The questionable morality of the code of honor

[Ser Lepus]

The thing is, oaths, loyalty and honor are pretty much the only thing that keeps Westerosi society together. It isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Without their honor system that demands loyalty to the liege, there would be constant war of every lord against every lord; even worse, every castle would be in a permanent state of civil war against itself, with lords being constantly being overthrown by strong and/or charismatic household knights. And the peasant would be the ones suffering most, their homes and crops being constantly burned, their cattle stole, their women raped and their children killed; all of Westeros; it would be all the time like the Riverlands during the Five Kings.

The Westerosi would need something else to replace their honors system, before ditching it.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

wasn't he several days away from castle black though ? and alone, just saw his friends being murdered by the white walkers... who wouldn't be a little selfish in that moment ? I'm pretty sure anyone would have done the same.

You're wrong. I can think of several people, myself included, who would make a point of warning others instead of putting themselves first. Maybe a lot of people would have done the same, but a lot of people wouldn't.

[The Bedding]

wasn't he several days away from castle black though ? and alone, just saw his friends being murdered by the white walkers... who wouldn't be a little selfish in that moment ? I'm pretty sure anyone would have done the same.

What about all the other NW that have seen others and wights and know they are coming for the wall eventually? They stayed.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Not all desertion is equal, IMO. For example, I wouldn't blame someone who was caught poaching, offered the choice "take the Black or be killed," said the oath, and then ran away at the first chance. But an actual volunteer, or someone who was sent to the Wall for murder/rape, should get less sympathy

[Winterfell is Burning]

The thing is, oaths, loyalty and honor are pretty much the only thing that keeps Westerosi society together. It isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Without their honor system that demands loyalty to the liege, there would be constant war of every lord against every lord; even worse, every castle would be in a permanent state of civil war against itself, with lords being constantly being overthrown by strong and/or charismatic household knights. And the peasant would be the ones suffering most, their homes and crops being constantly burned, their cattle stole, their women raped and their children killed; all of Westeros; it would be all the time like the Riverlands during the Five Kings.

The Westerosi would need something else to replace their honors system, before ditching it.

Yes. This is a society in which the rule of the law isn't as strong as it is in more modern societies; it's either honor or absolutely nothing.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Forget the Night's Watch deserter - at least in that case there was an actual crime that was committed. What about young Theon, or other innocent hostages? Even the morally upright, kind, and "merciful" Ned Stark was willing to slay a child to punish his father, if it came to that. In the view of the Westerosi nobility, honor would not forbid such an act but would actually require it.

Not to mention Tywin ravaging the Riverlands after Tyrion was captured, because "the honor of the House was at stake."

Yes. This is a society in which the rule of the law isn't as strong as it is in more modern societies; it's either honor or absolutely nothing.

Still doesn't mean that it's excesses and abuses should be free of criticism, though

[OrangeStallion]

an honorable, oath-bound system is an enemy of the free-market where people are free to choose whichever product or service best benefits their wants or needs at the time. honor codes and oaths lead to stagnation where disloyalty and "greed" lead to innovation, change, and societal evolution towards freedom and individual liberties

[JonisHenryTudor]

You're wrong. I can think of several people, myself included, who would make a point of warning others instead of putting themselves first. Maybe a lot of people would have done the same, but a lot of people wouldn't.

Yep. Then Ned would have had a lot of heads to remove.

[Ser Lepus]

an honorable, oath-bound system is an enemy of the free-market where people are free to choose whichever product or service best benefits their wants or needs at the time. honor codes and oaths lead to stagnation where disloyalty and "greed" lead to innovation, change, and societal evolution towards freedom and individual liberties

You need some basic securities before going for free market; liberal societies based on the enlightened self-interest only were feasible thanks to the previous ingraining of values like patriotism, respect of personal freedoms, and citizen rights.

If you go to Westeros and convince them to ditch their honor system and promote greed, you don't get democracy, you get the Dothraki.

[Aemond's Eye]

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.

Morals are subjective. I'd say when you're guilty of crimes such as murder and rape, and are given the choice of life on The Wall or death, you don't get to abandon the former without consequence. And other than 'death,' what consequence is there? Send them back to The Watch, after they've deserted once?

And it's fine and dandy to say "he was scared, he did nothing to deserve execution" - except for the obvious that nobody believes he has seen White Walkers. Ned's likely more empathetic than most would be by believing that "a mad man sees what he sees," but desertion is still desertion. If you allow someone to live or go back to The Wall then, suddenly you have hundreds fleeing The Wall and claiming they were terrified as they'd seen the White Walkers.

Life isn't full of many absolutes, but you do need some absolute laws unless you want chaos. And a law that determines that those that desert the Night's Watch are sentenced to death hardly seems anything other than practical and understandable.

[Ramsay Gimp]

an honorable, oath-bound system is an enemy of the free-market where people are free to choose whichever product or service best benefits their wants or needs at the time. honor codes and oaths lead to stagnation where disloyalty and "greed" lead to innovation, change, and societal evolution towards freedom and individual liberties

I like your interpretation, Mr. Gecko :cool4:

You need some basic securities before going for free market; liberal societies based on the enlightened self-interest only were feasible thanks to the previous ingraining of values like patriotism, respect of personal freedoms, and citizen rights.

If you go to Westeros and convince them to ditch their honor system and promote greed, you don't get democracy, you get the Dothraki.

But even the Dothraki are bound by stupid customs and superstitions. Their honor system is just different, as is the Wildlings' or Ironborn's. Other than sellswords, I don't think there is a faction in ASOIAF that spurns any code of honor.

Kinda ironically, your post reminded me of the Marxist critique of the Russian/Chinese revolutions: you can't skip stages of history, the argument goes. Taking a rural, largely feudal society, jumping over capitalism and trying to immediately implement socialism/communism is bound to be a failure. This is how they defend Marxism when the USSR or Mao get brought up

[new djinn]

an honorable, oath-bound system is an enemy of the free-market where people are free to choose whichever product or service best benefits their wants or needs at the time. honor codes and oaths lead to stagnation where disloyalty and "greed" lead to innovation, change, and societal evolution towards freedom and individual liberties

And what evolution has LF started? Or Tywin? How evolved are the Wildings?

[BrienneofQarth]

I hate to say this, but I really couldn't disagree with the whole 'anti honor' idea more. It's wrong to apply this aspect of 21st century 'morality' to a pseudo-medieval fantasy.

GRRM built his world from an extensive knowledge of the middle ages. In the depths of the dark ages, in the Anglo-Saxon era, the idea of giving an oath of loyalty to a lord, or to pledge your 'truth' to a superior, was perhaps the most important connecting link in a society. A man gave an oath to defend his lord against enemies, and in return he was allowed to prosper in the lord's realm. It was the thin connecting tissue that joined humans into societies. It was the origin of many modern laws, not their equal. Over time, this complex relationship between man and knight developed into chivalry or honour, of the kind that Martin depicts in Asoiaf. Morals and honour all became bound up in the human psyche. As Ser Lepus says:

The thing is, oaths, loyalty and honor are pretty much the only thing that keeps Westerosi society together. It isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Without their honor system that demands loyalty to the liege, there would be constant war of every lord against every lord; even worse, every castle would be in a permanent state of civil war against itself, with lords being constantly being overthrown by strong and/or charismatic household knights. And the peasant would be the ones suffering most, their homes and crops being constantly burned, their cattle stole, their women raped and their children killed; all of Westeros; it would be all the time like the Riverlands during the Five Kings.

:agree: Morals, honour and practicality are all connected in Asoiaf. It wasn't perfect, but then again, there were no police. There was no democratic representation. Honor was necessary to glue people together in governable units. Of course it wasn't perfect, as Ned's many predicaments suggest. But think of the alternative:

"GoT Chapter One Ned: 'I don't hold with honour, so it's ok for me to kill everyone, including this queen and her three incesty children, and it's ok for me stab the 'kingsguard', and it's ok for me to leave my wife, children, and Winterfell for my bastard's mother because I have no honour, 'oh wait I have just been stabbed myself because there is no honour' The end. "

[INCBlackbird]

Morals are subjective. I'd say when you're guilty of crimes such as murder and rape, and are given the choice of life on The Wall or death, you don't get to abandon the former without consequence. And other than 'death,' what consequence is there? Send them back to The Watch, after they've deserted once?

And it's fine and dandy to say "he was scared, he did nothing to deserve execution" - except for the obvious that nobody believes he has seen White Walkers. Ned's likely more empathetic than most would be by believing that "a mad man sees what he sees," but desertion is still desertion. If you allow someone to live or go back to The Wall then, suddenly you have hundreds fleeing The Wall and claiming they were terrified as they'd seen the White Walkers.

Life isn't full of many absolutes, but you do need some absolute laws unless you want chaos. And a law that determines that those that desert the Night's Watch are sentenced to death hardly seems anything other than practical and understandable.

I'm not saying you should get to abandon the former without consequences no. but I am not talking about doing nothing, I am talking about taking the situation and the person into account (aka a trial) everyone is different, every situation is different so you can't treat them all as inherently the same thing. they should ask themselves the questions : was this person guilty of anything or did he join the NW out of his own free will, if he did then I don't think he should be punished by death. if he is then maybe he could be given the punishment he was supposed to given instead of going to the NW. why did he desert his post? did he even have a choice in the matter? and judge said person on those kinds of questions.

this is why there should be a trial! no one listened to him, that's not right! they can listen to him and then make their conclusions.

I understand that a law like this was nessacary, but so is the army, doesn't mean I have to think they're morally right because they are nessacary.

[INCBlackbird]

Morals, honour and practicality are all connected in Asoiaf. It wasn't perfect, but then again, there were no police. There was no democratic representation. Honor was necessary to glue people together in governable units. Of course it wasn't perfect, as Ned's many predicaments suggest. But think of the alternative:

"GoT Chapter One Ned: 'I don't hold with honour, so it's ok for me to kill everyone, including this queen and her three incesty children, and it's ok for me stab the 'kingsguard', and it's ok for me to leave my wife, children, and Winterfell for my bastard's mother because I have no honour, 'oh wait I have just been stabbed myself because there is no honour' The end. "

that is not honor though that is right and wrong, which is what I was talking about in my original post. there's a difference between doing something because it is right and doing something because it is honorable. I think Jaime is still the best example. when he killed the mad king it wasn't the honorable thing to do but it was the right thing to do. which is why I do not think the code of honor is morally right. sure it's nessacary cause they didn't have anything better, but they could have combined the two aspects. they could have kept the code of honor and added fair trials to it to see if someone broke their oath for understandable reasons or not.

[BrienneofQarth]

That's kind of my point, honor is the difference between right and wrong in a medieval/asoiaf style society. No law, no judges, no police, just this inherited code. And people who may or may not apply it.

that is not honor though that is right and wrong, which is what I was talking about in my original post. there's a difference between doing something because it is right and doing something because it is honorable.

[JonisHenryTudor]

That's kind of my point, honor is the difference between right and wrong in a medieval/asoiaf style society. No law, no judges, no police, just this inherited code. And people who may or may not apply it.

Sort of. You kind of had the Church providing society with its moral parameters. It wasn't all honor, and right/wrong was directly tied to the 10 Commandments in Medieval Europe. Handbooks regarding knighthood even spell out the link between religious teachings and the knightly code of honor.

In aSoIaF I am not sure how much the 7 or old gods influence the honor system? We know the Hound critiques the system of knighthood. Like any moral code, it is up for interpretation whether the author wishes it or not. One man's honor is another man's crime. There is a code of conduct that all should follow, and in periods of peace and prosperity those codes are easy to follow. It is when things become more difficult that the codes are put to the test. Theoretically the code of honor is supposed to assist in the maintenance of a peaceful society, but the men upholding that code are human and prone to all sorts of greed, ambitions, and carnal desires.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I'm surprised most of the attacks on honor in this thread have centered around the execution of Night's Watch deserters. What about taking innocents as hostages, honor-bound to kill them if their kin steps out of line? What about the "honor" of the Kingsguard, who fiercely protect tyrants like Aerys or Joffrey but stand idly by as those tyrants terrorize and brutalize the people around them?

[BrienneofQarth]

Sort of. You kind of had the Church providing society with its moral parameters. It wasn't all honor, and right/wrong was directly tied to the 10 Commandments in Medieval Europe. Handbooks regarding knighthood even spell out the link between religious teachings and the knightly code of honor.

In aSoIaF I am not sure how much the 7 or old gods influence the honor system? We know the Hound critiques the system of knighthood. Like any moral code, it is up for interpretation whether the author wishes it or not. One man's honor is another man's crime. There is a code of conduct that all should follow, and in periods of peace and prosperity those codes are easy to follow. It is when things become more difficult that the codes are put to the test. Theoretically the code of honor is supposed to assist in the maintenance of a peaceful society, but the men upholding that code are human and prone to all sorts of greed, ambitions, and carnal desires.

Agreed :-) But I'm not sure about its influence in Westeros either. I kind of feel that Asoiaf downplays the potential influence of religion in the honor system. I mean, it's certainly there, but except for the Stannis/R'hllor relationship, I don't get the impression of an overwhelming connection between the two, not of the kind that exists in a lot of medieval texts, e.g in holy grail or crusades based texts. As honor transcends a few different Westerosi religions, I feel that GRRM's representation of it is a more secular version.

[INCBlackbird]

I'm surprised most of the attacks on honor in this thread have centered around the execution of Night's Watch deserters. What about taking innocents as hostages, honor-bound to kill them if their kin steps out of line? What about the "honor" of the Kingsguard, who fiercely protect tyrants like Aerys or Joffrey but stand idly by as those tyrants terrorize and brutalize the people around them?

this exactly!! we can argue about the execution of the deserter but about all those other things; I don't really think anyone can say they are morally right in any way.