I realize it's a bit late to be throwing in my 2 cents, but I just recently
joined the group, and I'm getting caught up on old entries.
First of all, neither Kelly or Vlad is immoral, as I understand the word.
To be immoral would require that you delibrately act against someone else's
sense of morality (and I think it implies a bit of malice).
Kelly is moral in general, and amoral in specific. People entrust their
wellbeing to Kelly, he does everything he can to improve their lives as a
whole, regardless of the impact it has on them individually.
Vlad is moral in specific and amoral in general. People entrust their
wellbeing to Vlad, he does everything he can to keep each one of them safe
and well, regardless of the overall affect this might have.
I admire Vlad's morality more.
I don't believe we can really ever know anything in any absolute sense of
the word (*), but experience feels closer to knowledge than theory (not that
I'm saying that senses are any more infallible than thought, but senses seem
to be more directly in touch with reality than thought... nevermind, this
argument goes on forever).
Vlad's morality is applied to each individual based on his judgement of
them, which is based on his experience of them, and changes as he learns
more about them. In other words, his prejudices never apply to individuals
(except when he doesn't know them). Dragaerans are "bad", but he is
intensely loyal to individual Dragaerans ("Jhereg" is a tour de force of
applied loyalty, as Vlad does everything he can NOT to betray his friends,
most obviously Morrolan, even though it makes his goal that much harder to
achieve... I think that Kelly would betray Paresh or Cawti in a second if he
thought it would achieve his goal).
Kelly's morality is based on a generality. He presumes to know the
situation, feelings, hopes, and dreams of thousands of people, without ever
bothering to get to know them individually. He can't look at them
individually; it's an inherent problem with idealism. An ideal is a "best
solution". And no one solution can solve every problem, so you're forced to
view the world as a single problem (btw, yes, I am a recovering (but not
cynical... I don't think) idealist).
Perhaps that last statement is a bit harsh, but nowhere do we see Kelly
offering more than his one "ideal" solution, and he only acknowledges one
problem: Easterners and Teckla are good but oppressed, everyone else is bad
and oppressive. No exceptions mentioned. The only solution is to get the
Easterners and Teckla on equal footing with the rest of the Empire. Even
though this clearly implies that those "at the top" will have to suffer a
lowering of lifestyle, but again, it's not what happens to the individuals
that counts...
Anyway, I guess that's more like 3 or 4 cents worth. :)
Bryan
(*) see http://bryann.net/cgi-bin/main?content=moosism.web for a brief
explanation of why I believe this.