A failure mode of follow-through

[azurelunatic]

In light of http://xkcd.com/1124/, it occurs to me that one of the failure modes of extreme follow-through, the sort of honor that keeps every promise and discharges every obligation or dies trying, is that it may not give consideration to the balance of good that it's accomplishing by following through, versus how upset affected parties might be when things go awry *during* the follow-through.

Let's contemplate a universe where Lily Aldrin's dad decided that to make up for a decade of bad birthdays, he was going to throw (adult) Lily a fabulous party with clowns, because he had *promised* when she was like six or something. And of course everything goes horribly wrong, and someone looking at the situation without the context of the weight of obligation would probably decide that there was nothing to be actually salvaged from the wreckage, and give the fuck up (much to everybody's relief; Marshall was getting ready to slap someone, and it might not have been Barney). But no, not Lily's old man. HE'S GOING TO FOLLOW THROUGH, DAMMIT. And disaster ensues, and in service of the stated goal (follow through on the promise) he loses sight of the deeper goal (make Lily happy).

A commitment to any promise or principle above all others, without giving consideration to what else gets broken in the process of keeping it, is really seriously best left to fiction. It's a heroic trait: for the hero of a tragedy. In its purest form, it's a tragic flaw waiting for a place to splinter.


I wonder who in Max's life is going to break that way. I have a feeling it'll happen.

Comments

[pne]

in service of the stated goal (follow through on the promise) he loses sight of the deeper goal (make Lily happy).

See also: every zero-tolerance policy ever.

[azurelunatic]

Yes.

[pauamma]

So you have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies? :-)

[pne]

I see what you did there.

[vass]

I once read a Piers Anthony book in which he answered reader mail about a plot point in which a good character was honour-bound to do something evil. A reader wrote in and asked "Why didn't he break his oath?" and Anthony replied "Because UNLIKE YOU, $character understands how important honour is!" I can't remember any other details about that except how pissed off I was.

Then, years later, I read That Scene in A Civil Campaign, and had that wonderful feeling when you're reading a book and the author's been chewing on the same problem you have, and has presented you with the a-ha moment. Divides the world into the dead and the forsworn, yes.

A commitment to any promise or principle above all others, without giving consideration to what else gets broken in the process of keeping it, is really seriously best left to fiction. It's a heroic trait: for the hero of a tragedy. In its purest form, it's a tragic flaw waiting for a place to splinter

O Jephthah, judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou!

[azurelunatic]

Every little thing about him I learn, I like him less.

[elf]

Alexander James Adams has a song, Warlock's Oath, about that issue.

I will use any power I need
To challenge any Holy Rede
Oath or promise I will break
If higher truth is at the stake
...
Broken Word! Traitorous Sign!
Now you've heard the name that's mine!
Truth and Honour: you can't have both
So on these grounds I call the Warlock's Oath!

I get into weird discussions when I point out that Feri has no list of thou-shalt-nots, not even the basic ones that everyone agrees We Must Not Do, because the point is to follow a set of principles, not a script of actions. And you don't get "good people" nor healthy communities by having scripts for what people may and may not do; you wind up with people who think that any situation outside of the script-bundle must be ethical, since they don't have a rule against it, and that any harm caused by the scripts is acceptable, because the script is more important than the results.

[azurelunatic]

It would have saved Aral a lot of trouble if he'd sentenced the boy to death as the law required, and then immediately commuted the sentence to transportation.

[elf]

It still would've been "people with political connections get special privileges." I don't think that one was a clash between honor and "what's really right;" it was a clash between "apply the law as written" and "my whim overrides law--in those cases where I understand the special circumstances."

There was no way to establish a law of "teenage fuckwits being teenage fuckwits don't have to die because they got caught." (I dunno if "teenage" is the operative term, but I think he was under 25.) He could find many ways to save the boy's life--all of which boiled down to "if you've got an in with the Prime Minister, you don't have to face the full legal system." And that, he needed to avoid.

Also, sigh, it left things open for Gregor to be lenient by whim, so people would *want* the untried boy to be Emperor instead of clamouring for the more-experienced PM to stay on as the real power and keep Gregor as a puppet.

[azurelunatic]

That is true.

I think that many, many people who have conflicts of honor do not also have *that* driving of a need to both be and appear impartial.

[cleverthylacine]

This is one of the reasons I distrust impartiality. I'd rather know someone's biases than deal with a person who pretends not to have any and tries to act as if they don't at all times; it's safer when things like that are conscious and can be talked about than when they express themselves through the back ways.

[cleverthylacine]

That right there is why I'm an us even if I'm technically not pagan.

[pauamma]

Interesting. (Is it just me, or do others hear echos of Macdonough's Song in this?)