The questionable morality of the code of honor

[INCBlackbird]

I don’t get why people find honor such an important and even good thing, especially in the world of game of thrones where it is used as a code that condemns people when they were doing the right thing!

the honor code isn’t based on right and wrong it’s based on oaths that people have to make (in some cases forced to) in order to protect high lords. it’s by no means a code we, with our knowledge as readers, should justify.

the reason people who break their oath are sentenced to death is not because they deserve to die but because it scares others into keeping their oath.

and yes, in the world of asoiaf it is very common and is considered to be a valid way of judging people, but that doesn't mean characters can't think for themselves and don't make their own conclusions. take davos for example, he does what he believes is the right thing, weither it is honorable or not.

so yeah discuss :)

[Lord Reaver]

Honor is the greenlander excuse for oppression and sheer stupidity. That is all.

[INCBlackbird]

Honor is the greenlander excuse for oppression and sheer stupidity. That is all.

couldn't agree more.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Spot on.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

I don’t get why people find honor such an important and even good thing, especially in the world of game of thrones where it is used as a code that condemns people when they were doing the right thing!

the honor code isn’t based on right and wrong it’s based on oaths that people have to make (in some cases forced to) in order to protect high lords. it’s by no means a code we, with our knowledge as readers, should justify.

the reason people who break their oath are sentenced to death is not because they deserve to die but because it scares others into keeping their oath.

and yes, in the world of asoiaf it is very common and is considered to be a valid way of judging people, but that doesn't mean characters can't think for themselves and don't make their own conclusions. take davos for example, he does what he believes is the right thing, weither it is honorable or not.

so yeah discuss :)

Honour is a device for controlling people behaviours, tangling them to the system own advantage.

Just like being 'unlawful' in our own modern society, trespassing and ignoring this societal standard puts a person into danger: it is accepted that whoever breaks the 'rule' taking unfair advantage can be made pay for it.

Oaths are rudimentary forms of contracts. Differently from the latter ones however, they are filled up with idealized and high-expectations terms, and - unlike in modern society - unfair exchange: with few words one can bind himself into life-long 'devotion' to a cause, agreeing to be put on death in the remote chance a 'second thought' arises on the matter. That's more like slavery condition than freedom. Again, in a society where peasant life values almost nothing because replacements can easily be found, this works well as a societal control device. We have to thank the middle-class for extending a more realistic interpretation of the world state of affairs on legislation, however.

[Annara Snow]

I agree with the OP. We see the flaws in that idea of "honor" early on. Ned Stark beheads a ranger for deserting the NW, and his only crime was being terrified of the Others, for good reason. He and the majority of people admire Dayne, Hightower, Selmy and others for upholding their KG oaths - which included standing by and doing nothing while the Mad King was raping his wife and burning innocent people or murdering them in other gruesome ways, while Jaime is despised for doing what should have been done, getting rid of the tyrant (it wasn't necessary to know he was going to burn the city to see Aerys was a mad tyrant).

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I agree with the OP. We see the flaws in that idea of "honor" early on. Ned Stark beheads a ranger for deserting the NW, and his only crime was being terrified of the Others, for good reason. He and the majority of people admire Dayne, Hightower, Selmy and others for upholding their KG oaths - which included standing by and doing nothing while the Mad King was raping his wife and burning innocent people or murdering them in other gruesome ways, while Jaime is despised for doing what should have been done, getting rid of the tyrant (it wasn't necessary to know he was going to burn the city to see Aerys was a mad tyrant).

Uh, desertion anyone? That's a capital crime even today.

Don't be fooled by the PoV structure.

[Rhaegar the Dragon Prince]

Honour is a device for controlling people behaviours, tangling them to the system own advantage.

Pretty much.

The code of chivalry in our world was pretty much about obeying laws, fearing god and obeying those above you.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

I agree with the OP. We see the flaws in that idea of "honor" early on. Ned Stark beheads a ranger for deserting the NW, and his only crime was being terrified of the Others, for good reason. He and the majority of people admire Dayne, Hightower, Selmy and others for upholding their KG oaths - which included standing by and doing nothing while the Mad King was raping his wife and burning innocent people or murdering them in other gruesome ways, while Jaime is despised for doing what should have been done, getting rid of the tyrant (it wasn't necessary to know he was going to burn the city to see Aerys was a mad tyrant).

On this account, I disagree with you.

In my opinion, the beheading wasn't dictated by any 'honour' need at all. The beheading was dictated by a law condemning deserters of the NW to death. And this law doesn't exist to enforce 'honour', but rather as a mean to 'control' the Night Watch state of affairs. You let people - ex-criminals for the most part - resign from defending the wall at free will, you end up with a deserted Wall. Who enjoys working hard from morning to night, with monsters crawling up inside the kingdom and air cold as ice every day for the rest of his life? Movie portray battles in which ranks of hundred of warriors fight with courage, roar to their enemies.. with the strongest and best turtle-shaped in the front line, Kings as well sometimes. Historical truth is different. Peasant fodders were on the front line more often than not, people would have sooner shi***d in their pants and ran away if that didn't come at their own death expense.. they had to shout to make courage to themselves and their neighbours, and pray everything went okay. And when fear pushes in front of you, the only way to keep your people at their own places is to instil fear at their back as well: fear for loss consequences (enemy butchers their families, plunders their own goods, burns their fields), fear for deserting (being beheaded), fear for loss of all 'good' in the world to an 'evil' 'barbarian' 'ungodly' invader.

[INCBlackbird]

Uh, desertion anyone? That's a capital crime even today.

Don't be fooled by the PoV structure.

desertion is a capitcal crime because that way people can be controlled. "if you don't fight we're gonna kill you anyway" there's nothing morally right about it. it's just another way to control people.

there's also a clear grey area here. the guy wasn't deserting because of amoral reasons, he was running away from white walkers, like anyone would.

He did nothing to deserve execusion.

[Lord Reaver]

Uh, desertion anyone? That's a capital crime even today.

Desertion from a non-volountary penal force would only be a capital crime in the worst of oppressive and despotic regimes today.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

desertion is a capitcal crime because that way people can be controlled. "if you don't fight we're gonna kill you anyway" there's nothing morally right about it. it's just another way to control people.

there's also a clear grey area here. the guy wasn't deserting because of amoral reasons, he was running away from white walkers, like anyone would.

He did nothing to deserve execusion.

Quite a pacifist way to go on about it.

Oh well, suicidal actually.

By the way, he ran for several months, conciously avoiding the shortest path to safety by returning to Castle Black. Quite a lot of deaths to lay at his feet.

Desertion from a non-volountary penal force would only be a capital crime in the worst of oppressive and despotic regimes today.

Then call it "prison breakout". Doesn't matter.

[Lord Reaver]

Then call it "prison breakout". Doesn't matter.

Last I checked, that wasn't a capital crime here.

[Julia H.]

Good topic.

With regard to desertion I'll take the middle ground. It does have an honour side, as we learn from Jon's POV, but loss of honour is not why deserters are executed. They are executed for practical reasons, to prevent further desertion. Perhaps when the Watch was founded, the idea was that the men of the Night's Watch serve voluntarily because they believe in an honourable cause, but at the time of the novel, this is not the case.

I think the question of honour, its meaning and its worth, is one of the major themes in the novel. One aspect of it is oathkeeping versus oathbreaking, but there is also the question whether there can be honour in a lie, and the answer is, of course, yes. Ned lived the last fifteen years of his life in a web of lies and with what could be seen as compromised honour, yet it was the result of a most honourable choice.

Honour is often used as synonymous with “reputation”, which simply means what people think of you. To give up your reputation for something more important requires courage, and we see several characters do just that in critical situations. There is honour in keeping your word (or oath); but when you no longer believe in what you promised, your honour may be in conflict with your conscience. When you must choose, doing what honour dictates is sometimes the easy choice because it enables you to avoid responsibility. Yet, honour has another meaning – the honour in a lie, for example. When the Old Bear tells Jon “Honor set you on the kingsroad … and honor brought you back”, it is acknowledgment that no single code of honour can be applied to all situations.

Robb had to choose between his own honour and a woman's honour and he chose hers, which was obviously the honourable (right) choice in his eyes. (It can also be seen as a choice between his reputation and his inner code of honour.) As it happened, he also sacrificed his chances in the game of thrones, which had nothing to do with honour, but had everthing to do with the lives of the people who depended on him.

According to Qhorin, a black brother's honour is not worth more than his life when the safety of the realm is at stake, but rather than simply diminishing the meaning of honour, this principle also reminds us that sacrificing your honour for others can be comparable to sacrificing your life.

Honour and reputation have value in the world of ASOIAF, and they are important assets in a world where laws can only be enforced with weapons, but in the story they are repeatedly contrasted with other values (“love is the bane of honor”, a bastard's sort of honor” and so on). Making sacrifices for honour's sake on some level is an almost inevitable requirement for most major characters (except for complete villains), yet, there are also situations where honour is sacrificed (and not always for a good cause, btw). The choices the characters make (and how the readers judge those choices) will determine the meaning and the true worth of honour.

[Mal Malenkirk]

In that regards, one of the quotes that best define the entire serie is this:

“How can you still count yourself a knight, when you have forsaken every vow you ever swore?"

Jaime reached for the flagon to refill his cup. "So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

[INCBlackbird]

Good topic.

(1) With regard to desertion I'll take the middle ground. It does have an honour side, as we learn from Jon's POV, but loss of honour is not why deserters are executed. They are executed for practical reasons, to prevent further desertion. Perhaps when the Watch was founded, the idea was that the men of the Night's Watch serve voluntarily because they believe in an honourable cause, but at the time of the novel, this is not the case.

(2) I think the question of honour, its meaning and its worth, is one of the major themes in the novel. One aspect of it is oathkeeping versus oathbreaking, but there is also the question whether there can be honour in a lie, and the answer is, of course, yes. Ned lived the last fifteen years of his life in a web of lies and with what could be seen as compromised honour, yet it was the result of a most honourable choice.

(3) Honour is often used as synonymous with “reputation”, which simply means what people think of you. To give up your reputation for something more important requires courage, and we see several characters do just that in critical situations. There is honour in keeping your word (or oath); but when you no longer believe in what you promised, your honour may be in conflict with your conscience. When you must choose, doing what honour dictates is sometimes the easy choice because it enables you to avoid responsibility. Yet, honour has another meaning – the honour in a lie, for example. When the Old Bear tells Jon “Honor set you on the kingsroad … and honor brought you back”, it is acknowledgment that no single code of honour can be applied to all situations.

(4) Honour and reputation have value in the world of ASOIAF, and they are important assets in a world where laws can only be enforced with weapons, but in the story they are repeatedly contrasted with other values (“love is the bane of honor”, a bastard's sort of honor” and so on). Making sacrifices for honour's sake on some level is an almost inevitable requirement for most major characters (except for complete villains), yet, there are also situations where honour is sacrificed (and not always for a good cause, btw). The choices the characters make (and how the readers judge those choices) will determine the meaning and the true worth of honour.

you make some really interesting points!!

1. I understand why deserters were executed, if they weren't threathened they would very easily desert. but I find it a bit... amoral (by lack of better word) that it gets justified with "honour".

2. I think there is a difference between "honour" and doing the right thing. lying wouldn't be considered honorable even when it is the right thing to do. which is actually my main problem with it. though, as a reader we can say that we find lying to be the honorable thing to do I guess, but it wouldn't be according to the black and white code of honor. (and it isn't according to Ned when he isn't the one doing it)

3. I think this is a major theme in the books yes! the conflict of characters who have to chose between keeping their oath because according to the code of honor they should, or follow their own concience. and I find it in all cases very intrueging. sometimes there is no right choice.

4. I think this is what shows exactly why a code of honor is a bad system (though, yeah they didn't have any better at the time and we can't expect them too) because it is based on the idea that a situation is completely black and white.

I would also like to add something to this thread, something to think about :

oathbreaker

1. Someone who breaks an oath

turncoat (turncloak)

1. A traitor; one who turns against a previous affiliation or allegiance.

a list of characters that are turncloaks/oathbreakers

• robert baratheon
• ned stark
• renly baratheon
• petyr baelish
• robb stark
• roose bolton
• ramsay bolton
• doran martell
• pretty much every northerner who swore themselves to the crown after trw
• walder frey
• tywin lannister
• jaime lannister
• tyrion lannister
• jon snow
• theon greyjoy
• pretty much every character who has ever had a shred of power in asoiaf

a list of characters who are held responsible for oath breaking and being a turncloak and are branded with that title UNIVERSALLY regardless of allegiance.

• theon greyjoy
• jaime lannister

source: http://asoiafuniversity.tumblr.com/post/59527546886/theongreyjoy-turncoat-turncloak-a-traitor

I think a lot depends on who wins and who loses. when the oathbreakers win they are generally not seen as oathbreakers.

[Julia H.]

INCBlackbird

Of course, a lot depends on whether you are a winner or not, but Jaime is still an exception. He is branded as an oathbreaker even though he is on the winning side. Few people dare to say it to his face (at least when he is not a prisoner), but some do. What is more important is that he knows it anyway and he has to live with it. To some extent we can say it is easy for him because he is a Lannister, the son of a powerful family with considerable power himself, he is also a really good-looking man and a famous swordsman – all he has to endure for his oathbreaking is the whispers behind his back and some face-to-face lecturing from Ned once in every fifteen years. What's so unbearable about it? He also armours himself in cynicism; therefore he doesn't even seem to care about his lost honour. Yet, he does. Very much. With all the social advantages he has, despite his cynical manner, and even though he is convinced he did the right thing when he broke his oath, he is quite preoccupied with his honour.

About Ned... He says: “We all lie”, and when Arya tells him how she chased away Nymeria to save her life, this is the answer: “It was right,” her father said. “And even the lie was... not without honor.” I think Ned understands that it is true of others as well, not only of himself.

But I agree that there is a difference between what is right and what is honourable, though the various characters must discover that for themselves on their own.

Jon Snow also struggles with reputation issues after his return from the wildlings (though he is not permanently and universally condemned), but when he weighs these issues against more important things, he does what he considers to be right, instead of what is “only” honourable.

You are right, the code may be black and white, but the world where it is applied is not. Whether it could be otherwise … I'm not sure. Honour has its usefulness - Ned's honour, for example, even with that little stain of supposed adultery on it, is quite an important moral asset in the North and remains so even after his death. Yet, even for Ned, love (“the bane of honor”) is more important than honour.

[Wmarshal]

I dont get why people find honor such an important and even good thing, especially in the world of game of thrones where it is used as a code that condemns people when they were doing the right thing!

the honor code isnt based on right and wrong its based on oaths that people have to make (in some cases forced to) in order to protect high lords. its by no means a code we, with our knowledge as readers, should justify.

the reason people who break their oath are sentenced to death is not because they deserve to die but because it scares others into keeping their oath.

and yes, in the world of asoiaf it is very common and is considered to be a valid way of judging people, but that doesn't mean characters can't think for themselves and don't make their own conclusions. take davos for example, he does what he believes is the right thing, weither it is honorable or not.

so yeah discuss :)

The honor code is to for knights to live out their vows, and that is to defend the innocent and weak. Davos honored the code and all true knights.

[Dolorous Gabe]

Honour is not something that is set in stone. It is open to debate whether an action is honourable or not.

Even the official definitions of honour as a verb and as a noun allow for contradictory circumstances. For example, Ser Barristan Selmy has honour by the definition of the word as a verb but arguably does not have honour by the definition of the word as a noun.

If keeping to an agreement is honourable, what is it when keeping to that agreement means doing something morally questionable?

Conversely, if doing what you believe is the morally right thing to do is honourable, what is it when doing the morally right thing means going against an agreement you made in confidence?

There is no correct answer.

[Julia H.]

The honor code is to for knights to live out their vows, and that is to defend the innocent and weak. Davos honored the code and all true knights.

Yes, and when you are a knight and a member of the Kingsguard, what is more important - your specific Kinsguard duty to protect the king or your universal knight's duty to protect a woman (perhaps against the king)?

Knights are important in the novel, but they are not the only characters who face honour-related problems.