[Cüréthañ]

I won't enter a debate on objective morality, thanks. 

You are welcome . Still, this is the root of my argument, so i had to bring it up.

Apologies, I thought we were debating whether Kellhus is good or evil.  He has done a lot of shitty things, so to me , the question becomes whether his intention really is to improve the fate of humanity by preventing its destruction.  All else is simply the effect of means that may be interpreted according to the observer's beliefs, independent of their purpose.

Yes, but if he is to be dimmed good, his purpose, survival, must also be considered a good cause for mankind. But building a better society is also a good cause and Kellhus goes more on the opposite direction. So in order to form a conclusion about Kellhus' morality you have to first investigate if those two causes are mutually exclusive. Kellhus believes they are, i don't. Enslaving society to protect it from enslavement doesn't seem a good idea to me. A selfless leader should try to build a society that doesn't need him to protect itself.

I think by 'dimmed' you mean 'deemed'?

Problem here is that he doesn't care about how men are ruled.  He doesn't care about slavery, social divisions or what people do to each other.  His purpose is singularly exclusive. 
Here you are casting judgement for actions not taken.  That is a slippery slope.
Then we have all the dunyain line about how all men are slaves to the Darkness.  Kellhus believes that, so how is he supposed to build this free society, I wonder.  Glorious five year plan, perhaps?

Seswatha managed to convince the Norsirai to join his cause and the Norsirai were the biggest and the most powerful part of mankind. Kellhus picked a similar case with the Inrithi and we still don't know if his ordeal will succeed . But my intention wasn't to compare Seswatha and Kellhus as persons. I was merely pointing out that Seswatha saved the world by following a very different path. So why should i believe that there is only one path to survival?

Seswatha had the benefit of the Siqu backing him up and the Norisai were only two nations, both pretty much the heirs of Nonman culture and thus their ancient feud.  And they failed. 
The Consult only lost because Mog decided to give Anaxophus a free shot at Mengeda. 

As far as following a different path, the only thing Seswatha did right was pinching the heron spear, which also happens to be a straightforward bit of Kellhus-level manipulation because he needed to deceive and betray Nau Cayuti to get him to help.

This is about motive. Alexander showed to every deranged narcissist out there that he could create a vast empire and be worshiped as a God during his own lifetime. He opened up possibilities...

Nope.  Egyptians, Persians and all sorts of tyrants and nobility were claiming divine right well before that.  There were great conquerors before him. 
You seem to have some funny ideas about Alexander. He took on the title of God in Persia because that is how the Persians traditionally saw their emperor.  He took social, scientific and engineering advisors with him on his campaigns and they encouraged him to adopt the customs of the peoples he conquered and leave their social systems largely in place because that is the best way to smoothly take over and avoid partisan resistance.
He was idolized and studied by later conquerers, historians and generals because he was a military genius. 

[SkiesOfAzel]

Apologies, I thought we were debating whether Kellhus is good or evil.  He has done a lot of shitty things, so to me , the question becomes whether his intention really is to improve the fate of humanity by preventing its destruction.  All else is simply the effect of means that may be interpreted according to the observer's beliefs, independent of their purpose.

We do. I just expressed the opinion that even if you don't interpret his actions, but his intentions alone, you still have to find an objective meaning for goodness to do so, which is not something i believe to be logically sound. So in my view, every opinion here including my own is by definition personal and very subjective.

I think by 'dimmed' you mean 'deemed'?

English isn't my native language so some times i confuse the spelling of similarly sounding words. I really wan't to improve my ability to write in English, so if you spot similar errors don't hesitate to point them out to me.

Problem here is that he doesn't care about how men are ruled.  He doesn't care about slavery, social divisions or what people do to each other.  His purpose is singularly exclusive.

Those are beliefs, not actions, should i not judge those as well? Don't beliefs shape purpose?

Here you are casting judgement for actions not taken.  That is a slippery slope.

Building a theocracy is an action taken. The alternative i suggested is just that, a suggestion. There is no need to polarize this.

Then we have all the dunyain line about how all men are slaves to the Darkness.  Kellhus believes that, so how is he supposed to build this free society, I wonder.  Glorious five year plan, perhaps?

You can't judge Dunyain morality because they have none. But Kellhus is different. He believes that at least part of that darkness is divine. Moe thinks he can subvert divine will with the TTT, Kellhus believes that he and the TTT are expressions of divine will. Thus he is not Dunyain anymore.

A completely free society is an oxymoron, in a society total freedom is of course impossible, without some form of slavery. I was talking about a society of critical thinkers. A society like this wouldn't need Kellhus to tell them what to do, they would realize it for themselves. And btw, i really fail to see where Stalin fits in this conversation

Seswatha had the benefit of the Siqu backing him up and the Norisai were only two nations, both pretty much the heirs of Nonman culture and thus their ancient feud.  And they failed. 
The Consult only lost because Mog decided to give Anaxophus a free shot at Mengeda.

The Norsirai were only two nations but they were huge, they were the developed human world at the time. Most Nonmen were already erratics by the time of the Apocalypse and Kellhus has the human schools by his side which are no slouch. But most importantly, we still haven't seen him succeed with his Ordeal so the point of this conversation is rather moot.

As far as following a different path, the only thing Seswatha did right was pinching the heron spear, which also happens to be a straightforward bit of Kellhus-level manipulation because he needed to deceive and betray Nau Cayuti to get him to help.

He acted as a consultant, not a tyrant, that's a very big difference. He tried to convince, not to impose. Yes, he lied and betrayed when his back was against the wall, and he cheated his best friend as well. That proves he is fallible not that he follows the same path as Kellhus.

Nope.  Egyptians, Persians and all sorts of tyrants and nobility were claiming divine right well before that.  There were great conquerors before him. 
You seem to have some funny ideas about Alexander. He took on the title of God in Persia because that is how the Persians traditionally saw their emperor.  He took social, scientific and engineering advisors with him on his campaigns and they encouraged him to adopt the customs of the peoples he conquered and leave their social systems largely in place because that is the best way to smoothly take over and avoid partisan resistance.
He was idolized and studied by later conquerers, historians and generals because he was a military genius. 

Yeah, i know what he did and why, in great detail. I am Greek so he is part of my heritage. Maybe that's a reason to put a little too much weight on his (negative imo) influence on history. But i will maintain that the reason he was worshiped was not simply because of his intellect, but about how he applied that intellect. To dominate others and leave his mark on history.

[Cüréthañ]

Apologies, I thought we were debating whether Kellhus is good or evil.  He has done a lot of shitty things, so to me , the question becomes whether his intention really is to improve the fate of humanity by preventing its destruction.  All else is simply the effect of means that may be interpreted according to the observer's beliefs, independent of their purpose.

We do. I just expressed the opinion that even if you don't interpret his actions, but his intentions alone, you still have to find an objective meaning for goodness to do so, which is not something i believe to be logically sound. So in my view, every opinion here including my own is by definition personal and very subjective.

Okay, we need to back up here.  We were talking about judging Kellhus according to his goal (i.e. applying utilitarianism), that is why I quoted Kant and his definition of good intent.  A lot of thinkers have spent a lot of time defining forms of morality and ethics that are not personal and subjective but are nevertheless not absolute.  I'm not trying to apply my personal opinion of good/evil.

Now you are suggesting adding judgement according to direct consequence of his actions motivated by beliefs (which are often taught, not chosen)

Those are beliefs, not actions, should i not judge those as well? Don't beliefs shape purpose?

.. and actions taken in pursuit of the suggested goal ...

Building a theocracy is an action taken. The alternative i suggested is just that, a suggestion. There is no need to polarize this.

... which means we can easily determine Kellhus' is evil (imo) because he murders a child and permits rape and abuse early in TDTCB. 
It doesn't matter that he is 'only acting according to his conditioning' back then.  This is ethical morality at my cultural level, rule utilitarianism as defined by the legal system which I support.

If we are going to stick to one interpretation of morality/ethics I am up for discussion, otherwise no.

You can't judge Dunyain morality because they have none. But Kellhus is different. He believes that at least part of that darkness is divine. Moe thinks he can subvert divine will with the TTT, Kellhus believes that he and the TTT are expressions of divine will. Thus he is not Dunyain anymore.

A completely free society is an oxymoron, in a society total freedom is of course impossible, without some form of slavery. I was talking about a society of critical thinkers. A society like this wouldn't need Kellhus to tell them what to do, they would realize it for themselves. And btw, i really fail to see where Stalin fits in this conversation.

Yes, well.  Kellhus' true beliefs are still up for debate.  That was part of my original point.  He is a lying liar who lies and all that.

Stalin fits in as an example of what happens when you try to sweep the old order of society away and replace it with some utopian ideal.  See also Mao, the Kmher Rouge etc etc.  Not a good thing.  Always better to affect change from within imo.

The Norsirai were only two nations but they were huge, they were the developed human world at the time. Most Nonmen were already erratics by the time of the Apocalypse and Kellhus has the human schools by his side which are no slouch. But most importantly, we still haven't seen him succeed with his Ordeal so the point of this conversation is rather moot.

Absolutely weren't.  You had the Meori, Zeum, Cenei, Shigek, Nilnamesh, Kyraneus etc etc.  The siqu were Seswatha's teachers and founders of the Sohonc, they warned him about the Consult and their design to resurrect the no-god's design. 

As far as following a different path, the only thing Seswatha did right was pinching the heron spear, which also happens to be a straightforward bit of Kellhus-level manipulation because he needed to deceive and betray Nau Cayuti to get him to help.

He acted as a consultant, not a tyrant, that's a very big difference. He tried to convince, not to impose. Yes, he lied and betrayed when his back was against the wall, and he cheated his best friend as well. That proves he is fallible not that he follows the same path as Kellhus.

Celmomas abandoned the Ordeal because he squabbled with Nimeric and Seswatha.  Would have been better off with a single strong leader, eh?
You keep using loaded terms like tyrant.  It's not productive.

[Madness]

I had been haphazardly following along while absent but in rereading now it becomes fairly obvious that you two need to be very careful in defining your terms for this conversation. That said, you're also rehashing much of the earlier thread.

[Cüréthañ]

Reply and response.  Of course we are rehashing, that's what a discussion is all about... just different contributors.
We think about things better through active conversation than as passive reader.

Unless we go off topic and start quibbling about Alexander, that's new

[Madness]

Text makes emotionless . I wasn't intending to call foul. And I didn't mean at all that you shouldn't keep pursuing as you were. However, it seems apparent that SOA (and yourself, maybe) didn't read the earlier portions of the thread because you would see objections to the preceding cases made either way and then have a greater ability to make your specific cases stronger now by addressing past objections.

Mostly, though, define your terms. Real-world subjective moralities are unrelated to a self-contained universe (Earwa's Reality, probably) where there is a right and wrong way to believe.

EDIT:

And I do believe that it was mentioned upthread that Kellhus will be judged differently in his world vs. in ours.

[Cüréthañ]

Sure, he would also be judged differently depending on which of our defined systems of morality was applied.

I don't feel I need to define the terms I am using, anyone can look them up via google or wiki.  Academic models of accepted morality and ethics are as close as we are going to get to objective systems.

Skies implied intent was key, so I suggested applying utilitarianism.  The question is then simply whether he believes Kellhus' ultimate goal is good or nay. 

Instead the discussion shifts to other forms of morality and ethics, questions of action and belief which will wield different answers for each situation. I suspect that is because of the natural desire to confirm one's own subjective moral views, which are, naturally, a tangle of contradictions.

[SkiesOfAzel]

Madness, i know i am not doing any favors to myself but i have to say i've read the thread before posting :p. In my defense though, it's impossible to only express new views in a conversation. And i think you are right, we must better define our terms. Different backgrounds and the language barrier makes communication about abstract things pretty hard.

Ok, let's try to form some more defined boundaries for our conversation. Let's first agree to a point of reference.

Should we measure according to our own world?
A person can have many purposes that fall on both sides of the moral spectrum. How do we measure the sum of one's goodness?
Do you want to employ Kant's moral law, a legal system and are those two compatible?

How do we define Kellhus' purpose? The sad fact is that we can only guess. To a lesser extend, the same goes for his beliefs. Do we judge him according to our guesses?

[EDIT]
By saying that the ends don't justify the means i implied that intent isn't enough to measure goodness. But let's go with Kant and intent. Let's be kind to Kellhus and assume that his purpose is indeed saving humanity from extinction. I won't even bother bringing damnation to the equation at this point, let's just concentrate on the more physical aspect of the story :p. So his maxim is survival at all costs. This is moral. But he is also lying whenever this helps him achieve his goal which is immoral.

Also, do we judge Kellhus before the circumfixion ? After, it? During the WLW? Is his intent constant throughout the books?

[Cüréthañ]

 
My original comment was about applying utilitarianism, although I don't think I mentioned it directly there.

utilitarianism.

This is the dilemma Sorweel faces, so it is fairly obvious that it is an intentional theme designed to make us consider the same problem.

If the choice is between the New Empire and the ordeal or extinction, Kellhus is a force for good.
We don't know that is the only choice, but the idea that he could have instituted some kind of egalitarian utopia in the meantime and still forge the largest army of veteran soldier and sorcerers the world has ever seen seems pretty far-fetched. 
Clearly things aren't ideal, but we only consider whether his stated objective. 

If he's lying then he is bad, because he is clearly not working towards the greatest benefit to the greatest number.  But we can't address that, as you say, so why discuss it?  Unless you wish to declare why you believe it is so, that's fine.

Any other system you wish to consider?

[SkiesOfAzel]

My original comment was about applying utilitarianism, although I don't think I mentioned it directly there.

utilitarianism.

This is the dilemma Sorweel faces, so it is fairly obvious that it is an intentional theme designed to make us consider the same problem.

If the choice is between the New Empire and the ordeal or extinction, Kellhus is a force for good.
We don't know that is the only choice, but the idea that he could have instituted some kind of egalitarian utopia in the meantime and still forge the largest army of veteran soldier and sorcerers the world has ever seen seems pretty far-fetched. 
Clearly things aren't ideal, but we only consider whether his stated objective. 

If he's lying then he is bad, because he is clearly not working towards the greatest benefit to the greatest number.  But we can't address that, as you say, so why discuss it?  Unless you wish to declare why you believe it is so, that's fine.

Any other system you wish to consider?

I won't go into morality systems right now, i am kind of short on time, maybe tomorrow. Aristotle ethics will be very interesting to discuss, since the Dunyain are inspired by his philosophy. For now I will just attempt to better express a few of my arguments.

1) Kellhus isn't necessarily lying about what his goal is, he lies to further his cause (this is indisputable). Lying to achieve ones goal leads to contradictions when made into a universal law, so it's immoral.

2) I've never claimed that it's logical or even possible for Kellhus to build an utopia while preparing for the war. I just pointed out that a theocracy is even worse of a system than the previous one. You don't need to build a utopia in order to improve things. I don't even believe in utopia, it's as paradoxical a term as is perfection. But twenty years represents a whole generation. The Swedes took less than that to reform their system. Keynesian economics took less than that to improve things in a perceptible way. Those are examples btw, not suggestions. Seswatha wasn't mentioned to compare how optimal his path was, but to argue that if there are two paths to the same goal why wouldn't there be more?

I also want to make something clear. Just because i say something it doesn't mean it represents my beliefs. In the course of a conversation one questions things, and makes observations in order to provoke a response that helps one better comprehend the opinion of the person (s)he converses with. Usually when i mention something i truly believe in, i try to explicitly state that.

[mrganondorf]

The more I think about it, the more I think that Kellhus/someone wants to achieve disenchantment by killing the Outside.  Like a Hegelian collapse or something.

[Cüréthañ]

1) Kellhus isn't necessarily lying about what his goal is, he lies to further his cause (this is indisputable). Lying to achieve ones goal leads to contradictions when made into a universal law, so it's immoral.

Well, that is basic deontological ethics.
Utilitarianism is a subset of consequentialism.

Consequentialism is usually distinguished from deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct

[Madness]

I don't feel I need to define the terms I am using, anyone can look them up via google or wiki.  Academic models of accepted morality and ethics are as close as we are going to get to objective systems.

Well, what about the ones that find context in the text or in your own particular systems of morality (that you are both consciously or subconsciously projecting into your analysis)?

Madness, i know i am not doing any favors to myself but i have to say i've read the thread before posting :p. In my defense though, it's impossible to only express new views in a conversation. And i think you are right, we must better define our terms. Different backgrounds and the language barrier makes communication about abstract things pretty hard.

Ok, let's try to form some more defined boundaries for our conversation. Let's first agree to a point of reference.

Maybe the bold is what I wanted to say with my original interjection.

[Cüréthañ]

Well, what about the ones that find context in the text or in your own particular systems of morality (that you are both consciously or subconsciously projecting into your analysis)?

I am deliberately avoiding this as it has nothing to do with my contribution. 
My original point was to help define SoA's analysis of Kellhus' apparent morality.  He is presented as following the precepts of rule utilitarianism quite closely.
This sort of noise should be easily filtered if we stick to academic decisions and realize that the definitions apply to individual characters.

We know that Earwa has a built in absolute system of morality that dictates rewards/punishment in the afterlife and some kind of direction of historical progress - but that is fairly well obfuscated and as far as we can tell does not conform to anything we can agree as being straightforwardly good or evil.  So let me reiterate, I'm not engaging that discussion.  It seems a fairly easy to me to seperate these issues?

Let's first agree to a point of reference.[/quote]

If his intent is in line with his goal, then he can be described as good within that system of morality.  This is what most western systems of government aspire towards and try to balance against some idea of differing individual moral rights.  This has little to do with my own system of morality or SoA's deontology. 
Sure, he can argue that lying is always evil - but Kellhus would point out that Earwan society and history is almost entirely composed of lies.  Neither does the argument hold that lies contribute only to evil; it is easy to present scenarios where lies are unavoidable or can result in better results than truth. 

The question of Kellhus' morality is interesting to me for two reasons. 
First, the popular idea that Kellhus is operating according to a form of Epicuranism or Hedonism - seeking, primarily, to maximize his own power and comfort by domination at the expense of others.  I don't really get this - it's certainly the case for characters like Conphas and Xerius (who qualify as antagonists) - but it doesn't jive with the stated goals or actions of Kellhus as a Dunayin or Kellhus as Prophet or Kellhus as Despot.
Second, a Dunyain should have no ambition other than his mission.  The are supposed to be amoral outside of that consideration.  Kellhus initially is out to face Moe and stop him interfering with the Dunayin.  Moe is arguably still acting in the interests of the ultimate goal of the Dunyain.  The question then becomes from where Kellhus' conviction in a different goal (and thus shift to a moral compass) has arisen.

[themerchant]

Sorry to butt in with something so trivial, but it literally just occured to me how busy Kellhus must have been since TTT. The busiest person ever , he needs his intellect just to organise his "to-do list".

I'm struggling to find someone with more to do.