opposite-sex relationships.

Seamount may be a bit sheltered and is certainly focused. I'm just figuring it's going to be that rather than not even coming from a culture that recognizes threesomes that'd keep his pants on under those circumstances. (And, for that matter, we've got around zero knowledge of where Foraker's or Hemphill's preferences run and how strong.)

The thing is that the 'golden standard', as someone named it, has been with us since the very beginning, in the form of customary practices, religious tenets and law. The fact that the standard disintegrated in high stress situations like war and famine is simply a confirmation that such a standard did exist to disintegrate, in the first place.

hanuman wrote:The thing is that the 'golden standard', as someone named it, has been with us since the very beginning, in the form of customary practices, religious tenets and law. The fact that the standard disintegrated in high stress situations like war and famine is simply a confirmation that such a standard did exist to disintegrate, in the first place.

There are customary rules that exist in cultures - especially cultures that are descended from a common root. Also, it should be noted that there are advantages to co-operation as evidenced by modern society.

However, the idea behind a universal rule is false. There should be a universal rule - however since there are so many variations in culture and in the common referents being applied there is in fact no such thing.

The problem with 'Be Good to one another' is that there is no culture independent definition of good. What is good to some cultures may not be good to another. This is based on different environmental pressures and the different needs of the groups of people involved.

To some extent - no matter what the outcome is the decision to change the mission parameters could be seen as a good act as it has prevented the Gbaba from finding and destroying the Colony for more than 800 years.

By the same extension - the attempt to save technology could be seen as evil.

This is using the common ideology that what is good for a group is what is in the self interest of the group as a whole and what is bad is evil.

Now, because we have some background in the ideas of inherent human rights, and self determination we have views that disagree strongly with those assertions. This is part of the core conflict between the EoC and the Go4 in the books.

Good and Bad are generally not clear cut, except in fairly rare but well publicized cases. Genocides are generally considered to be evil. Though the groups performing them see those that stop them as evil. (Go Figure) which leads us back to the idea that right and wrong is about where your perspective on an issue is.

What the inquisitors have done is horrific - however from some points of view it is nothing more than establishing social control and demonstrating what the results of consorting with evil are.(this is not to say that I agree, just that differing points of view exist)

So - the question behind the golden standard always is - what happens when a person acts contrary to the dictates of the rule or rules? Based on the commonly held beliefs the use of technology is not 'being good to one another' which means that some sort of sanction is called for.

This brings us back to the question I asked about Murder Versus Killing.

Is it murder because it is unsanctioned - or is it murder because it is wrong. If it is murder because it is wrong - then we have established that the points of view between the groups are so far apart that they can not be reconciled without resorting tot he final negotiation technique. Warfare.

This also leads us o the discover that from their own perspectives each side is doing good. Which puts an entirely different dynamic into play. This is why I find the books so entertaining. There really are NO BAD GUYS... (Except the Gbaba) They are all good guys who are working on the problem from different perspectives and cultural referents. I happen to agree with Nimue, but that does not make the position of the opposing side any less valid - it (in my opinion) just makes it less correct (wrong).