Goodkind XX: Pitying the Guilty

[The Real Will]

I know you're all probably sick of me by now. But I would like to add my own response to the above argument as it is a little shorter than my previous effort and a lot more coherant. Having just reread it I've noticed a couple of dreadful grammatical errors, but in the interests of inerllectual honesty I will leave them as they are.

So, my answer:

"You have summarised my ridiculously long post relatively accurately and succinctly. Thank you. I apologise for misrepresenting the protesters. It’s been a little while since I read the book.

"You are right to say that the books are fantasy, and I do realise that not everything in the book exists in our world, but, again, I would say that it is all only philosophically useful to the extent that it can teach us something about our world.

"Your entire description of the Demin Nass incident is fair, and even some of the morality you draw from it I won’t dispute. Demin, to all intents and purposes, is gone and so his point of view is irrelevant. To me, this means the only person left to judge is Kahlan. She could order him to do anything, and so, what she does orders him to do, says a lot about her. It doesn’t matter to Demin whether he eats his testicles or not, because there is no Demin, but there is a Kahlan, and apparently Kahlan is a woman who likes to see hideous people eat there own testicles. This fact alone moves her down a little in my esteem.

"But, really, I think you are also right to say that it was really written for us. It was written so we could enjoy seeing the horrible things that Demin did revenged. But revenge isn’t justice, and the terrible mutilation of mindless bodies isn’t satisfying for me even as revenge. So the only thing I can take away from this scene is a lowering of my regard both for Kahlan and for Goodkind, who seems to agree with what she does.

"With regard to the protesters. As you seem to have taken the horribly belaboured points of my previous post. I would like to reiterate what I was trying to say at the end of that monster however. As I said I believe that Goodkind firstly denies Richard choices, in order to make his decisions more palatable. I believe that he then denies the readers the cost of Richard’s decision. Goodkind doesn’t present the spectrum of moral culpability that is in any crowd. They are one face and one mind. If Goodkind wants to tell me that old Mrs. Hollyhocks is evil because she is support an evil order, then that is fine, but she is still old Mrs. Hollyhocks who is probably doing what she thinks is right, and Mr. Johnson is there against his will, and Timmy is there because he has to watch over his sister even though he personally has reservations about the whole thing. I’m not saying that these people wouldn’t be responsible for their actions, but Goodkind doesn’t write them in at all, so they don’t actually even exist. There is no cost involved in slaughtering a crowd of mindless followers, and so the morality is easy. If a crowd contains Johnsons, and Hollyhockses and Timmys then the cost of attacking it is greater, the morality more nuanced and the entire argument fairer.

"The lack of cost for the reader combined with the lack of options for Richard means that the reader is almost railroaded into agreeing with Richard’s decision. I think it isn’t unfair to say that the more options a person has and the more their decisions cost them then the more significant those decisions are.

"If Goodkind wrote like this I would still disagree with his opinions, but I would respect him far more."

[Fanatic-Templar]

One of the more absurd quotes from the facebook discussion regarding the hippies: (said in all seriousness, apparently) "They weren't unarmed, they were armed with very dangerous ideas."

A very dangerous idea. One man decides he's not going to fight, and it catches on. The idea spreads. And before long, do you know what you're stuck with?

Peace. *sudders*

[The Real Will]

A very dangerous idea. One man decides he's not going to fight, and it catches on. The idea spreads. And before long, do you know what you're stuck with?

Peace. *sudders*

But this is the entire argument of Naked Empire. the "empire" was locked away from the rest of the world because they were a nation of pacifists. Pacifism was a such a dangerous idea that the pacifists were not to be trusted around regular people - regular people, presumably, being unable to recognise the dangers of pacifism withot Richard around. I suspect that the true short coming of Yeardian ethics is that it suggests that nobody can be trusted to do anything unless they have a Richard to check its moral validity. It is a moral system that won't really take off until after human cloning is perfected.

[Myshkin]

But this is the entire argument of Naked Empire. the "empire" was locked away from the rest of the world because they were a nation of pacifists. Pacifism was a such a dangerous idea that the pacifists were not to be trusted around regular people - regular people, presumably, being unable to recognise the dangers of pacifism withot Richard around. I suspect that the true short coming of Yeardian ethics is that it suggests that nobody can be trusted to do anything unless they have a Richard to check its moral validity. It is a moral system that won't really take off until after human cloning is perfected.

Richard clones? The world would explode if this ever came to pass!

[Moosicus]

It's not pacifism that is the truly "dangerous" idea in Naked Empire. These silly pacifists deny that evil exists. They believe people are just misunderstood (here the yeard takes his shots at sociologists and other such lefty nuts) and that evil is a term used by the unenlightened, just as violence is a tool of the unenlightened. This isn't a dangerous idea, just a stupid one, the flaws of which Ol' Dick is able to convince the people of in a miraculously short period of time. I mean, just because they've believed this for thousands of years, why shouldn't they all do an about face as soon as Dick opens his yap?

[The Real Will]

It's not pacifism that is the truly "dangerous" idea in Naked Empire. These silly pacifists deny that evil exists.

Ah, yes, you're right. My apologies for misremembering.

They believe people are just misunderstood (here the yeard takes his shots at sociologists and other such lefty nuts) and that evil is a term used by the unenlightened, just as violence is a tool of the unenlightened.

I think, if I had to choose the one thing about Goodkind that really troubled me. It would be the way that he takes ideas he disagrees with, simplifies them to the point of absolute stupidity, attacks them mercilessly and then brushes his hands together muttering, "that showed 'em". I really think it's the intellectual dishonesty of the whole thing more than the ideology that sickens me.

Seriously, the number of straw people that man has massacred. It like he's having his own personal little holocaust only against fictional dry-grass-based life forms.

...why shouldn't they all do an about face as soon as Dick opens his yap?

I choose life, and envisage it as a perpetual about face at the behest of Richard's yap.

[Moosicus]

Perhaps in Confessor Richard will encounter an army of women who see abortion as their free choice. Or a man who exaggerates his own war record for political gain. I wonder how John Edwards will make his appearance? Are there seedy lawyers in Tairyland? Perhaps Dick will be in the Old World and encounter a group that wants to take money from Jagang's army and put it toward education, thus putting Dick in a bind, since he'd like to see the army defunded, but any fool knows you shouldn't spend extra money on children. Tairy has a difficult task ahead of him, so many horrible things the left believes and so little time to turn them into straw and slaughter them.

eta: I see a discussion is also taking place on Mindonner's blog. Same crap, though I love it when people say that Kahlan's power is the power of "love". What perverted Jack-assery.

[The Real Will]

Perhaps Dick will be in the Old World and encounter a group that wants to take money from Jagang's army and put it toward education, thus putting Dick in a bind, since he'd like to see the army defunded, but any fool knows you shouldn't spend extra money on children.

But this is just it, isn't it. Richard will never be put into a bind because that isn't the way that it will be written. What will happen is that the IO will take over some New World town. For some reason it won't kill everyone but will declare everyone part of the Order. It will then demand that they give all of the money that the townsfolk earned by the sweat of their own, individual brows over to Order and the money will be redistributed to education... but, it will only go to educating the stupidest kids in the entire Old World (and you have never seen stupid kids like Goodkind can imagine stupid kids). In fact, the bright kids will be in forced labour camps helping to raise extra money for the dumb kids education.

And then Goodkind will turn to the reader and say, "See, is this the way it should be?"

[Moosicus]

I can actually see the words on the page, like a true Confessor spoiler. *shudder*

And yes, the stupid kids would be buck-toothed cross-eyed nitwits who need to take off a mitten to count to five and still take three tries at it. They will all be getting pushed through Old World Universities at the expense of the public and to the exclusion of the smarter kids, just to give these mouth-breathers the same opportunity. Well, Dick will set them straight, and by the end of the chapter the smart kids will be in the universities (with their jaws wired shut, no doubt) and the retards will have mops in their hands, the way it should be.

[The Wolf Maid]

Heck, don't know if anyone linked this yet, but I've found the definition for Moral Clarity. Wiki is love.

Though the actions of the United States and its allies may lead to civilian deaths or other forms of collateral damage, and may involve temporary alliances with undemocratic regimes, these actions are justified by the greater moral necessity of defeating terrorism and thus promoting American values and ensuring long-term U.S. security.

Opponents of action against terrorists are guilty of promoting moral relativism or moral equivalence, in which the allegedly similar means of both anti-terrorists and terrorists are used to blur the moral differences between good and evil.

Oh yes. Richard is truly the essence of moral clarity.

I don't have problems with people who believe they are morally right in certain, if not many things. Lots of people are like that, including me. I have problems when certain people disregard the possibility that they are morally wrong or incorrect, in certain, if not many things. I dislike them even more when they do not consider the fact that there are times when morality is relative and ambiguous, and changing.

Despite what the definitions seems to say, I think morality is relative. It varies from place to place, culture to culture. What could be taboo in a certain society could be perfectly normal in another. Also, there are times when the lines between right or wrong isn't clear. Morals change as well. It's the way of the world. Hell, even truth changes. What could be true today may be false tomorrow.

And it's the world that Richard (and by extension Terry Goodkind) rejects. They want clear, defined rules and lines, black and white, no gray.

SoT is, as mentioned before, an escapist fare, which is why many people like it. Many are sick and tired of trying to figure out what's right or wrong or making compromises on certain things. SoT is like the soothing balm from reality for them. There is very little compromise or gray areas in SoT, and the heroes able to do what he wants, no matter what, without having to compromise his beliefs and desires because they're morally right.

When I first read SoT with WFR, I admit I enjoyed parts of it, mostly because for me, it was fun to see the bad guys get their comeuppance. I'm a very passive reader, and for most part content to be entertained. Of course, this was before I found out that SoT was not fantasy (gasp!) but is actually about the nobility of the human spirit.

And why is this about the nobility of the human spirit or of man? Why because of the moral clarity the heroes possess, of course.

Which is just about the shittiest thing I've ever heard in my life. Having moral clarity does not make you an example of the nobility of the human spirit. It makes you an example of being a rather high-minded, escapist, rigid idiot.

Tolkien, I would totally understand if someone told me that this was a book on the nobility of man or whatnot, but SoT? I mean, how can something with be about truth or the nobility of man when its heroes and its author does not consider the possibility or even allow the possibility that they are not morally right or that morality can be relative. How can it be about the nobility of man when the heroes slaughter mercilessly those whose beliefs disagree with him? How it can be about truth when it doesn't seem to acknowledge the truth that morals are relative and ambiguous?

(I've been editing a particularly horrendous journal article, wherein the author does not know how to make coherent citations and a decent references list, so excuse my rambling post here.)

[theMountainGoat]

That was not rambling at all. You hit the nail right on the head Wolf Maid

[The Wolf Maid]

Thanks, MG. So it seems I still have a brain. Now if only the author I'm editing had half of that.

Another thing I absolutely find infuriating about SoT is that the heroes seem to have the powers of precognition. They can confidently say that certain people will be their enemy because they did not agree with them, and that they can't risk not doing something about them or letting them go because they'll do evil stuff. And that just based on that possibility alone, they attack them. And then TADA! They turn out right.

(Well, even if they turned out wrong, doesn't really matter, since they've done the bloody work already)

[theMountainGoat]

There was of course that one time where the heroes were wrong about someone. I think it was Temple of Winds where the representative of some country was killed and it later turned out he was not the baddie Richard was after for murdering prostitutes (because it was Drefan of course). There were no consequences or retributions following this.

A cover up in the name of moral clarity?

[Antonius Pius]

A cover up in the name of moral clarity?

Nah, Richard was still right because he intended to kill Kahlan anyway. Or Richard was simply right anyway, which seems to be one of Tairy's great themes.

SoT is, as mentioned before, an escapist fare, which is why many people like it. Many are sick and tired of trying to figure out what's right or wrong or making compromises on certain things. SoT is like the soothing balm from reality for them. There is very little compromise or gray areas in SoT, and the heroes able to do what he wants, no matter what, without having to compromise his beliefs and desires because they're morally right.

QFT. This is exaclty what irritates me about Tairy's long-winded claims of demonstrating the excellence of the human spirit... It's a $%&# SHAM!

[PhelanArcetus]

No cover up. The guy was evil, they just used the wrong evidence to sentence him, obviously.

So Moral Clarity is, and I think we can use this definition for SoT, with adjustment from "American values" to "Richard Rahl's values", not believing, but knowing that America is right, and anyone who disagrees with us on anything is not only wrong on that, but also an enemy of good.

I mean, the thing that really sticks in my craw and makes it an unacceptable argument is the thing about promoting American values. I don't agree with the argument that basically anything is justified if it leads to victory over our foes (except when playing my evil, "ends justify the means" D&D character), but I can accept it being made. Defeating enemies and ensuring security are good goals. Adding in promoting our values just turns it into a circus of stupidity.

And it reminds me of a story I heard at work recently. A bank was looking for a package that would accurately value a complex financial instrument. So they would give term sheets out and have people come in with their values and make presentations. One company comes in, and says "We're XYZ. And we have the answer." Very authoritative, very certain, a little arrogant, and a little condescending. And follows up with a very condescending, simplistic explanation that might be appropriate to senior citizens looking to invest their money, but certainly not to someone with a PhD in finance. "You see, a bond has something called a present value."

That's what these people are trying. That's what Richard is trying. Now, you can tell someone who knows nothing about any morality that you have the answer, and here it is in simple terms. That someone is either a child, or retarded. When you're dealing with someone who has at least average human intelligence, that doesn't work. They have an answer of their own. It may well be different, they may have simply absorbed it from someone else, or they may have come up with it alone. But what Goodkind writes is

"I'm Richard Rahl. And I have the answer."

"You see, a man has the ability to make choices."

(By the way, how is it that not making a choice is choosing death? The death-choosers don't actually say "I choose death", they don't make a decision. Or they choose not-Richard, which one would think is life, given how Richard is actually Death.)

I'd love to see how they respond to the statements about Kahlan's choice of what to order Nass to do. We can point out that if he just needed orders to be happy, she could have told him to do jumping jacks until he was exhausted. Or just had him slit his throat. Having a shell that is no longer Nass, but rather mindless love for Kahlan, do anything, is not punishment to Nass. He's been erased. Cutting off and eating his own testicles is nothing more than sick, twisted fetishism for the benefit of the author (and possibly the reader).

I also like the way you describe the oversimplification of the moral issues with the crowd of peace protesters. I suppose that it will be pointed out that Richard would have loved to give them a nice long speech to turn them into good allies of his, but he couldn't afford the time, because he had to attack the Order's base quickly or the attack would fail. That way military expediency allows us to ignore the morality of killing unarmed peace protesters.

[The Real Will]

Despite what the definitions seems to say, I think morality is relative. It varies from place to place, culture to culture. What could be taboo in a certain society could be perfectly normal in another. Also, there are times when the lines between right or wrong isn't clear. Morals change as well. It's the way of the world. Hell, even truth changes. What could be true today may be false tomorrow.

It's not even the assertion that morality is objective which bothers me. While I actually agree with you completely, I am prepared to accept that there may be some objective form of morality somehow, somewhere. What worries me about this argument is the assertion that anyone can ever know that their own perception of morality is objectively true. It agravates me even further because Goodkind wrote a whole bloody book (Pillars of Creation) in which the central theme was obviously the subjectivity of moral perception.

It is probably uncelerous of me to ask this question, but what is it that makes Richard different from Jensen? Why can he see objective morality why she can only see it subjectively (although, from Chainfire on one pressumes that her perception will suddenly also be objective as she has now chosen life)?

[Lord Baelish]

The banner at the top of this page is advertising an Ayn Rand Forum - Debate and Discussion for Rational People.

I dare not click that link.

[The Real Will]

(By the way, how is it that not making a choice is choosing death? The death-choosers don't actually say "I choose death", they don't make a decision. Or they choose not-Richard, which one would think is life, given how Richard is actually Death.)

It's pretty simple really. Imagine a baby bird learning to fly. It is unsuccessful and plummets to the forest floor below striking its head on a tree root (and thus proving that it was the sort of baby bird which might grow up to join the IO). It is now dead, but what ultimately caused its death? Obviously the true cause of its death was life. If the bird hadn't been alive it never would have died thus proving the old saying: "Life is a terminal condition." If Richard is the bringer of death and the bringer of death is life then, ergo, Richard must be life. To choose not-Richard is to choose not-life, you are either choosing death, or choosing to not-live out the rest of your unlife as a zombified-corpse hunting sweet sweet brain nectar. This is a bit long for a slogan though, so it was shorten simply to, choosing death.

I also like the way you describe the oversimplification of the moral issues with the crowd of peace protesters. I suppose that it will be pointed out that Richard would have loved to give them a nice long speech to turn them into good allies of his, but he couldn't afford the time, because he had to attack the Order's base quickly or the attack would fail. That way military expediency allows us to ignore the morality of killing unarmed peace protesters.

And that is why I also complained that Richard's lack of choices dishonestly altered the debate. I mean if they are morally reprehensible and deserving of death then nothing Richard does should change this. I am of the opinion that, in order to be consistent, Richard would have to have killed those protesters in any scenario imaginable (so long as the protesters didn't change and choose life). Richard's time constraints really have no bearing on whether or not they deserve death.

[WLU]

SoT is, as mentioned before, an escapist fare, which is why many people like it. Many are sick and tired of trying to figure out what's right or wrong or making compromises on certain things. SoT is like the soothing balm from reality for them. There is very little compromise or gray areas in SoT, and the heroes able to do what he wants, no matter what, without having to compromise his beliefs and desires because they're morally right.

The Sword of Truth, by Tairy Goodkind. I think we've got a title for Goodkind XXI!

Pestiferous bandages for your moral ouchies.

I'm replying to Adam from MinDonner's blog, whaddya think? I'm really just re-stating previous points, but if they can have mindless repetition, so can we!!

But seriously, I would really like to tempt some of the more reasonable and articulate fans over here to challenge our assumptions. I keep beating a dead horse, and I'd like to get my whip on with something that squirms.

You are ignoring the nature of the confessor’s power. It is the power of love, and as such, being able to acquiesce to Kahlan’s request would give him insurmountable joy. Frankly it would have been worse for him to simply have had Kahlan say that she was displeased with him. The punishment he was given was for our benefit.

1) The nature of the Confessor power is not love, it mindless devotion. I love my girlfriend, but if she started beating me up, killing puppies or drinking the blood of babies, I would cease to love her. However, were I mindlessly devoted to her, I would continue to love her. From what I’ve seen and read, the Yeard does not define love explicitly, except in terms of the Confessor’s mindless devotion. Which isn’t really love in my mind, and is kinda icky. It looks to me that he defines a relationship involving domestic violence as loving, if not ideal. That makes me want to barf up my breakfast. On him. In his mouth, hoping he aspirates. Answering the question, is Tairy Goodkind a good kisser?

2) If Klan wanted to punish DN (assuming you can punish him, considering he’s effectively been destroyed), she should have kept his empty shell around and continuously told him that a) he should live, and she was unhappy with him. That would be punishment of the empty shell DN had become, though the parts of DN she realistically would want to punish, his cruelty and pedophilia, were destroyed along with everything else as soon she touched him. She killed him when she touched him. No matter what, the testicle-munch served no purpose except gratification of someone. Leading to…

3) Yes, the punishment was for our and the Yeard’s ‘benefit’ (read: gratification), that’s the whole thrust of much of the GKXVIII-XX discussion. The entire SoT series is a long treatise on what Goodkind thinks is justice and how the world *should* be run. A horrific treatise which frightens me. That he does what he does with DN then presents it as punishment… either he’s doing it for his own feel-good ‘hardon for revenge’ satisfaction, in which case ignoring or missing out on the true potential for punishment that could exist (thankfully), or he’s using it as a somewhat subtle way of pointing out Klan’s shortcomings (i.e. that she didn’t realize that DN ceased to exist as soon as she touched him, and that she could keep punishing this empty shell for her own amusement). And frankly, I don’t think he’s that subtle. So the important human theme he’s addressing here is… he’d like pedophiles to have their nuts chopped off. I would as well, but I wouldn’t make the severed portions lunch.

Seriously, does Goodkind realize that everything he things about the Muslims/terrorists/liberals/Clintons, does he realize that they think the exact same thing? That they think they are unambiguously right and he is unambiguously wrong? I just don’t get it, I mean, it’s not like they are choosing their beliefs from scratch and decided on the ‘wrong’ ones, they’ve grown up and been moulded by their culture. Their beliefs are unambiguously right for them, within their own culture and upbringing. Were we in their culture, we would believe probably the same thing, and vice-versa. That’s why many, if not most second-generation immigrants to Canada (or any other country for that matter) resemble their peers more than they do their parents. There are tremendously moral and immoral people in all countries and cultures. Gah! HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS YOU DUMB FUCK???? (Tairy, not Adam, I have no idea what Adam thinks about this).

[The Real Will]

Seriously, does Goodkind realize that everything he things about the Muslims/terrorists/liberals/Clintons, does he realize that they think the exact same thing? That they think they are unambiguously right and he is unambiguously wrong?

It's curious, but he does seem to realise this. It's just that he knows that they are unambiguously wrong to think that he is unambiguously wrong. I say this because I'm reading through Phantom right now (I hadn't read it yet and participating in this conversation put me in the mood for some torture) and I've just read a speech on this very subject. Richard freely admits that the people of the Order believe that their beliefs are right, but they only believe this becaue they have been indoctrinated in these beliefs and they don't have questioning natures. Someone asks him if other people could be coaxed to leave the Order in the same way that Nicci did and he basically says no. Nicci could understand the error of her ways because she was amazingly special and questioned things. Most everyone else in the order would never be capable of that level of open mindedness. You see, Richard's (and Goodkind's) position is the only logical result of rational free inquiry. Everyone who apposes him is a closed minded hick.