Similarly, when in Carpe Jugulum Granny Weatherwax tells a hapless young Omnian priest “sin is treating people as things, and that’s all there is to it”[1] I don’t think we should actually take Pratchett to be seriously claiming, or even to be representing E.W. as seriously claiming, that there is literally no other moral principle besides “don’t treat people as things”.
“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”
“It’s a lot more complicated than that—”
“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes—”
“But they starts with thinking about people as things...”
(And yes, it’s Carpe Jugulum.)
I feel like you’re saying “okay, but she’s not really saying....” And the E.W. in my head is glaring at you because she just explained that yes she is really saying.
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.)
According to this reddit thread, the full quote is
(And yes, it’s Carpe Jugulum.)
I feel like you’re saying “okay, but she’s not really saying....” And the E.W. in my head is glaring at you because she just explained that yes she is really saying.
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.)