In Chapter 18, Addy sends Elspeth to get magically tortured by Jane, on the theory that Elspeth will be able to send that memory to people as a weapon. It worked, albeit with limited potency. In Chapter 21, when this comes up, Jake, Ilario, and Maggie all agree that this was a particularly evil act.
I’d just like to point out that the morality of this decision is actually rather complicated, and that different ethical frameworks give different answers about whether it’s okay or not. While being tortured was certainly bad, Elspeth did get a minor power in return. This much was foreseeable and, in fact, foreseen. Now, it is possible that at some point in the future, having this power will allow her to survive a situation she otherwise couldn’t, or save someone she otherwise couldn’t. This, too, is foreseeable, but uncertain. There is overlap with the deluge-of-memory power, which Elspeth acquired later, but not so much overlap that it couldn’t still be useful; and acquiring the deluge-of-memory power was not necessarily foreseeable.
If having the Jane-lite power does in fact save Elspeth’s life, then Addy’s decision will reduce to having forced Elspeth to trade a few seconds of torture for survival later. This is a scaled-down version of the decision humans make when deciding whether to turn into vampires—a smaller amount of pain for a smaller increase in power and a smaller probability of it making the difference between life and death. Note that a supermajority of the humans presented with the option to turn have taken it (though it hasn’t been unanimous).
According to a utilitarian framework, whether it was right to send Elspeth to be tortured depends on Addy’s estimate of the probability that the Jane-lite power proves useful, and the relative values of survival and avoiding torture. To a utilitarian, Addy’s motive (increasing her own power and maintaining social dominance over Elspeth) is irrelevant.
But according to a deontological moral framework, that doesn’t matter because Addy, being neither Elspeth nor Elspeth’s legal guardian, didn’t have the authority to make that decision. On the other hand, there doesn’t seem to be any person who actually would have that authority—Elspeth’s a minor, Jake’s decision-making is tainted by magic, Bella is unreachable, and the decision couldn’t be put off for long enough to resolve any of these. So a slightly different deontological framework—one that required at least one person with the authority to trade torture for power to exist, and excluded Elspeth from that role—would make an exception.
Finally, when considering the virtue-ethics question of how virtuous Addy is, all that is screened off by the fact that she’s a serial killer who eats humans.
But at some point, I think, we ought to have a character consider the question and acknowledge the ambiguity.
According to a utilitarian framework, whether it was right to send Elspeth to be tortured depends on Addy’s estimate of the probability that the Jane-lite power proves useful, and the relative values of survival and avoiding torture. To a utilitarian, Addy’s motive (increasing her own power and maintaining social dominance over Elspeth) is irrelevant.
Addy did not bother to make that estimate. To that extent, her motive may be relevant, mayn’t it?
An approximation of that estimate is encoded in the belief that having more power is better than having less (and in particular, the degree to which that is so). Not necessarily a good estimate, but at least an estimate. And besides, Addy’s motive is only relevant to the question of whether she’s good or evil (already answered by the fact that she eats people), not to the question of whether her decision was right or wrong.
If you mean “the question of whether her decision was right or wrong” independent of Addy’s mental state, then why do you say it depends on “Addy’s estimate of the probability that the Jane-lite power proves useful” rather than depending on the usefulness of the Jane-lite power?
It seems odd to take Addy’s mental state into account with one hand and ignore it with the other.
But the characters in the story aren’t debating whether her decision was or was not possible to justify under a utilitarian framework. They’re reacting to the (new-to-them) knowledge that she’s evil, and they get that by observing the carelessness with which she coerces a child into experiencing torture.
You might think that they should have already known that Addy’s evil, but of course Jake has previously been under magical influence leading him to like and make excuses for the Volturi (including Addy), and Maggie is probably not inclined to write a vampire off as evil “just” because they murder people, since she spent a great deal of time doing exactly that herself.
Spoilers up to Chapter 21
In Chapter 18, Addy sends Elspeth to get magically tortured by Jane, on the theory that Elspeth will be able to send that memory to people as a weapon. It worked, albeit with limited potency. In Chapter 21, when this comes up, Jake, Ilario, and Maggie all agree that this was a particularly evil act.
I’d just like to point out that the morality of this decision is actually rather complicated, and that different ethical frameworks give different answers about whether it’s okay or not. While being tortured was certainly bad, Elspeth did get a minor power in return. This much was foreseeable and, in fact, foreseen. Now, it is possible that at some point in the future, having this power will allow her to survive a situation she otherwise couldn’t, or save someone she otherwise couldn’t. This, too, is foreseeable, but uncertain. There is overlap with the deluge-of-memory power, which Elspeth acquired later, but not so much overlap that it couldn’t still be useful; and acquiring the deluge-of-memory power was not necessarily foreseeable.
If having the Jane-lite power does in fact save Elspeth’s life, then Addy’s decision will reduce to having forced Elspeth to trade a few seconds of torture for survival later. This is a scaled-down version of the decision humans make when deciding whether to turn into vampires—a smaller amount of pain for a smaller increase in power and a smaller probability of it making the difference between life and death. Note that a supermajority of the humans presented with the option to turn have taken it (though it hasn’t been unanimous).
According to a utilitarian framework, whether it was right to send Elspeth to be tortured depends on Addy’s estimate of the probability that the Jane-lite power proves useful, and the relative values of survival and avoiding torture. To a utilitarian, Addy’s motive (increasing her own power and maintaining social dominance over Elspeth) is irrelevant.
But according to a deontological moral framework, that doesn’t matter because Addy, being neither Elspeth nor Elspeth’s legal guardian, didn’t have the authority to make that decision. On the other hand, there doesn’t seem to be any person who actually would have that authority—Elspeth’s a minor, Jake’s decision-making is tainted by magic, Bella is unreachable, and the decision couldn’t be put off for long enough to resolve any of these. So a slightly different deontological framework—one that required at least one person with the authority to trade torture for power to exist, and excluded Elspeth from that role—would make an exception.
Finally, when considering the virtue-ethics question of how virtuous Addy is, all that is screened off by the fact that she’s a serial killer who eats humans.
But at some point, I think, we ought to have a character consider the question and acknowledge the ambiguity.
Addy did not bother to make that estimate. To that extent, her motive may be relevant, mayn’t it?
An approximation of that estimate is encoded in the belief that having more power is better than having less (and in particular, the degree to which that is so). Not necessarily a good estimate, but at least an estimate. And besides, Addy’s motive is only relevant to the question of whether she’s good or evil (already answered by the fact that she eats people), not to the question of whether her decision was right or wrong.
Now you’ve confused me.
If you mean “the question of whether her decision was right or wrong” independent of Addy’s mental state, then why do you say it depends on “Addy’s estimate of the probability that the Jane-lite power proves useful” rather than depending on the usefulness of the Jane-lite power?
It seems odd to take Addy’s mental state into account with one hand and ignore it with the other.
But the characters in the story aren’t debating whether her decision was or was not possible to justify under a utilitarian framework. They’re reacting to the (new-to-them) knowledge that she’s evil, and they get that by observing the carelessness with which she coerces a child into experiencing torture.
You might think that they should have already known that Addy’s evil, but of course Jake has previously been under magical influence leading him to like and make excuses for the Volturi (including Addy), and Maggie is probably not inclined to write a vampire off as evil “just” because they murder people, since she spent a great deal of time doing exactly that herself.