The Holy Grail of Eris - Vol. 3 Ch. 10 - Honesty's True Face

[SilviScarlet]

I feel so bad for Kevin, he didn't deserve any of this

 

[Verypeeved]

"i can't sleep fall asleep"

you can't grammar either.

 

[epidernise]

thank you for the update !!

 

[Verypeeved]

that poison sounds like nasty stuff. i hope he recovers from it, i'd hate for a perfectly decent person's life to be ruined by his wife's infidelity and some asshole's scheme.

 

[Aria321]

Thanks for the chapter. =)

 

[YueEr]

@Ironclad I think it's more like her father co-signed on a loan for a friend, then that friend ran so he got stuck with the debt.

 

[TheDragonLord]

It also doesn't help that Linus is a total psychopath (possibly, traumatized by whatever evil shit their culture produces). I don't think that she even knew that the drug was killing her husband based upon the characterization (definitely unethical as fuck, but not murderous—she wanted to escape in a world where women had limited power, and what power they did have came from genetics and charisma, which she felt that she lacked. Linus was so twisted, likely from trauma, that he was attracted to her "uggliness", the brokenness inside, but is clearly unhinged and doing this for his own twisted motives). She was depressed, controlled, lonely, and easily manipulated. The psychopath came in, used her weaknesses for his own benefits, and then killed her once he was assured that her usefulness was complete, thus thing up any lose ends that might implicate him in the crime (since Kevin was more powerful than him, and thus he would be squashed for his actions if found out—likely executed). Therefore, he murdered her to avoid that possibility.

I guess the only fucked up redeeming quality is that he held her as she died while whispering his fucked up sentiments.

Now, on a factual basis, I don't think that chest stab would have killed her very quickly unless the dagger was poisoned or he severed her spine, and even then. He didn't but her, or stab her heart, and unless I'm mistaken, that may well have only gotten her guts. It would have taken quite a while for her to bleed out given how long it typically takes, unless she died of sudden shock.

Author's really need to work better at the believability of death scenes. Yeah, while it looks all emotional, I feel like the moment he leaves, she'd go call for help. I mean, he left the knife in which would have less bleeding than if he pulled it out. =P

 

[Nunally]

I noticed that Linus has some "mark" in his hand, I think it is some hidden cult mark

 

[Kalamel]

@YOLF

Finally, there is someone see the hard truth. Yes, Constance's father is many thing, optimistic, idealistic, idiot, naive, fool, stupid, selfish, egocentric, shortsighted, irresponsible, etc. But no one can truly describe he as wrong. It's easy to say he is wrong because his friend defaulted, but if everything is the same, except his friend honored his debt, would this same action of the father somehow turned 'right', when he did everything as same as when we said he is wrong? Are you saying it is just coincident that he is wrong?

Starting with @Kuroageha @Alamut @AnonymousWeeaboo @Korvalus
I calls to everyone who are holding their moral high ground, obsessed with what they think is 'right', truly 'honest' people to take a look into their reasoning again, not just follow those around you but think for yourselves, and look into why what he had done was 'wrong'. This topic isn't new at all. So I summons the spirit of one of the greatest philosopher in history to present you alternative point of view on this topic. I, in my unworthiness, present you 'Kantian Ethics', from Immanuel Kant.

I doesn't expect you to change your conclusion, but to broaden your horizon that behind what you quickly labeled as stupid lies a pile of valid reasons, even you're disagree with them. Just skip my monologue if you're satisfy with your knowledge and don't mind indulge a bit in ignorance, it is your choice and no one can judge you.

For those never took a glance at philosophical study of 'Ethics', basic of it is argue about what we should do. Most of you guys argued that Viscount Grail was wrong because his action bring harm to other under his protection. This line of thinking is a part of 'Consequentialism' that hold that a decision is right or wrong depended on the consequences of it, or practically, expected consequences. Thus same action can be right or wrong depends on external factors. It is wrong to kill your child unless it seems to be an only way to save your other children, something like that.

On the other hand, Kantian ethics is part of 'Deontology' that hold that right or wrong is determined by clear sets of rules. Kant is famous for this because he derived rules based solely on reasoning, thus very hard to dispute, even though they are described as heartless, inhumane, impractical, inflexible by critics. The concept of his rules is hard to explain so if anyone want to look further just use keyword 'categorical imperative'. Short conclusion about this is what right is right and what wrong is wrong, no exception. It is always right to save a man, even by doing so you're putting the whole world in danger.

It is wrong to lie to a murderer seeking to kill your friends when he asking you where is your friend he want to kill. This was discussed by Kant himself against Benjamin Constant (Not Constance Grail, but maybe Author knew).

For those who say that the viscount is not honest, please look at him in light of Deontology reasoning. He will ALWAYS do what is right, no matter what. If a villain order him to kill you or he will nuke New York, he will NOT kill you. If he have control of a deathstar and D*rth V*der order him to destroy the Earth or he will psychokinesis snap the neck of Constance Grail, he will NOT destroy the Earth. That is HIS honesty. It might not what your define, but still the honesty in some sense.

Also it is not wrong to choose Consequentialism over Deontology, or vice versa. This battle still far from over.

Another modern argument about this, if I still have your attention, is "Two men are driving under influence (DUI: drunk and driving). Arthur drove until he was caught and fined. Benjamin drove on the same route as Arthur, in an identical sedan, have same blood alcohol content, under same weather condition. Only different is there was an old man tried to cross the road but drunken Benjamin cannot response and hit him to death and was caught and charged with man-slaughtering. Why does Benjamin receive harsher punishment for the same action?"

Again, my post is just to open a meaningful discussion, if you disagree or not interested, just curse me and left. I understand.

 

[Kuroageha]

@Kalamel
Bruh, the whole issue goes beyond good and evil to the character discussed, Constance's father, is but a huge pile of hypocrisy that came
to be the talk because his philosophy of what is right is based on Results no matter what kind of means he uses, however he has yet to produce results so far which is why the critiques goes against his modus operandi (throwing his family under the bus for a goal he couldn't even reach) you'll see this pattern be repeated eventually in this this series: people who abuse the 'the mwana justify the enda' but so have far never produced results and what's worse are the silent accomplices of the status quo who are willing to make sacrifices of innocent people because someone else might produce those results they couldn't due to their sheer cowardy and ineptitude.
It will be infuriating, trust me, I know.

 

[Korvalus]

@Kalamel: Braved the whole text. Thought hard afterwards about what you said. Now I have a headache. Thank you for that, it meant you succeded.

Continuing you message, I will first state how I see the father. As I see it and said it before, I think that he's a good man, with a strong set of morals and the compass in a direction that leads him to be a good person and ensure that those around him are as good as him, or at least as close to that as they can be. For that I can find him wholeheartedly admirable. The bigger fault that I find in him is that he's uncompromising in his beliefs. For him, his ideals and what they expect must be followed in letter and spirit, consequences for you be damned. However he's a person that assume the consequences of his actions the best he can even if that brings him to ruin.

The muddy part I find en the issue, is that the consequences are not his alone, but his family's or his subjects' and he knows it or he should know it. People see that he has disregarded their opinions and wellbeing for the sake of his beliefs and what he alone sees is "right", even if both groups support his decisions. That's where people doesn't see him as a good person, for not taking into account that the people closest to him might suffer for the decision he alone took. (Basically, by the Consecuentialism you refer, he's not a good person, even if by Deontology he could be)

However, the issue that I have with him is not related to if his actions are inherently right or wrong by any means, but with how other people would react to his attitude. By my own experience, people doesn't treat good persons that are lacking in intelligence or willpower. People that are good but weak, are taken advantage of time and again. Just because they're too good to say no, but not strong enough to say so even if they want to. And that's even before taking into account the absolute vipers' nest that it's high society in that kingdom. And that's something that he should know not only as a proper adult, but also as a member of that kind of nobility.

Tl:dr: I see him as a honestly good if inflexible person that he'd do anything for doing what he believes it's right; but that opens him to take more that he can chew and make people suffer for it and to be used and preyed upon. I don't see as he being "right" or "wrong" in absolute terms, but rather as a good intention and action handled badly due to inflexibleness.

 

[yannickq]

Ayy our MC finally growing up~

No matter what, I don't believe her father is a good man. Ultimately he chose his family values over his family. Even if his friend had repaid the debt, it doesn't change the fact that he became a guarantor for another loan when his family already had a history of economic misfortune and being swindled. That's not honour, that's being blind to reality.

@Kalamel Kant's basic concept of the deontology and CI has flaws, most notably the lying to a murderer critique (but all theories have flaws). To begin with, one must "never treat others merely as a means but as an end in themselves" (2nd formulation), however it seems clear that her father treats his family and his family's territory as a means to secure and maintain his reputation. He became the guarantor under the guise of honesty and upholding values, but in reality he sold out his family (which doesn't seem like it would sit well with the 1st formulation). Remember, they were not well off to begin with as he had fallen prey multiple times to such loans.

If anything, I'd say the father's actions are closer to Kierkegaard's despair of finitude (or Sarte's bad faith). He acts according to the principle of honesty because it's all he's known and what the world expects of him. Unlike our MC who (finally) realises she is free to choose and capable stepping out from the shadow of "honesty".

Got a little carried away there. If it's not obvious, I really like philosophy (and I dislike her father).

 

[AnonymousWeeaboo]

@Kalamel I disregard your entire monologue because you're defending a man who sold his daughter into an arranged marriage to bail other people out of debt. Constance's father is by no means a good person, he recklessly follows his interpretation of an ideal he wants to uphold, damn the consequences to those around him. Constance's father is a terrible person, regardless of his intentions. I also despise Kant and his retarded moral objectivism. He was wrong, it should be self-evident, but if I need to spell it out then it's an absolutely horrible thing to tell a murderer that wants to kill your friends where your friends actually are, especially if you know that he's a murderer and wants to kill your friends, regardless of your rule to never lie. Morality is not a rigid set of rules, nor can it be considered to be objective in any sense (hence how I can reject the Deontologists and Kant). Kant was wrong, the Deontologists are wrong, and Constance's father is wrong. His "honesty" is him pretending to be a good person while selling out everyone he is responsible for and everything he has just to keep his reputation and follow his ideology.

 

[Kalamel]

Glad to see that most of critics here are not just unthinking blind bigots. And yannickq reminded me that I haven't congratulate Constant on her resolution yet. Got too carried away by oneside criticism in comments.

@Kuroageha
You seem to know some spoilers (I don't want to know yet, but you can share them under spoiler if you want, but I won't read it yet) so I can't totally dismiss your claim. But so far I don't yet see that his philosophy is"what is right is based on Results no matter what kind of means he uses" that you claimed, maybe it will happen later in story. But so far I found it hard to understand your points based on current events. Only thing I can argue with is that "means justify the end" is not wrong by itself because in practical, no one really know the end. It is the same with entrusting other to produce the correct results that he thinks he is not in the position to produce it himself. It might sound irresponsible, too trusting and optimistic to the fault, but in the other hands it means that he treats that other person as equal, autonomous human beings who will do the right thing, not an inferior he must acts for him. Rarely realistic in reality but admirable in spirit.

@Korvalus
Just by making you think in other pov is already success for me, sorry for unintended headache. And what you said so far are all reasonable. Yes he is good and admirable person for his insistence on his moral. An ideal person for a judge, good for minority voices in parliament, questionable for a diplomat, and risky choice for a president or PM. Glad I can introduce you to basic Ethics, I think it is necessary think to know before one can reasonably judge other, because social norms alone were, and still are proven to be insufficient.
Sadly you're right on his public image, that is one reason I want to bring another pov to discuss. But public image are always fragile before ignorant crowd, as we already saw in Scarlet's case, and in first chapter.
Now you're pretty much followed Constant in her understanding of other morals, and making your own, congrats.

@yannickq
Glad to see another philosophy lover here. Your points about guaranteed a loan when yourself is already have financial trouble is valid, assuming his friend is clearly incapable to honor his debt, which we don't know yet.
I already brought out his argument on murder critique, and awared of it flaws. To be honest, on my first read I can't help but blamed him for being irresponsible and saw his counter examples as unrealistic, but I can't argue on duty to be honest. How can one justify lying for his own advantage? Accepting that would allows anyone to arbitrarily lie for their own ends. Not to mention derelict of duty for the same reason.
My views on the viscount moral is slightly different from you, though not with solid evidence. I don't think he choose his way because he doesn't know better. I interpret that he was resolved on this way because he want to. His growing environment have influenced that decision though, but he still carries on nonetheless. Thus I see he is using his family, and friends too, as means to adhere to what he believes as the right thing for humanity, not his reputation.
And I found philosophers hating each other as quite good and refreshing, because they carried no malice and still respect each other, though not their ideas. It gave us many hotly but fruitful arguments.

@AnonymousWeeaboo
Feel free to disregard it because you seem to understand ethics enough already. Though your stated reasons are laughable. First, he did not sold Conny, but rather the ex-fiance is the one who proposed, with reasonable benefits for each other, and Conny willingly agree even when her father ask again. The couple even managed to have good relationship until the end. Second, resolution to uphold belief that one think, with regards to other options, is what free human should do. What's wrong with it? On the other hand you discarding of this whole argument, along with Kant's argument, are seem to be justified with emotion, not reasons. To me, that's self-evidently wrong, but if I have to spell it out then it's disgusting to discarded other reasoning because you feel it is wrong but can't find any reasons to state what is wrong other than that you feel it is wrong. It is just ranting, and quite resemble worse version of Constance's view on moral before this chapter. I can agree with you that moral objectivism is quite unrealistic, but I argue that striving to make it even a bit more real is absolutely better than having anarchy where everyone can justify whatever they did, however horrible it was. That's what Hobbs described in the Leviathan.

 

[AnonymousWeeaboo]

@Kalamel It's eminently reasonable and understandable to throw out an argument when I don't agree with it. It is, in fact, what you would expect somebody to do. After all, why would I respect a position I find to be incorrect?

I don't know how you could call it a good relationship when he was cheating on her the entire time. Constance may have agreed to it, but the fact that he allowed it in the first place is just selling out his daughter for money. He may not have sought it out, and he may not have forced her to do it, but that makes it no less selling out his daughter for money.

I don't know how to tell you this, but morality is extremely emotional. It is almost entirely what you personally (or society, if used in a more general sense) find to be reprehensible and what you personally find to be good. There's nothing more or less to it, and trying to apply an objective framework to it is laughable at best, and generally meaningless. Kant's view of just giving up his friends to a murderer isn't noble, it's morally wrong and stupid. I would argue it's not even desirable, either, since any set of rules is subject to interpretation, and additionally not everybody will agree in every circumstance. I wouldn't call this anarchy, either, because we're not talking about laws and governments, we're talking about morality, and it doesn't actually matter if the murderer can justify his actions to himself or not.

Hobbs was also almost entirely incorrect, but that's escaping the purview of this discussion. Suffice to say, he completely failed to consider the possibility that the monarch could be just as corrupt (if not moreso) as a council, nor was he correct that without an absolute power it would be every man fighting every other man, and instead it is actually the case that men will band together to fight off bands of other opposing men, and eventually a new order would arise from the chaos, with or without an absolute power on top, and it may even be preferable that this takes place anyway to replace an old and dilapidated order.

 

[Binbin]

Connie is so cool, I can't wait to see what she's gonna do with her newfound honesty.

 

[Morsealworth]

Here, repeat after me: "Eris wears pads"

 

[EvilTwinn]

It must be remembered that her father jumped at the chance to accept a marriage that would make him financially solvent again. This is remeniscent of the historical nobility essentially selling their daughters for cash infusions from rich merchants who wanted to increase their station, or that of their children.
To tell the truth, I very much look down on people who waste so much effort studying ethics. If you can't make the determination of what is good and evil for yourself, you're probably not worth listening to. Mr. Grail is clearly ultimately causing harm to those around him. He has a responsibility to his family to take care of them. He has a contractual obligation to his subjects to look after them through both security and public works. If this is based on proper feudalism, he has a contractual obligation to the state to provide money and men when called upon. Being unable to manage one's own generosity to the point where his empty coffers and massive debts both prevent him from fulfilling those obligations and duties as well as outright endangering those around him, he is in deriliction of his foremost duties in exchange for feeling better about himself. While he is a moral man with a strong ethical code, his inflexible code has made things worse by his own hand, even if he doesn't acknowledge his responsibility.

 

[lovolo]

So Linus is part of the conspiracy huh? I hope Connie survives

 

[reaper89]

so many words in this comments