Jump to content

Did Jon lose "moral authority" in tampering with northern politics?


BarristonTheBAMF

Recommended Posts

Let me preface this by saying I am actually a big fan of Jon. I appreciate his goodness in this series, he is one of the few characters who is just downright morally good who tries, and for the most part does, stay true to that throughout. But I do need to pose the question: Did he lose the moral high ground in allowing Mel to use Mance to try and retrieve his sister, and the other things he does regarding Northern politics?



Whether he liked it or not, the Boltons were lords paramount by royal decree, and though the situation was disgusting and BEYOND reprehensible, allowed to wed a legitimized Ramsay to Arya. By allowing the ploy to try and retrieve her, Jon was going against his nights watch vows, and in a big way meddling with affairs of the kingdom. When that failed, or apparently failed, and upon receiving the pink letter, Jon then forms a group of wildlings to go south and attack the northern lord paramount. Ramsay, if he is the true author of the pink letter (which for what its worth I dont think is, I think its Mance), is actually almost legally justified to go after Jon and condemn him to death. He apparently has proof of a member of the nights watch stealing the bride of the son of a lord paramount. Instead of the Starks doling the punishment for breakers of the nights watch vows, thats now on the Boltons.



With all that said, I hope Jon is alright, and hope the Boltons get extinguished from the world of ASOIAF. Just an interesting line of thought I had,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually do not mind the plot to Inviltrate winterfell with spies because I think this is the sort of meddling that has always been done by the LC - the secret kind. I don't believe for a second that the NW really has stayed completely out of northern politics - that just doesn't make sense.

If it had been kept secret then it would have been a boon to the watch and no dishonor to anyone. That's why jon accepts mances offer.

But jon totally fucked up with his plan to personally and very publicly assault winterfell and to arrange the Karstark marraige. He should have gone to much greater care in ensuring that the help he gave Alys couldn't be traced to the LC. The plan tk attack winterfell was plain stupid to boot in addition to publiclkly treasonous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your problem is that you conflate morality with legality. Just because the Boltons were legally empowered to rule the North doesn't mean that their authority is "moral."



The point could be made that Jon stepped out of his legal bounds, I suppose. But I'm not sure why you think something that's legal is automatically moral, or vice versa, or the inverse. I think that's kind of the damn point, actually: What's legal isn't always right, and what's right isn't always legal. That's Jon's conundrum that he has to weave through -- he, a person raised to respect law and order, finds himself having to violate the letter of the law on occasion in order to uphold the spirit of the law. He has to learn that the spirit trumps the letter. In this case, following the law (read: respecting the Bolton regime as legitimate) is actually immoral, given what kind of people the Boltons are.



And given how many Northerners despise the Boltons and want them gone (and many of them still don't recognize Lannister legitimacy, so "legality" from the Lannisters isn't worth shit), I'm not sure what "moral high ground" Jon is disrupting, exactly.



ETA: Oh yes: Can you please point to me in the Night's Watch oath itself where what Jon did is expressly forbidden. There's this misconception that absolute unwavering neutrality is codified in the vows and it isn't.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on your stance on what is morally acceptable.

If you subscribe to the Kingslayer school of philosophy, then the morally right decision would be to protect the innocents (in this case fake Arya and the numerous victims of Ramsay) regardless of the law. If so, you would see Jon's neutrality as a sign of implicit agreement with the Bolton regime, just like Aerys' KG were fine with the king raping Rhaella

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some believe Jon was defending the Wall when he decided to march against the Boltons but I don't agree. Ramsay's letter didn't suggest the Watch was in incredible danger. Still, I don't disagree with his decision. I was hype for him when he made his speech because someone has to take the Boltons down.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

True Fact: Neutrality is not in Night's Watch Oath. It is rather a long held and necessary tradition to keep the Night's Watch focused on its primary purpose: defending the realms of men.



Jon Snow is stuck between a rock and a hard place, or a giant ice wall and an ice zombie invasion. The Night's Watch does not have the men or resources to fulfill its objective, which once again is to: defend the realms of men.



He needs help. Stannis offers help. No one else is offering to help. King's Landing's last plan was to send assassins to kill Jon. Before that, it was a soft demand to elect Janos Slynt with no promise of help to come. Before that, Tyrion thought to send back shovels, prisoners, and starving boys.



Looking again at that chain of events, the Lannisters are clearly interfering with the neutrality of the Night's Watch already. Sure, Cersei's plan blew up before it was executed, but neutrality is a two sided arrangement. For Tywin to exert influence on who they Night's Watch elects as its Lord Commander is a violation of their neutrality.



Bolton himself appears to superficially support neutrality. However, he isn't in the process of helping the night's watch, either. Furthermore, his son did force the Night's Watch to break neutrality. Ramsay's full demands were impossible to meet, as the Night's Watch had neither his "Reek" nor his "bride." Plus, some of his hostage demands were of guests under the protection of the Night's Watch, and noncombatants besides.



So, no. I don't believe Jon has loss any more or ethical high ground. He may have made some tactical errors, but he remained committed to his primary duty.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by saying I am actually a big fan of Jon. I appreciate his goodness in this series, he is one of the few characters who is just downright morally good who tries, and for the most part does, stay true to that throughout. But I do need to pose the question: Did he lose the moral high ground in allowing Mel to use Mance to try and retrieve his sister, and the other things he does regarding Northern politics?

Whether he liked it or not, the Boltons were lords paramount by royal decree, and though the situation was disgusting and BEYOND reprehensible, allowed to wed a legitimized Ramsay to Arya. By allowing the ploy to try and retrieve her, Jon was going against his nights watch vows, and in a big way meddling with affairs of the kingdom. When that failed, or apparently failed, and upon receiving the pink letter, Jon then forms a group of wildlings to go south and attack the northern lord paramount. Ramsay, if he is the true author of the pink letter (which for what its worth I dont think is, I think its Mance), is actually almost legally justified to go after Jon and condemn him to death. He apparently has proof of a member of the nights watch stealing the bride of the son of a lord paramount. Instead of the Starks doling the punishment for breakers of the nights watch vows, thats now on the Boltons.

With all that said, I hope Jon is alright, and hope the Boltons get extinguished from the world of ASOIAF. Just an interesting line of thought I had,

Whose royal decree?? The King on the IT is false and the King in the North is dead (or in hiding - assuming Rickon ever comes out). The legitimate King is fighting against the Boltons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The royal decree means nothing at a time like this.



My father sat where I sit now when Lord Eddard came to Sisterton. Our maester urged us to send Stark’s head to Aerys, to prove our loyalty. It would have meant a rich reward. The Mad King was open-handed with them as pleased him. By then we knew that Jon Arryn had taken Gulltown, though. Robert was the first man to gain the wall, and slew Marq Grafton with his own hand. ‘This Baratheon is fearless,’ I said. ‘He fights the way a king should fight.’ Our maester chuckled at me and told us that Prince Rhaegar was certain to defeat this rebel. That was when Stark said, ‘In this world only winter is certain. We may lose our heads, it’s true … but what if we prevail?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, obviously enough Jon was jeopardizing his moral authority toward his troops. You need proof? There was a mutiny!



Whether we the reader agree or not with his course of action is another question entirely. Let's say I can sympathize. If it were me I would want to do everything in my power to save my sister, consequence be damned. But then again, if it were me I wouldn't have joined the Night Watch in the first place knowing their vows ask me to put my family second!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

short: yes.


long: "moral" and "authority" don't go together if you're Jon. It's one or the other. His moral forbade him from having any authority in politics. So he dumped the morals (apparently?) and decided he'd like some authority after all.




(and it's surprising to find out that Barristan is a member of the Builders Association of Metropolitan Flint!)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why people keep forgetting that Ramsay did threaten {as far as Jon is concerned Ramsay wrote that letter} Night's Watch with total annihilation, and personally threatened the LC {I'll eat or your black heart}? What was he supposed to do? Let Ramsay march on Castle Black with 1000 Bolton soldiers at his back?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really hard to argue contra fighting against monsters like Ramsay and Roose from moral ground. Whoever removes them will do a huge service to the North and especially their numerous victims.



That fact they rule the North by royal decree is of no relevance here - it does not make them less reprehensible and it does not make rebelling against them any less moral. As noted, legal and moral are not synonyms.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why people keep forgetting that Ramsay did threaten {as far as Jon is concerned Ramsay wrote that letter} Night's Watch with total annihilation, and personally threatened the LC {I'll eat or your black heart}? What was he supposed to do? Let Ramsay march on Castle Black with 1000 Bolton soldiers at his back?

This was after the Night's Watch had all but sided with Stannis. They were sheltering his armies and his court. Stannis was settling wildings in the Gift in exchange for loyalty thus augmenting his force. Jon himself was giving Stannis advice on how to win over the Northern Lords. Are the Boltons supposed to let Stannis have a safehaven behind the NW's supposed neutrality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why people keep forgetting that Ramsay did threaten {as far as Jon is concerned Ramsay wrote that letter} Night's Watch with total annihilation, and personally threatened the LC {I'll eat or your black heart}? What was he supposed to do? Let Ramsay march on Castle Black with 1000 Bolton soldiers at his back?

They're not. That never happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was after the Night's Watch had all but sided with Stannis. They were sheltering his armies and his court. Stannis was settling wildings in the Gift in exchange for loyalty thus augmenting his force. Jon himself was giving Stannis advice on how to win over the Northern Lords. Are the Boltons supposed to let Stannis have a safehaven behind the NW's supposed neutrality?

Do you forget the part,where Stannis has triple the NW numbers? What was LC to do? Refuse STANNIS and get the whole Watch killed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read it many times and nowhere in it is the NW threatened with total annihilation.

"Send them to be Bastard and I will not trouble you or your black Crows. Keep them from me and I'll cut out your Bastard's heart and eat it" It sound like a threat to me against the entire watch.

Even if Jon doesn't see it as such, crows would still have died if and when Ramsay marches on the Wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...