The Others aren't Good or Evil

[TimJames]

There has been a lot of debate about The Others. Some people, quite reasonably, have argued that The Others are an evil and demonic force. Other people, a bit less reasonably, have argued that The Others are good and that it is the humans who are to blame. I propose a third theory.

I think The Others are like a disease. Viruses and other infectious diseases can have very disastrous effects on humans, but it would not be correct to say that HIV is evil or that Influenza is morally bad.

To call The Others evil is to imply they even understand the difference between right and wrong. Just because they are bipedal and can produce tools does not mean they are capable of higher thought and morality: primates can make tools too and they're still do things to each other that we would consider cruel.

Feel free to agree or disagree, just so long as you are respectful.

[Nuncle Karstark]

I'm sure animating Wights is something my cat would have no trouble with. And it was a fluke that they made that genius plan to eliminate the LC.

[Rise Above]

They are ice demons that seek to eradicate all life and turn the world into a frozen wasteland.

 

I get your point about good and evil not applying to them, but from a literary standpoint they are evil.

[Turumarth]

Even if the Others are evil demons doesn't mean they are not rational beings. Far from it. They appear highly rational and intelligent, as are the devils of Christian mythology. They may be terribly evil and yet still have their reasons for doing what they do. That doesn't make them "good", merely understandable. The Others might be spiritual beings who take bodily form from the magic they wield over the "element" of ice. There is no "absolute" evil in this world or any other. The Others are evil because they are out of balance. The Red God is evil, too. 

 

When ice and fire (mind and heart) achieve a balance then the onslaught of the Others and the evil sacrifices of the innocent by priests such as Melisandre will cease. 

 

The meaning of the word "evil" is misunderstood by many, it would seem. 

[Methuselah]

I look on it as the Others are to the humans roughly as the Saxons were to the Britons, the Vikings to the Saxons, the Rus to the Slavs, the Franks to the Gauls, the Mongols to peoples they conquered, etc.

 

It depends on one's point of view.  I'm sure the Saxons didn't think of themselves as evil  But I kinda think the Britons did.

 

Sure there are differences in that the others are more set on killing the humans (and then reviving them to to their bidding) while human conquerors tended to want to impose themselves as a ruling class on those they conquered (but with quite a bit of killing where necessary).  But the same general thing regarding whether they are "good" or "evil". 

[TimJames]

I'm sure animating Wights is something my cat would have no trouble with. And it was a fluke that they made that genius plan to eliminate the LC.

If you got sick with a cold, would you consider the cold Evil?

I came across this theory by thinking about viruses. Viruses try to keep multiplying as much as possible until they either are driven out by the body's defense mechanisms or until they kill the host. The Others are essentially the same, except on a Macro Scale; they keep expanding and multiplying until they either get driven back north or until they kill off the planet.

[TimJames]

They are ice demons that seek to eradicate all life and turn the world into a frozen wasteland.
 
I get your point about good and evil not applying to them, but from a literary standpoint they are evil.

They are absolutely harmful to human life, that much is true. But I'm not sure if they have enough self-awareness to be evil. The Others seem to be acting based on the instincts of "move aouth, kill anything that's not like me" rather than any actual battle plan. There's a reason a bunch of rats moving into someone's house is called an infestation as apposed to an invasion.

Evil has to do with intention; do you know you are causing harm, or are you just following mindless instincts?

Even from a literary standpoint, the fight against The Others feels more like a "Man Vs Nature" type situation.

[Attitude]

The only ‘proof’ that the supporters of the ‘not evil others’ have is the statement that GRRM made; he doesn’t like to write ‘pure evil characters.’

 

GRRM has already spoiled that we don’t know the entire story behind the WW. This indicates that there probably is more to it besides the fact that they are ‘ice people’ who can resurrect the dead to fight for them and seem to hate humans.

 

I personally would settle with this btw, but I think that we will learn more about them through Bran.

[Vastet]

Good and evil are subjective.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

I think The Others are like a disease. Viruses and other infectious diseases can have very disastrous effects on humans, but it would not be correct to say that HIV is evil or that Influenza is morally bad.

To call The Others evil is to imply they even understand the difference between right and wrong. Just because they are bipedal and can produce tools does not mean they are capable of higher thought and morality: primates can make tools too and they're still do things to each other that we would consider cruel.

Feel free to agree or disagree, just so long as you are respectful.

 

With all due respect, are you proposing that the Others have no more understanding or consciousness than a chimp, or a virus? 

 

Sure, a chimp can use a tool.  Can they forge weapons and armor?  Do they have complex language?  The evidence is there that the Others are far more advanced and far more conscious then an ape or monkey.

 

If GRRM wanted a mindless, virus like major antagonist, he would have stuck with wights, or just plain ice zombies.  As much as I like the term, "ice zombies", the fact of the matter is that the Others are in fact NOT zombies. 

 

I am also not a proponent of harsh judgment of people or cultures who just "don't know any better".  I apply that to all the characters and cultures I come across, and I do apply it to the Others.  It's entirely possible that the Others come from a culture where invasion and killing and necromancy is not considered evil.  I suppose that makes them no better than the Dothraki, or just about every other culture in all of Planetos, in which strength is the basis of results, not morality.  Nevertheless, the action is still evil.  A 1 year old child beating another 1 year old over the head with a rattle over a lollypop is still being "bad", despite the fact that the child might not understand it. 

[Raving Stark the Mad]

They are absolutely harmful to human life, that much is true. But I'm not sure if they have enough self-awareness to be evil. The Others seem to be acting based on the instincts of "move aouth, kill anything that's not like me" rather than any actual battle plan. There's a reason a bunch of rats moving into someone's house is called an infestation as apposed to an invasion.
 

Are you aware of any migratory animal whose instinct is to "kill anything that's not like me".  Animals kill for food, or to protect themselves, family, or territory.  Are the Others eating the wildlings?  Are they eating Craster's sons?  That would somewhat defeat the purpose of turning them into wights. 

 

The Other's are not rats.  They are conscious, sentient, beings, capable of abstract thought. 

[Attitude]

Are you aware of any migratory animal whose instinct is to "kill anything that's not like me".  Animals kill for food, or to protect themselves, family, or territory.  Are the Others eating the wildlings?  Are they eating Craster's sons?  That would somewhat defeat the purpose of turning them into wights. 

 

The Other's are not rats.  They are conscious, sentient, beings, capable of abstract thought. 

 

Even though I get offtopic this way, I just wanted to add that this is not true. There are (many) animals who 'kill for fun.' Even certain type of ants have 'wars' and even 'strategy's'.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

 

Even though I get offtopic this way, I just wanted to add that this is not true. There are (many) animals who 'kill for fun.' Even certain type of ants have 'wars' and even 'strategy's'.

1.  You'd make your point better if you would give examples of said animals who kill for fun.

2.  strategies, not strategy's

3.  Are the Others ants now? 

4.  Does strategy, by definition, require abstract thought?  A Strategy is a plan, no?  Ants have plans? 

[Attitude]

1.  You'd make your point better if you would give examples of said animals who kill for fun.

2.  strategies, not strategy's

3.  Are the Others ants now? 

4.  Does strategy, by definition, require abstract thought?  A Strategy is a plan, no?  Ants have plans? 

 

1. Cats for a start. 

2. No need to correct my english, first because it's not my native tongue and correcting people on their spelling makes you seem childish. (Can't win the argument, so better cry about spelling so I can win that)

3. No, just giving additional information. You consider animals stupid, I tell you that they aren't and that they even have wars. 

4. What the hell does this has to do with it? (And yes, those ants have 'plans')

 

Please stop this here and get back on topic. I will no longer reply if you quote me again. I was just correcting your statement because it was false. Well maybe 'correcting' and 'false' aren't the correct words; but it was missing information and I was just adding that, for the sake of the discussion. You state that animals merely kill 'on their survival instincts' (because they are hungry, or feel threathened). I know this is not true, and I just wanted to add that fact. 

[A Bastard Snow]

They might not be good or evil as they transcend human standards of morality but they are ultimately at odds against humanity and life in general as they seek to consume it all.

"There is a realm of existence so far beyond your comprehension you cannot even begin to fathom it"

[IMNHAAO]

 

1. Cats for a start. 

2. No need to correct my english, first because it's not my native tongue and correcting people on their spelling makes you seem childish. (Can't win the argument, so better cry about spelling so I can win that)

3. No, just giving additional information. You consider animals stupid, I tell you that they aren't and that they even have wars. 

4. What the hell does this has to do with it? (And yes, those ants have 'plans')

 

Please stop this here and get back on topic. I will no longer reply if you quote me again. I was just correcting your statement because it was false. Well maybe 'correcting' and 'false' aren't the correct words; but it was missing information and I was just adding that, for the sake of the discussion. You state that animals merely kill 'on their survival instincts' (because they are hungry, or feel threathened). I know this is not true, and I just wanted to add that fact.

I have seen only domestic cats "play" with the unfortunate victim before the kill, I have never seen a feral cat lose time in stupid games. Went directly  for the kill.

We have messed to much with domestic cats to take them as an example for anything,  especially after we have trained since they were kittens that prey=game.

[Attitude]

I have seen only domestic cats "play" with the unfortunate victim before the kill, I have never seen a feral cat lose time in stupid games. Went directly  for the kill.

We have messed to much with domestic cats to take them as an example for anything,  especially after we have trained since they were kittens that prey=game.

 

Not talking about playing with food, but I mean killing and leaving the carcass. I've heard about dolphins, chimps, ants, eliphants, cats, dogs and more.

 

Even know some 'first hand' examples from my direct enviroment;

- A kind of ferret (in dutch it's called martel, don't know the english word and google translate isn't helping), that killed chickens but didn't eat them.

- Foxes did the same with chickens.

[IMNHAAO]

Not talking about playing with food, but I mean killing and leaving the carcass. I've heard about dolphins, chimps, ants, eliphants, cats, dogs and more.
 
Even know some 'first hand' examples from my direct enviroment;
- A kind of ferret (in dutch it's called martel, don't know the english word and google translate isn't helping), that killed chickens but didn't eat them.
- Foxes did the same with chickens.

Does your animal look like this? It would be a faina in Italian, a beech marten in English, and a beuk marter in Dutch/... Close enough?

I think we do not use fun or playing with the same meaning and the confusion arises from that.

"Fun" and "playing" make you think the animal killed just for the hell of killing without the need to eat, but the fact that they leave a carcass doesn't mean that at all. Sometimes they do because they cannot eat the whole victim not because they did not need to eat in the first place.

I truly believe that "man" is the only animal who manages to be so cruel to kill for the sole purpose to feel pleasure in the act of killing. The fact that I think it is also to make up (in their sick mind) for a lack in genitalia region is a whole different subject...
 

[Bastard of Balmora]

There has been a lot of debate about The Others. Some people, quite reasonably, have argued that The Others are an evil and demonic force. Other people, a bit less reasonably, have argued that The Others are good and that it is the humans who are to blame. I propose a third theory.

I think The Others are like a disease. Viruses and other infectious diseases can have very disastrous effects on humans, but it would not be correct to say that HIV is evil or that Influenza is morally bad.

To call The Others evil is to imply they even understand the difference between right and wrong. Just because they are bipedal and can produce tools does not mean they are capable of higher thought and morality: primates can make tools too and they're still do things to each other that we would consider cruel.

Feel free to agree or disagree, just so long as you are respectful.

Sentient, bi-pedal beings are not 'diseases', but nice try at being provocative.

[Darkstream]

I respectfully disagree with this, I think there is a lot more to the Others than they are just some kind of unintelligible virus. My thoughts are that the Others are neither good or evil. Let me ask you this, are humans evil? You have individuals that certainly commit evil acts, this doesn't mean that humans as a race are evil. I believe it's the same for the Others. Isn't it possible that the Others aren't one big happy united front, but two or more factions with opposing believes and views. Maybe a group of Others (paralleling, say a group like the Boltons) and another group that is opposing them.(Starks)