So, first of all, she begins by saying “sin is …” but when pushed a bit she falls back to “that’s where it starts”. And, second, if e.g. you cornered her and said “look, here’s a case where someone did something awful to someone else, not because he treated her like a thing but because he treated her like a person but one much less important than himself” the answer would be more like “well, that’s just a watered down version of treating people as things” or “yes, fair enough, but it’s very much the same sort of failure” than like “if he didn’t literally treat her as a thing, then he wasn’t doing anything wrong”.
To be clear, I am not saying that what E.W. says to the priest is wrong, I’m saying it’s not intended to be taken strictly literally, just as the great majority of things people say aren’t intended to be taken strictly literally. And I think the same thing applies to Vimes saying “the reason that the rich were so rich was that they managed to spend less money”.
So my read is “E.W. is actually claiming that sin is just treating people like things. She doesn’t want the listener to tone it down to some less absolute position.”
Maybe the listener gets closer to the truth by doing that. But it’s not what E.W. intends. If the listener gets closer to the truth by adding nuance, then E.W. loses points both for being wrong and for interrupting to say “no nuance!” If E.W. herself tones it down while saying “no nuance!” then, well, let’s notice this and let it affect how seriously we take her in future.
(This doesn’t apply to Vimes, who was never challenged; or to Pratchett, who should not in general be assumed to endorse things his characters say.)
So, first of all, she begins by saying “sin is …” but when pushed a bit she falls back to “that’s where it starts”. And, second, if e.g. you cornered her and said “look, here’s a case where someone did something awful to someone else, not because he treated her like a thing but because he treated her like a person but one much less important than himself” the answer would be more like “well, that’s just a watered down version of treating people as things” or “yes, fair enough, but it’s very much the same sort of failure” than like “if he didn’t literally treat her as a thing, then he wasn’t doing anything wrong”.
To be clear, I am not saying that what E.W. says to the priest is wrong, I’m saying it’s not intended to be taken strictly literally, just as the great majority of things people say aren’t intended to be taken strictly literally. And I think the same thing applies to Vimes saying “the reason that the rich were so rich was that they managed to spend less money”.
So my read is “E.W. is actually claiming that sin is just treating people like things. She doesn’t want the listener to tone it down to some less absolute position.”
Maybe the listener gets closer to the truth by doing that. But it’s not what E.W. intends. If the listener gets closer to the truth by adding nuance, then E.W. loses points both for being wrong and for interrupting to say “no nuance!” If E.W. herself tones it down while saying “no nuance!” then, well, let’s notice this and let it affect how seriously we take her in future.
(This doesn’t apply to Vimes, who was never challenged; or to Pratchett, who should not in general be assumed to endorse things his characters say.)