Thoughts from a Newbie: Rose Reads Safehold

n7axw wrote: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

shaeun wrote:

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).

hanuman wrote:Shaeun, I just got home from a double shift, so I am beyond wrecked. I'd like to engage with the points you advanced in your post, but first I need to sleep.

roseandheather wrote:...I go away for a week and "ooh, I love these characters, also X and Y need to get married" turns into a religious debate?

*surveys carnage, shakes head in resignation, walks outside and silently closes door*

Randomiser wrote:

roseandheather wrote:...I go away for a week and "ooh, I love these characters, also X and Y need to get married" turns into a religious debate?

*surveys carnage, shakes head in resignation, walks outside and silently closes door*

Unlike how the Honorverse threads always keep strictly to the point, you mean?

roseandheather wrote:...I go away for a week and "ooh, I love these characters, also X and Y need to get married" turns into a religious debate?

*surveys carnage, shakes head in resignation, walks outside and silently closes door*

hanuman wrote:Okay, so I've finally had enough rest to reboot my brain and organize my thoughts in a coherent way.

I think everyone by now knows that I'm of the opinion (opinion hah!) that there exists a standard of decent human behaviour that is inherently recognizable and acknowledged by all societies.

It is important to remember that the philosophy of morality is constantly in flux - it isn't written in stone, and despite my very firm conviction, my opinion is still only an opinion, as we can see from the vehement protests it has elicited from other posters.

I also want to clarify that I agree with many of the things that those protests have mentioned. Yes, there is no culture-independent definition of 'good' or 'evil'. Yes, many practices that have historically been thought to be acceptable, or are currently practiced by societies other than my own, are regarded as unacceptable in my own time and place. I'm not stupid or blind, people. Only thirty years ago the overwhelming majority of my own people thought that the institutionalized oppression of people with dark complexions and kinky hair was perfectly acceptable. The Aztecs and other Mesoamericans thought they were showing the victims of their sacrificial practices a huge honour by sending them to meet the gods.

Cultural relativism has its place in the great pantheon of human philosophy, but it is my opinion and firm belief that it can be taken too far.

Maybe I should have stated my opinion in a different way. Rather than insisting that all cultures instantly recognise a universal standard of decency, I should have stated that although I do think such a standard exists, I also recognise that its achievement is a historical process that involves the evolution of human morality along many different cultural 'tracks' or 'paths'.

I think there is more than enough historical evidence from just about every culture we have written records of to support such a proposition. From the Code of Hammurabi to the central tenets of the Abrahamic faiths, from the teachings of Buddha to the civil protections of the US Constitution, from the traditions of the San people to the 'Black Lives Matter' movement, they all represent a search, a journey to gain a better understanding of that elusive standard of human decency that every human being 'knows' to exist.

In the end, I do not really think that there is any real difference between the way that I think about this and how posters like Shaeun and PeterZ think, except maybe for perspective and emphasis. One way that we might differ seems to be the 'weight' we attach to things like the regard for strength of conviction. That is fairly important, but nonetheless no more than a disagreement on detail.

Moral philosophy is an incredibly interesting but oh so very confusing field of study. For every one example or perspective or opinion, there will always be a host of others that will differ from them. I'be always thought the really fascinating part is to look for the underlying similarities, if there are any to be found.

So, there you have my thoughts.