(urth) What's So Great About Ushas?

[Lane Haygood]

Now we've strayed into my territory (philosophy!).

I think that the analysis given of the Hierogrammates is too one- 
sided, ethically.  We're assuming that morality works on a broadly  
utilitarian basis:  e.g., it is somehow better to save the population  
of Urth than let it pass away.

Rather, if we look at the moral actions internally, we ask whether it  
is morally right for Severian to bring the New Sun, not on the basis  
of what effects it might have, but whether that act was right in and  
of itself.  Analogizing to Biblical morality, look at the use of  
Noah's Flood to wash away what passed for a degenerate Earth/Urth.   
I'm no Catholic, so I don't know if there is a standard dogmatic  
theodicy that is accepted in response to the problem of evil, but I  
think that the majority-Christian view on that argument is the "God  
has his reasons" theodicy.  In other words, it is unquestionable and  
axiomatic that God does only good things.  So sending the Flood (make  
of that what you will) is a good act.  Even if we cannot understand  
how it is good, if God has his reasons for it, they may be beyond what  
we can understand, being finite mortals and all

Then again, the Hieros don't suffer from God's disability in this  
case, as it were.  They're not perfect beings, so they don't have to  
always act perfectly good.  They may see it necessary to do evil in  
order to do some greater good, so they may accept that Severian must  
destroy Urth to get to Ushas. After all, this is eschatology and  
genesis we're talking about here, death and rebirth.  And perhaps  
we're guilty of imposing a mortal, linear-time-bound morality upon  
beings that are not so bound.  Maybe we view death and destruction as  
"bad" in and of themselves, when really they're just a necessary step  
along the way to birth/rebirth?

Lane
On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:39 PM, b sharp wrote:

>
> Paul B posts:
>> The fundamental moral facts in this case are that 1.) we know they  
>> can save
>> the population of Urth and 2.) they choose not to.  This makes any  
>> outcome
>> morally suspect according to most ethical frameworks.  As long as  
>> 1.) and
>> 2.) are facts, the Hierogrammates cannot be good guys.
>
> and
>> It is the contention of many, and I'd bet the author to be one of  
>> them, that
>> "ethics" is not a strictly human concept.
>
> I think there is a large gap in the broad exposition of your argument,
> that being that we don't need a science fiction story to find a  
> legend of a God
> who has the power to stop all war, genocide, disease and child rape  
> but chooses not
> to.  Extending your argument would seem to demand either that Gene  
> Wolfe feels
> the Judeo-Christian God is morally bankrupt or that Gene Wolfe is an  
> atheist (or both).
> I don't think either is true.
>
> I think any intelligent, thinking Christian eventually is troubled  
> by the classic problem
> of an omnicient, omnipotent God who allows evil to flourish. I  
> suspect the Hierogrammates
> and their relationship with the Increate are an attempt by Gene  
> Wolfe to reconcile the
> contradiction (while injecting a healthy dose of science to explain  
> religion).
>
> -bsharp
> _________________________________________________________________
> Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger.
> http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_072008
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net