(urth) Necromancy, and Severian on trial

[maru]

Chris wrote:

>
> Maru said:
>
>> Not just unproblematic, but commendable. Severian _could_ have 
>> refused, and doomed the Urthians to their previous doom, but he did 
>> not, he took that cross on himself.  The situation is analogous to a 
>> doomed terminal dying patient (say, a 110 year old man), who somehow 
>> has multiple livers in perfect shape (bear with me), and if you, the 
>> doctor will take that burden on yourself, you can slice out those 
>> livers and give them to a bunch of other people who are about to 
>> perish of not-having-liver-ness, thus saving say a dozen lives while 
>> hastening another out the door.
>
>
> The example you describe is similar to a standard thought problem 
> brought up by (or against) utilitarians, and it's harsher than you 
> describe. Let's say you're a doctor with multiple patients waiting for 
> transplants. In the ER you happen to get a friendless hobo who has 
> nothing wrong with him, he just passed out drunk. Now maybe his liver 
> happens to be shot, but all his other organs are in good shape. As a 
> utilitarian the commendable thing to do is to carve up the hobo for 
> spare parts for your other patients.
>
> But even further than that, in that doctor's position, as a 
> utilitarian, the even BETTER thing for you to do is to send a couple 
> orderlies out around town collecting the homeless until you get as 
> many organs as you need. (Of course it doesn't *have* to be homeless 
> people, but the homeless provide optimal utility because fewer people 
> will be distressed by their passing and they tend to lead low-quality 
> lives anyway).
>
> Now, I understand that there are some utilitarians who would 
> wholeheartedly give the thumbs-up to this (although as far as I can 
> tell *most* of them react to this example by coming up with a 
> rationale as to why they wouldn't really do that), and you may be one 
> of them. However if you don't see why those of us who don't share your 
> view would find this sort of thing disturbing, "ghoulish" even, I 
> don't know what to tell you.
>
I do find that ghoulish: what if you are *wrong*?  Think of all the 
people you just brutally slaughtered, and of the breakdown in public 
order that engenders and all the other side effects of it...  I think it 
tips the scale towards, y'know, not doing that in real life (not to 
mention the whole going to pound-you-in-da-butt prison for the rest of 
your life etc), and so I guess I'd be one of those utilitarians who 
hedges. Now, if I could be darn certain (100%) that such dicing and 
slicing would in fact result in a greater good, than yeah. But of 
course, such an ideal universe we do not live in, and is but an academic 
point.

>> The difference is: Severian's plan /worked/.  All the credit, all the 
>> blame...
>
>
> In the consequentialist world perhaps, but the comment you're 
> responding to was from a duty perspective, and in matters of 
> duty/rules, justification doesn't proceed by results.
>
> Even utilitarian systems, in practice, aren't entirely 
> consequentialist; if you drink two cases of beer, pack up your 4 kids 
> in a car and go driving down the road at 100 mph, even the utilitarian 
> will not morally praise you because by some freak accident this 
> combination of actions just happened to save a bus full of nuns.
>
> There also remains the question: by what standard are you judging 
> Severian's plan "good" (and thus his actions "good", because the plan 
> worked)? And this is ultimately the exact same question we started 
> with when trying to judge Severian. Appealing to his success does not 
> advance us any steps closer to an answer to this.
>
We strive for plans maximizing good. Severian's actions, while having 
horrible intermediate results, results in greater good, both in theory
and in practice (the Green man remember); we applaude.

>> Another thing: Severian is the rightful autarch of Urth; as a 
>> feudal/fascist ruler, he claims
>> ultimate authority over his subjects.  No wonder he wouldn't worry 
>> whether he should do it or not.
>
>
> He is not the Autarch of Urth, he is the Autarch of the Commonwealth, 
> a single kingdom on Urth among others. But even if he were the Autarch 
> of all of Urth, why should this matter to *us* in judging his character?
>
Because what you do with things has different moral values depending on 
whose you think they are (ex. moving a TV from house to house depends on 
just who you think owns it, one is helpful and the other is theft.). And 
I'm pretty sure the Autarch is the 'legal' ruler of Urth, from all the 
other planets views anyway. And if the Hierodules didn't think so as 
well, why would a petty ruler of one little kingdom have been chosen as 
Epitome mm?  The Autarch as legitmate ruler of Urth (but not de facto) 
was certainly the impression I got. Anyone care to weigh in?

> As a side note with talk of fascism running rampant in the list I find 
> myself reflecting that tyranny and fascism were not aspects that I 
> strongly associated with Autarchy when I first read the books. My 
> first impression, even at this point, when someone calls Severian "the 
> Autarch" is to think: self-ruled, self-ruler. Only by extension do I 
> reach an idea of governing others.
>
"To rule others, first rule yourself" ?

>> It could be that as Autarch, he has already been judged or advised so 
>> many times, by people so far above the norm in intelligence, 
>> knowledge, and experience that he doesn't give a flip about what the 
>> reader may think, he stands with the giants, and their appraisal is 
>> what matters.
>
>
> Except that he obviously does care about the reader's opinion of his 
> actions, even down to his relationships with various women.
>
> In subsequent conversation since your post it has been cited that 
> Severian doesn't appear to even recognize the consequences of what 
> he's going to do until he gets to the trial. This is interesting, but 
> I think that he is either being evasive with us on this point and 
> pretending ignorance, or else he kept himself *willfully* ignorant up 
> to that point. Severian is perfectly aware that natives of Urth - 
> perhaps even *most* natives of Urth - do not like what he is planning 
> on doing, would stop him if they could, and may even try to kill him. 
> How does he know this without having some clue as to why they're so 
> dead set against his project? And doesn't it seem odd that he would 
> not ask this question, even as they did try to kill him?
>
Before he became Autarch (the subsequent events on Urth are veild to us 
and are of little help with answering your questions) I can find
only two incidents of anti-New Sun ness; the magicians, who give no 
reason for it, and which forces Severian to guess why (I don't think his
guess is either affirmed or denied by anything; I could be wrong 
however.) and Typhon, who Sev would dismiss as not having any reasons
worth considering because Typhon has a... shall we say 'vested interest' 
in the matter?  And once he became Autarch it was a bit late to 
reconsider his views.

> Severian in this respect is a figure of - for lack of a better word - 
> "fanatical" certainty. And this seems a certainty based more on some 
> intuition or faith, some inherent value he holds, rather than a matter 
> of rational deliberation.
> ...
> Civet
>
~Maru

Incidentally Iowerth, reading the dailies and mags in Britain, I think I 
figured out what you were referring to;
you were referencing the Tories plans to, if they win the 2005 general 
elections (req. since it has been whatever years
since the last, and nobody called an election voluntarily) and form a 
gov.'t etc, hold the line on increased public
spending at least a little. Right?