My point may not have been clear due to my crappy grammar. The line should
have read something like
"That's [the way Kelly leads people to their deaths] distinct from what
Vlad is doing, and if you ignore the motivations or causes behind their
actions, it definitely seems more immoral than what Vlad's is doing."
The point you make is only true if you consider the intentions of the
supposed "killers" rather than the actions themselves. A consideration I
waived before making my assertion. I was only considering the actions
themselves, i.e. the deaths of criminals who know the risks, over the deaths
of innocents who are rebelling with a shaky ideological premise. These
criminals know that by joining the Organization, they have become fair game
to be killed, not only that, but they are prepared to die temporarily, being
highly paid or highly valued enough to be resurrected, and accept the fact
that they might be made unrevivable. Not only that, but as criminals one
could argue from many points of view (say from a Utilitarian point of view)
that they are less valuable to preserve than innocents, though this is a
weak argument.
Perhaps Kelly is more noble than Vlad, since his actions are based on
high ideals and rhetoric rather than Vlad who acts for money, power, and
vengeance, but I do not believe his actions are either more moral or more
ethical than Vlad's work on other Jhereg.
> I must disagree. Furthermore, I think Vlad ultimately concludes he
> disagrees, too. Vlad did the things he did for money and power. There is
> no indication that Kelly seeks either of these. Killing criminals is not
> per se less immoral than killing innocents, though I think there is a wide
> distinction between sending an assassin out to put a knife in someone's
eye
> and teaching a peasant how to read and think for themself. Furthermore,
in
> the everyday working of the organization, they beat up deadbeat borrowers,
> paid prostitutes to sell their bodies, etc. I need to go back and reread
> the territory war bits, but were all of the people that were killed
actually
> Jhereg?
I think its true that the King of Greenare is the only non Jhereg that he
actually "works" on, I got the distinct impression that one only "works" on
other Jhereg. Now Heath certainlly had easterners killed, and I won't argue
about the immorality of that, cause I think it's immoral too.
> This is why Vlad signed over South Adrilankha to Cawti. He couldn't
figure
> out a moral path, so he dumped the responsibility onto someone he thought
> had enough motivation to find one. Then he hightailed out of town. By
the
> end of _Issola_, he doesn't need conventional power (or money) to keep him
> safe from competitors in the House. He could probably now figure out a
way
> to manage South Adrilankha, but since the next book is _Tiassa_, I think
> perhaps he will have other concerns. (Unless Steve's going to backtrack
in
> the timeline again.)
>
> Really, setting up Vlad the mobster as somehow more moral than Kelly
misses
> the whole thrust of Vlad's arc through _Teckla_, _Phoenix_, _Athyra_,
> _Orca_, and _Issola_.
I fail to see how that misses the thrust of the arc. I never argued that
Vlad was moral in his actions, in fact I deliberately used the negation to
waive that concern, the point of my post was merely to point out that Kelly
and Vlad were performing distinct deeds and that in my opinion Kelly's
actions themselves were worse than Vlad's.
Akodo Bob
-Who generally tries to be painfully specific in his arguments because
generalizations are easy to disprove.