[LMB] legal and moral implications of the death of Serg
Judy R. Johnson
jrj at fidalgo.net
Wed Jan 12 05:19:18 GMT 2011
From: lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk
[mailto:lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:09 PM
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Gwynne Powell <gwynnepowell at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Aral thinks the attack on Escobar was terrible, and it destroyed his
> honour as a warrior because he knew the reasons for the whole thing.
> Deaths in war are unavoidable, but in this case the deaths were for
> another reason. But it wasn't an illegal order, because Emperors can
> invade anyone they want - absolute power in action.
Yes. An awful situation, devastating for Aral - but he did what he had to
do. I don't think he even regrets his role, terrible as it was. There are
two reasons it was the right thing to do - it was to save the future and
prevent greater evils; and it was on his Emperor's orders.
So it was terrible, but it wasn't criminal. Not on Aral's part.
NEW from JRJ> Ah. Minor epiphany. It wasn't criminal on Aral's part, and
he acceded because only he could manage the retreat to save the greatest
number of his friends. Even so, he felt he was sacrificing his own honor,
for them and for Barrayar's future.
But I would differ a bit from Gwynne. It was criminal on Ezar's part, and
he and all of them knew it, but he, dying, took the decision upon himself
because he felt it to be necessary for the future of Barrayar and his
Imperial grandson. To have come so far and to see its destruction by Serg -
no. Serg was his son and he would deal with him and this was the only way
that might work. So.
Thinking about all that may have led Aral to develop his view about criminal
orders. Or maybe there's already a long tradition to do with distinguishing
the fine points in this?
Who doubts if the status quo is ever well enough to be let alone
More information about the Lois-Bujold