Aiel culture

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

I started talking about this in the other Aiel thread, but that is focused on military strategy and is turning into a flame war.  Here are my opinions:

Sometimes I dislike the Aiel because of ji'e'toh.  There is something that irks me about such a controlling system.  It's as if they are all brainwashed.  I can only disapprove of a culture which raises a woman like Avi, who is willing to take a knife because of a stupid love triangle.  Another example is Mangin, who commits outright murder because of a perceived insult, but is unable to understand his punishment.  The amount of stress and emotional pain caused by ji'e'toh is unacceptable.

 

I do like their sense of humor, though.  And any culture that enjoys whiskey can't be all bad.

I see the Wise Ones as the Aiel oligarchy - they decide who joins them in the ruling class.  I disapprove of the Wise Ones because, despite their stranglehold on politics, they have been unable to end thousands of years of internal war.  In fact, they have deliberately bred a culture of violence and intolerance.  They are also responsible for the "original sin complex" in Aiel culture.

 

I'm not saying that the wetland cultures aren't twisted as well, but RJ shows them as such - the torture chamber in the Stone, the way servants accept abuse and humiliation, the class dichotomy, etc.  However, I see Aiel culture and ji'e'toh portrayed in a good light.  I don't understand why.

[Miltiades]

I don't know. The Aiel are pretty vicious.

 

Their answer to everything seems to be lethal violence. They casually talk about killing other people to remove them as rivals for someones affections, for stumbling into their land,or just for saying something you don't like.

 

Deadly violence seems to be their first, preferred, and only resort when dealing with problems.

 

Also, as someone else mentioned in the thread I started, the Wise ones have a stranglehold on politics and represent a caste above censure by any outside parties, they are answerable only to each other and regularly meddle in other people's affairs. They do this not through any official channels, but by manipulating and browbeating their husbands, who it seems are often clan chiefs. Basically they act very much like Aes Sedai.

 

So I think the idea of Aiel culture as some kind of egalitarian paradise of noble savages is only looking at the surface. They are under a tyranny of their own.

 

Also their attitudes toward the Cairhienin are appalling. These are the only people who let them take water from their land and then suddenly because their king was an asshat they think that perfectly innocent civilians, women and young children deserve whatever horrific suffering can be inflicted upon them. As if one act of foolishness by a bad king renders every Cairhienin born from that moment on a sub-human beast with no value whatsoever.

[Hybrid]

The Aiel attitude is ridiculously extreme in terms of dealing with any problems of any sort.  Either they react with lethal violence or they become meek and subservient. 

 

It's a really strange juxtaposition.  Their culture has almost an immature feeling towards it.  As if they tried to adapt from their original supernonviolent roots to fit a more violent environment but haven't find the proper balance between violence and peacefulness.  So instead of specific compromises, you get something more general - both extremes present depending on the situation.

 

On the other hand, they certainly are egalitarian compared to many of the other societies.  And their attitude towards violence and killing is much more accepting than the wetlands, where while people are willing to kill others to solve a problem, they rarely talk about it openly.  So in some ways they are more honest.

 

The reason that I think RJ portrays ji'e'toh in a "good light," if it is actually portrayed as such, is that the Aiel are an incredibly disciplined society.  There are some troublemakers, like Couladin, but for the most part they follow ji'e'toh rigorously.  They have a code of honor and they stick to it.  The flaws in their culture are a part of their cultural code, whereas in the wetlands there are many corrupted individuals who act not according to a cultural code but in their own interest.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

The fall of the Shaido Aiel is very interesting to me.  They become alcoholics, abuse their servants, and become lazy, abandoning many of the tenants of ji'e'toh.  Contrast this with Rand's Aiel, who do not lose ji'e'toh, but instead suffer from the bleakness.  The difference seems to be Sevanna.  It seems unlikely that their culture would deteriorate so quickly, just because of one overambitious leader.  This makes me want to agree with Hybrid's idea that the Aiel are "immature" in many ways.  However I don't think it is very realistic that the whole clan would accept such drastic changes.  What happened to the idea that the Aiel leaders are "first among equals"?

[Phariah]

well to me the Aiel seem to be an extreme in Law ( code of honor, everyone in the Aiel has a function an none are considered useless, follow the law even at an individual's expense because it is the law {Mangin} , they are not a wasteful people and survive because of thier structured existance in a harsh land )

 

where as the wetlands are a boiling cauldron of Chaos ( the Great Game basically rumor mongering / manipulation / assassination / lying , than the wars of succession where an individual puts himself ahead of the people  and starts a war because he wants to leader {might makes right } not because he was elected / chosen,rich dominating the poor, the haves make the rules an the have nots suffer { nobles basically can do what they want no matter the laws just because they are rich and / or have power } corruption abounds

 

the Shaido have been know as greedy and selfish since we start seeing Aiel ( so the falling to alcoholism , abuse and becoming lazy isn't hard to accept)

they follow Sevanna because she is all they have left , she is a roofmistress w/out a roof and she has laid her bridal wreath at the feet of 2 who would have been the leader first Souldrin ( Couladin "s brother ) than Couladin

so they follow her lead ( she starts changing shit to meet her wants such as taking of wetlanders as Gaishan, and not taking the 5th but stripping whatever they raid 100% )and even though she leads the Shaido she still is not a Clan Chief( she sees herself as a queen of Aiel not a first among equals ), and the wise ones help keep her at leader to keep the clan whole, yet they still see the need for a clan chief ( seeing as they allowed an Aiel to go to Rhuidien to attempt to become one )

 

the Bleakness has alot to do w/ ji'e'toh because those Aiel think they have lost honor , thinking that thier ancestors have sworn them to gaishan an that they have been violating it by using weapons , fighting / killing , ect...

 

Basically the Aiel are the mature adult following honor / laws / structure , while the wetlands are immature / chaotic (gimme what i want when i want it ..now!! and be damned w/ the consequences)

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

follow the law even at an individual's expense because it is the law {Mangin}

Mangin broke the law.  What's worse, he couldn't comprehend that what he did was wrong.

 

Basically the Aiel are the mature adult following honor / laws / structure , while the wetlands are immature / chaotic

This is exactly the opinion that I can't understand.  Why does the book make Aiel culture seem so superior, when in fact they are NOT any better than the wetlanders?  I don't think ji'e'toh is more mature than wetlander "codes".

[Tel Janin]

Mangin broke the law.  What's worse, he couldn't comprehend that what he did was wrong.

 

I don't believe that it was a lack of comprehension on Mangin's part.  It was a conscious choice.  To Mangin, only clan chiefs could be marked like that, so he chose to kill what he perceived to be a pretender and then went to Rand to face the consequences...

Right and wrong are subjective, based on cultural and societal beliefs.  In Mangin's world, what he did was right.

 

My two coppers...

 

[Braus]

I started talking about this in the other Aiel thread, but that is focused on military strategy and is turning into a flame war.  Here are my opinions:

Sometimes I dislike the Aiel because of ji'e'toh.  There is something that irks me about such a controlling system.  It's as if they are all brainwashed.  I can only disapprove of a culture which raises a woman like Avi, who is willing to take a knife because of a stupid love triangle.  Another example is Mangin, who commits outright murder because of a perceived insult, but is unable to understand his punishment.  The amount of stress and emotional pain caused by ji'e'toh is unacceptable.

 

I do like their sense of humor, though.  And any culture that enjoys whiskey can't be all bad.

I see the Wise Ones as the Aiel oligarchy - they decide who joins them in the ruling class.  I disapprove of the Wise Ones because, despite their stranglehold on politics, they have been unable to end thousands of years of internal war.  In fact, they have deliberately bred a culture of violence and intolerance.  They are also responsible for the "original sin complex" in Aiel culture.

 

I'm not saying that the wetland cultures aren't twisted as well, but RJ shows them as such - the torture chamber in the Stone, the way servants accept abuse and humiliation, the class dichotomy, etc.  However, I see Aiel culture and ji'e'toh portrayed in a good light.  I don't understand why.

 

Well just like some europeans may look at America politics and beliefs(stuff like the president pretty much having to say he believes in god etc), im not comparing you to the Aiel, but what im comparing is how other people look at other "countries" or societies that is different.

Or how people outside lets say China, may look at the communist party and think its wrong and know exactly how it should be, while majorities in the country might agree with the way the country is run.

Or to take something from the books, what wetlanders and mainly people related to Aes Sedai look at Seanchan/Damane.

 

Not really gonna evolve it to much, im just some random guy on a fantasy forum, but what i mean is that its very easy to think automatically that others wants it a certain way. Alot of stupid wars have had reasons like this, especially religious. Everyone gets born somewhere randomly and grows up, and that really does affect how people think and what prejudices they get, since noone is without prejudices even if some manage to opress them or get convinced by someone else to think another way.

 

So erm, im no religous person, so i say that a society is wrong first when the people that belong to it is unhappy with how its built, which pretty much means that the society will have to slowly change by itself, or some kind of "revolution" or the like will have to happen. I dont think its possible to create a book of rules on how the whole world should be run and what beliefs, rules that should be mandatory and try and introduce it to the world. All the various religions that existed and still exists already tried that to different success.

 

And thats lol why i think Aiel is a pretty harmonic people. As far as i know we havent seen any Aiel yet that is unhappy with tradition, hierachy and the likes. In ways they might be abit primitive fighting each other in bloodfeuds and the likes all the time, but they are at the same time all following ji e toh strongly. They all avoid the wetlands(that is before Rand forced em over, and im not mentioning the Shaido who just promised themselves to return to the threshold land and never leave) except for a few skrimishers and the likes in shienar it seems, and they dont seem interested in conquering. They are a pretty free people and seems pretty fair aswell. That is even if its easy to hurt their honour, they seem to rather duel than try any tricks.

 

Erm, its all written since i saw someone saying they lived in a tyranny, and i dont agree that you could compare it with that. If they would live in a tyranny they would be opressed, limited to voice their opinions and absolutely not have the kind of rank system they have now. The aiel seem pretty satisfied with the traditions and ji e toh, to me. Though they might change drastically now when they are in the wetlands, and honestly i think that only the people that is still in the thresold land and the shaido will still be called Aiel after the last battle.

[The Doctor]

Who are we to say that their instinct to do violence is wrong?  It's certainly effective for them.  I'm not saying it's right either, but it's what works for them, and who am I to judge?  Let he is without sin cast the first stone, right? Not that I'm religious at all, but that's one religious quote I can support. 

[Hybrid]

The fall of the Shaido Aiel is very interesting to me.  They become alcoholics, abuse their servants, and become lazy, abandoning many of the tenants of ji'e'toh.  Contrast this with Rand's Aiel, who do not lose ji'e'toh, but instead suffer from the bleakness.  The difference seems to be Sevanna.  It seems unlikely that their culture would deteriorate so quickly, just because of one overambitious leader.  This makes me want to agree with Hybrid's idea that the Aiel are "immature" in many ways.  However I don't think it is very realistic that the whole clan would accept such drastic changes.  What happened to the idea that the Aiel leaders are "first among equals"?

I think it's all about discipline.  The Aiel come from a very harsh environment, so if a leader doesn't lead well, the clan is done for.  So we get more of a meritocracy, and at the same time the people place a lot of faith in their leaders, especially because those leaders have to be tested in strength of will in the first place.  Sevanna is not entirely incompetent just too power-hungry and the Shaido were in a land of plenty, so they followed her wishes.  Still, I agree that the idea that an entire clan was flat-out corrupted because of this is a bit far-fetched. 

 

On the other hand, it seems like the Shaido have always been the black sheep of the Aiel clans.  Even before they openly opposed Rand, even before Couladin took over, the rest of the clans don't seem to like them very much - more even than the clan rivalries.  So maybe the Shaido were never as firm in the way of ji'e'toh in the first place and all it took was a little nudge in the wrong direction.  I don't know.

 

As for the whole Mangin situation, I think Tel Janin is right.  The man with the tattoos was, in Mangin's mind, showing incredible disrespect for the clan chiefs.  The dragon markings border on sacred - the clan chiefs really have to earn them.  The chiefs may be first among equals, but the fact that they go through a trial to get their place still gives them plenty of respect.  Add that to the Aiel penchant of violence...

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

Right and wrong are subjective, based on cultural and societal beliefs.  In Mangin's world, what he did was right.

Mangin murdered a man, unprovoked.  It's true that Aiel culture told him it was okay.  I'm saying that Aiel culture lied to Mangin and caused him to commit a terrible crime.  It caused him to have no remorse, or concern for the man's family.  Instead he smiles, and he thinks his obligation is to Rand.

 

Well just like some europeans may look at America politics and beliefs(stuff like the president pretty much having to say he believes in god etc), im not comparing you to the Aiel, but what im comparing is how other people look at other "countries" or societies that is different.

I agree that subjective cultural morals exist.  However, that does not make them right or justified.  What I see in this thread are justifications of ji'e'toh and Aiel culture.  No one tries to justify Tear's system because RJ makes it seem bad.  I don't like how he tries to make Aiel culture seem good, when it is at least as flawed as the wetlands.

 

Who are we to say that their instinct to do violence is wrong?  It's certainly effective for them.  I'm not saying it's right either, but it's what works for them, and who am I to judge?  Let he is without sin cast the first stone, right? Not that I'm religious at all, but that's one religious quote I can support.

We are thinking beings.  If we see something that seems wrong we can and should speak out against it.  Should the USA have stayed out of WWII because they had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans?  No one is 100% free of "sin", but that isn't a reason to turn a blind eye.

 

As for the whole Mangin situation, I think Tel Janin is right.  The man with the tattoos was, in Mangin's mind, showing incredible disrespect for the clan chiefs.  The dragon markings border on sacred - the clan chiefs really have to earn them.  The chiefs may be first among equals, but the fact that they go through a trial to get their place still gives them plenty of respect.  Add that to the Aiel penchant of violence...

What about the time Oliver was beaten for disrespecting a noble (by sitting on his horse)?  Do you think that was acceptable?

[Kaznen]

Something to keep in mind when looking at Aiel society:

 

Historically all societies in harsh regions/wildernesses had to be rigidly disciplined, a screw up could cost many lives.  So why we, in our comfy air conditioned rooms sipping our $7 cafe mocha lattes, can't comprehend why people would put up with that, to them it is a necessity.

[Hybrid]

Mangin murdered a man, unprovoked.  It's true that Aiel culture told him it was okay.  I'm saying that Aiel culture lied to Mangin and caused him to commit a terrible crime.  It caused him to have no remorse, or concern for the man's family.  Instead he smiles, and he thinks his obligation is to Rand.

Tel Janin's point is that viewing Mangin's act as a terrible crime is a subjective judgement.  According to Rand's values, it was a crime.  According to your values, it was a terrible crime.  According to the Aiel values, it was what the man deserved

 

Aiel culture did not lie to Mangin.

 

Here's how I see it.  The Aiel have to be rigidly disciplined to survive.  That means that all clan chiefs have to prove themselves fit to lead.  The "certificate of completion" is the dragon tattoo. 

 

Now, we've seen that there are barely any power struggles within the Aiel clans.  The consequences of such a struggle is pretty obvious - look what they do to the wetlands and then project that damage into an unforgiving environment like the waste.  Thus, the chief's place is to be respected. 

 

The man, by wearing the dragon tattoos, was basically saying that he was of the same importance as Rand or at least a clan chief.  Whether he viewed as such is immaterial.  The power of an action is not in the intent, but the interpretation.

 

By "proclaiming" himself like that, the man was a short step away from directly challenging the clan chief's power.  And he did so without proving himself in Rhuidean.  That's a very dangerous situation in the Waste.  That's my complete explanation as to why that sort of thing might be directly prohibited.

 

Mangin, of course, didn't stop to consider all the ramifications.  He acted, as a disciplined soldier should, according to what he's been trained to do.  Kill the pretender, protect the clan.  Save lives.

 

You see?  It's not nearly so black and white as it is according to our values.

 

I'll try to provide an analogy for today's society in America.  OK, let's say that I start boasting about how I've created my own nuclear football.  That's right, I now have the ability to launch any and all of America's nukes.  But I don't plan to use it, I'm just boasting of how good my technological prowess is.  Now how do you think a federal official would react?  (Hint: It would not be to congratulate me on a job well done.)  At the very least, I'd be thrown in jail.  I'd probably also be interrogated, and my creation would be confiscated.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

I understand that the cultural values are subjective.  That doesn't prevent some of them from being despicable.  A man should not be killed for having offensive tattoos.

 

I'll try to provide an analogy for today's society in America.  OK, let's say that I start boasting about how I've created my own nuclear football.  That's right, I now have the ability to launch any and all of America's nukes.  But I don't plan to use it, I'm just boasting of how good my technological prowess is.  Now how do you think a federal official would react?  (Hint: It would not be to congratulate me on a job well done.)  At the very least, I'd be thrown in jail.  I'd probably also be interrogated, and my creation would be confiscated.

If it worked, it would certainly be taken away, and you would be in trouble for creating a dangerous weapon.  No Aiel was going to follow the tattooed man into battle.  He wasn't impersonating a chief, he was imitating their markings.  Do you think Mangin couldn't tell they were tattoos?  The analogy is not very good, because the tattoos are not dangerous like your hypothetical weapon would be.

 

The fact is, the Aiel are very violent and their culture supports that.  Somehow, it seems like readers respect that violence.  There is no respect for the violence in Tear.  There shouldn't be any respect for the violence of the Aiel.

[Kaznen]

The Aiel are not as violent as you seem to think.  In battle the highest honor is touching an armed person while unarmed yourself.  And throwing insults seemed to me to happen among the Aiel then fighting.

 

And going by what Hybrid said Mangin must have been thinking, to Aiel such blatant disrespect is a kill worthy offense because to survive in the Three Fold Land one needs to respect other people, ji'e'toh, and the land itself.

[Miltiades]

Mangin murdered a man, unprovoked.  It's true that Aiel culture told him it was okay.  I'm saying that Aiel culture lied to Mangin and caused him to commit a terrible crime.  It caused him to have no remorse, or concern for the man's family.  Instead he smiles, and he thinks his obligation is to Rand.

Tel Janin's point is that viewing Mangin's act as a terrible crime is a subjective judgement.  According to Rand's values, it was a crime.  According to your values, it was a terrible crime.  According to the Aiel values, it was what the man deserved

 

Aiel culture did not lie to Mangin.

 

Here's how I see it.  The Aiel have to be rigidly disciplined to survive.  That means that all clan chiefs have to prove themselves fit to lead.  The "certificate of completion" is the dragon tattoo. 

 

Now, we've seen that there are barely any power struggles within the Aiel clans.  The consequences of such a struggle is pretty obvious - look what they do to the wetlands and then project that damage into an unforgiving environment like the waste.  Thus, the chief's place is to be respected. 

 

The man, by wearing the dragon tattoos, was basically saying that he was of the same importance as Rand or at least a clan chief.  Whether he viewed as such is immaterial.  The power of an action is not in the intent, but the interpretation.

 

By "proclaiming" himself like that, the man was a short step away from directly challenging the clan chief's power.  And he did so without proving himself in Rhuidean.  That's a very dangerous situation in the Waste.  That's my complete explanation as to why that sort of thing might be directly prohibited.

 

Mangin, of course, didn't stop to consider all the ramifications.  He acted, as a disciplined soldier should, according to what he's been trained to do.  Kill the pretender, protect the clan.  Save lives.

 

You see?  It's not nearly so black and white as it is according to our values.

 

I'll try to provide an analogy for today's society in America.  OK, let's say that I start boasting about how I've created my own nuclear football.  That's right, I now have the ability to launch any and all of America's nukes.  But I don't plan to use it, I'm just boasting of how good my technological prowess is.  Now how do you think a federal official would react?  (Hint: It would not be to congratulate me on a job well done.)  At the very least, I'd be thrown in jail.  I'd probably also be interrogated, and my creation would be confiscated.

 

Moral relativism is nonsense. If society teaches it is good to enslave and kill people for no reason, does that make it so?

 

It comes through from your post that even you yourself do not completely subscribe to this dangerous paradigm. That is why you still try to justify Mangin's actions in morally objective terms, saying that he is trying to serve the greater objective good of saving lives.

 

If you truly believe that right and wrong are subjective why try to justify anything? Nothing requires any justification because what one believes is good is good by default.

 

The bottom line is Mangin tried to act like the savage he is in a civilized country, where all problems, real or perceived, are not solved by killing someone. He shows no remorse for his crime, he even thinks Rand agrees that it was right to kill someone over a joke.

[Tel Janin]

Mangin murdered a man, unprovoked.  It's true that Aiel culture told him it was okay.  I'm saying that Aiel culture lied to Mangin and caused him to commit a terrible crime.  It caused him to have no remorse, or concern for the man's family.  Instead he smiles, and he thinks his obligation is to Rand.

 

The fact that you use the phrase, "...Aiel culture lied to Mangin..." helps to prove my point.  Right and wrong, good and evil, however you want to slice it, are subjective terms that each individual has to define within themselves based on their beliefs and what their society teaches them.  You believe that killing an unarmed person because they've tattooed a sacred symbol to themselves is wrong.  And that's okay; not everyone is going to share that belief though.  And Mangin was provoked; the offensive nature of the tatoos provoked him to kill the Cairheinin man.

 

The bottom line is Mangin tried to act like the savage he is in a civilized country, where all problems, real or perceived, are not solved by killing someone. He shows no remorse for his crime, he even thinks Rand agrees that it was right to kill someone over a joke.

 

Savage and civilized.  Yet more subjective terminology.  Let me tell you a story.  There was a young, idealistic man about twenty-five years ago who volunteered to serve in his country's military for purely patriotic reasons.  That young man was naturally stealthy, had some martial arts training, and could put a round through a gnats backside from several hundred meters away.  He was recruited into the special operations field and trained as a sniper.  He was groomed and trained by a civilized society to kill people from a long way away; people who were frequently unarmed.  But, his society told them they were bad people and being a patriot, he believed them.  So 'civilized' countries solve problems by killing just as often as 'savage' societies, in my experience.

 

Is this really that different from Mangin's POV?  I personally don't think so...

 

My two coppers... thanks for listening.

[Dunedain Fal]

And don't forget that Couladin was able to deceive Shaido with fake dragons on his arms.  Mangin probably after seeing what Couladin have wrought on the Aiel and his friends, got pissed that another man would try to duplicate Couladin's actions and killed him.

 

Even though Aiel's ways are somewhat barbaric and alien to us, we cannot judge them because we have not been in their shoes when they had to survive in that harsh unforgiving pitiless environment. I mean their race was hounded by every other nation except for one and they did not receive any mercy or help for three hundred years.  That would be enough to make any group pretty unforgiving and jaded.

[Braus]

Rules are rules really...

 

Mangin did something that most Aiel thought was right. He most proberly also did it with the knowledge that he was going to die because of it, because he knew that if Rand(who is a aiel clan chief) didnt hang him, after promising that people who killed unless in defense would hang, Rand would loose alot of honour and respect.

This way, Mangin earnt alot of honour for whats its worth, and Rand kept his however hurtful it might be having to do so to someone who you liked. Thats Ji e Toh to you really. Clear rules really.

 

Now on the other hand you can argue that wetlanders got no knowledge, or dont give a shit about Aiels ji e toh, but that in ways becomes negative for them. That means that no clan except the shaido for example would take them Gaishain in a battle.

It really is rather basic, and it pretty much is the same in any culture that got one strong belief. You need to follow certain rules, and if you dont know them you need to step very lightly. Its the same way that us europeans or americans adapt abit when we go to forexample muslim countries. Regardless what forexample women think about having to hide part of their face, they are pretty much forced to follow customs.

 

If Mangin was right or not to do it isnt really only black and white. Ofc the wetlander might be completly unaware what he had done and maybe he had even done it before the Aiel appeared, but i think in this case he did it because of Rand. If Mangin or no other Aiel did it, eventually that kind of way of thinking wouldnt be backed up, it wouldnt have any sway anymore, it would be powerless. In the end if the Aiel gave over all their beliefs or rules, ji e toh would eventually fall apart. In the end i think this is whats going to happen as said, most of the clans following Rand will in the end become Wetlanders aswell after the Last battle, but right now they are still defending their way. And a man tatooting his arms like that, after the caracan, is a living insult to all the Aiel.

 

And in a time where you can fight a duel over something like a look, this happens. And its not only the Aiel. Just look at some of the Borderlanders, their constant dueling in Kandor etc(remember what Lan thinks when he storms into Chuchin on his horse(bah misspelled) in New Spring, that he proberly sparked a dousin of duels if they just had had time to challenge him :)

[The Doctor]

Look at Ebou Dar!!  Go start a thread about how evil the Ebou Dari are for killing each other over nothing.  A mother would rather see her son killed in a duel than back down.  That society is easily as warped.  Are they "savages?" 

 

And moral relativism is far from bullshit.  We tend to sit on the high horse of our culture, but that horses legs aren't as long as most seem to think.  We didn't involve ourselves in WWII because we were morally righteous, we did it because we were protecting our interests.  And putting Japanese Americans on the west coast into camps was a political move, just smoke and mirrors to keep the mob (not mafia mob, I mean the mob of public opinion) happy.  It wasn't done because they thought there were Japanese spies living here.  One of the most decorated units in our military in the European theater was of Japanese decent.  Our ties to our European allies date back to our origin as a nation.  Our reason for breaking off from Britain in the 1700's wasn't cultural, it was economic, so it's only natural that we would remain allies with them later because we shared a similar cultural belief system.  Hitler on the other hand was a complete megalomaniac and had he succeeded in his quest to make the Third Reich a reality it would have killed any advantage we had in trade with Europe, and threatened all of our national interests around the world, as would complete supremacy of the Japanese in the Pacific.  We didn't fight WWII because we were good guys, we did it because we wanted to cover our own ass.

 

IF society taught us it was good to kill and enslave people, and we had no knowledge that it wasn't, then yes, it would be so.  Our society knows that these things are wrong because they are counterproductive to living in the way we want to live, essentially that's why they are viewed as wrong by us.  If slavery were still a government endorsed institution (and I am not referring to the slavery in America, I mean slavery like in Rome, where anyone could be a slave), and that's the culture you were raised in, and the education you received reflected that culture then you would believe it is a good thing.  Our culture values individual freedom, and living happily, getting what you earn.  That's why we view killing, slavery and theft as bad things, because those things take away our personal freedoms.

 

While we may be thinking beings, at the end of the day what we really are is Homo Sapiens, mammals, and pert of the animal kingdom.  Being thinking beings doesn't make us any better then chickens or cows, it just makes us smarter.  it gives us an ability to create and work with tools and puts us at the top of the food chain. That's all. It also makes more likely to not only destroy ourselves, but to take the other kingdoms and phylum and species with us when we take our big dirt nap.  The ability to think should of course take us above this, but we are all deep down still saddled with the reptile mind, underneath all our layers of ego and superego and id, that's what still ultimately rules our decision making process.

[Hybrid]

OK, I agree that my analogy was kinda crappy.  I thought it up spur of the moment and decided to post it almost as an afterthought.  So to hell with it, and listen to Tel Janin's.

 

The bottom line is Mangin tried to act like the savage he is in a civilized country, where all problems, real or perceived, are not solved by killing someone. He shows no remorse for his crime, he even thinks Rand agrees that it was right to kill someone over a joke.

Cairhien is civilized?  This is a country where the nobles regularly conspire to kill each other and don't give a damn about how the common peasants fair.  After all, they're just peasants.  And you call them civilized?  Life is no more valued in Cairhien than it is in Aiel society, but at least the Aiel have the guts to be honest about it. 

 

That's the reason I see ji'e'toh in a better light than other cultures.  Because they are brutally honest with each other.  They don't have false attitudes of superiority.  We like to justify our own actions behind nice words and reasons.  Then we look down on cultures where those actions aren't so hidden behind the fancy excuses and call them savage.

 

Think about it.  Someone brought up the Aiel considering killing each other over a love affair.  Is that exempt from our society?  We are not nearly so open about it, but I'm sure most of us have wished violence towards someone in the past out of jealousy.  Perhaps not so extremely, but the urge is there.

[Perrin 187]

If we are appyling moral relativism to the wheel of time world than you could say that the DO is good and that rand, perrin, and mat, are the evil guys. And that would be truth, according to moral relativism. Chaos and death are acceptable realties and truths according to moral relativism.

 

Personally I'm in the middle, some things are determined by culture and are subjective to the times and other things like killing someone outright like Mangin and the enslavement under the seacheans, the way tairen lords act are just wrong. Mangin and the aiel could have solved the situation a lot better. If the aiel chiefs and Mangin told the guy what that mean't to them and what they had to go through to get that mark. And just reasoned with him, I'm sure he would have removed it. But no Mangin just killed him. Most of the cultures in Randland like Tear aren't any better either. All societies do things that are wrong according to us. But some things are just wrong.

[Hybrid]

I'm not saying that I believe Mangin was right in what he did.  By my set of values, he was wrong.  But what I disagree with is saying statements like:

I'm saying that Aiel culture lied to Mangin

The bottom line is Mangin tried to act like the savage he is in a civilized country

 

[Braus]

Look at Ebou Dar!!  Go start a thread about how evil the Ebou Dari are for killing each other over nothing.  A mother would rather see her son killed in a duel than back down.  That society is easily as warped.  Are they "savages?" 

 

And moral relativism is far from bullshit.  We tend to sit on the high horse of our culture, but that horses legs aren't as long as most seem to think.  We didn't involve ourselves in WWII because we were morally righteous, we did it because we were protecting our interests.  And putting Japanese Americans on the west coast into camps was a political move, just smoke and mirrors to keep the mob (not mafia mob, I mean the mob of public opinion) happy.  It wasn't done because they thought there were Japanese spies living here.  One of the most decorated units in our military in the European theater was of Japanese decent.  Our ties to our European allies date back to our origin as a nation.  Our reason for breaking off from Britain in the 1700's wasn't cultural, it was economic, so it's only natural that we would remain allies with them later because we shared a similar cultural belief system.  Hitler on the other hand was a complete megalomaniac and had he succeeded in his quest to make the Third Reich a reality it would have killed any advantage we had in trade with Europe, and threatened all of our national interests around the world, as would complete supremacy of the Japanese in the Pacific.  We didn't fight WWII because we were good guys, we did it because we wanted to cover our own ass.

 

IF society taught us it was good to kill and enslave people, and we had no knowledge that it wasn't, then yes, it would be so.  Our society knows that these things are wrong because they are counterproductive to living in the way we want to live, essentially that's why they are viewed as wrong by us.  If slavery were still a government endorsed institution (and I am not referring to the slavery in America, I mean slavery like in Rome, where anyone could be a slave), and that's the culture you were raised in, and the education you received reflected that culture then you would believe it is a good thing.  Our culture values individual freedom, and living happily, getting what you earn.  That's why we view killing, slavery and theft as bad things, because those things take away our personal freedoms.

 

While we may be thinking beings, at the end of the day what we really are is Homo Sapiens, mammals, and pert of the animal kingdom.  Being thinking beings doesn't make us any better then chickens or cows, it just makes us smarter.  it gives us an ability to create and work with tools and puts us at the top of the food chain. That's all. It also makes more likely to not only destroy ourselves, but to take the other kingdoms and phylum and species with us when we take our big dirt nap.  The ability to think should of course take us above this, but we are all deep down still saddled with the reptile mind, underneath all our layers of ego and superego and id, that's what still ultimately rules our decision making process.

 

Agree with that.

 

Question is imo, is this wrong? When will the perfect world be created? When everyone on the earth live in equal conditions and we got supplies for everyones needs, abit like that Pixlar movie where humans dont work anymore. Or will the world be perfect once all humans think alike? when they are all one unit, maybe to go science fiction mode, once all our beings have merged? If that would happen, would we know the meaning of life?:P or would we just spend time.

[lt;(^-^)gt;]

I don't wish to debate moral relativism, but I can't resist.

 

Just let me ask one question: Relative to what?  "Relative to other sets of morals" is the likely answer.  Well, can't we start to rule out some sets of morals?  For example, "All newborn children should die" is a possible belief.  Would you support the right of people to act on that belief?  Why or why not?

 

When it comes to taking the lives of others, moral relativism is tricky territory.  It's fine to say "in my culture those tattoos are taboo", but quite another thing to say "in my culture you die because of your tattoos".

 

I'm not saying that I believe Mangin was right in what he did.  By my set of values, he was wrong.  But what I disagree with is saying statements like:

I'm saying that Aiel culture lied to Mangin

Would you disagree with "Nazi culture lied to the Germans"?