269 replies to this topic

[Fragile Bird]

Petyr is not honorable.  I will store that admission from you for future reference.  

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Summerqueen, on 23 March 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

Give me law abiding, honest men any day. I actually think being selfish and breaking the law is stupid. Stalemate? This is just your opinion, basically. When a system is corrupt, you can either resist it and stay who you are, or you can become someone who caves in to that corruption and become someone you can't stand. Ned makes it pretty clear how hard it is for him to live a lie. He would much rather be a man of principle than a hypocritical, self-loathing, worthless POS. If only everyone felt that way.

Yes, yes.  But I think its stupid because its not one's own rational self interest.  And perhaps not in the interest of the realm as a whole. Of course, Ned wouldn't be a hypocrite if he never bothered to believe in his backward customs to begin with.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Winterbreath, on 23 March 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

I think LLL's point is not that Ned was stupid for being honourable but that he was stupid for assuming and acting under the notion that everyone else holds to the same honour code as he does.

In deed.  Were he truly unwilling to compromise is positions then he should have recognized the consequences this implied for him and acted accordingly.  Refusing Robert, bringing many more men or better yet abdicating and joining Septon Maribald.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

I think a lack of understanding of the value of morality is stupid. Which makes characters like LF who are smart in some issues be stupid in others. I think it is pathetic and not very intelligent to have a pathological need/desire for revenge and power and that to be what drives your actions.

I find Ned's motives more intelligent. Wants to help his king, friend, has loytalty to his kingdom. Cares about other persons, especially his family. Tries to not hurt the innocent because it is convenient, and so on.

Although it is true that being moral and law abiding is not easy and a character who is possible to feel as much empathy for others as Ned if he thinks about the events can be rather conflicted. This is the man that ultimately supported a traitor not real heir for the sake of his daughters. So it isn't easy, sometimes there might be two competing choices, but it isn't arbitrary at least to some very important extend that makes having moral values important.

There is a huge difference with people like LF, Ramsay and Ned who tries to be moral and honorable even though it isn't something easy. That difference in values (between the selfish power hungry parasites or sadistic lunatic and Ned) shows how morality is not purely arbitrary even if in some issues finding the exact moral solution is not necessarily easy. You can still rather easilly come up with highly immoral comparative actions.

I know that all this is pointless to the OP and he will continue equating the likes of LF to Ned as far as morality goes or consider being honorable as stupid.

Edited by Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren, 23 March 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Fragile Bird, on 23 March 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Petyr is not honorable. I will store that admission from you for future reference.

I've never said he was honorable. I presume he assumes no one intelligent is in fact "honorable".   I would think he believes there a certain societal acceptable rules to The Game of Thrones by which he seeks to abide lest he bring on his own destruction.  Mostly, act in a way to be perceived to be sufficiently honorable and when not acting as such, don't get caught.

[Summerqueen]

Lord Littlefinger, on 23 March 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Yes, yes.  But I think its stupid because its not one's own rational self interest.  And perhaps not in the interest of the realm as a whole. Of course, Ned wouldn't be a hypocrite if he never bothered to believe in his backward customs to begin with.

Self interest is different from selfishness or greed or revenge or power hunger. These are the motives of those around him. Cersei leaving KL ahead of an angry Robert would be acting in her self interest. Killing Robert before he becomes angry is murder, full stop. I think the word 'rational' in your comment needs to be reassessed. Ned has nothing to fear from most people. The moral and ethical bankruptcy of LF and Cersei are outside the call for rational self-interest.

ETA: All societies depend on ideas of social accountability and responsibility to function. Those who absolve themselves of such are enemies of any society worth living in. LF and Cersei are such people. Heck, LF pretty much admits that he wants their society to fail. But not for any greater good like basic human rights for women and small folk but because he got sand in his face when kicked to the ground. This man is petty and worthless as a human being. All his friends will be looking for ways to use him or sell him out (he has only false friends and no family to speak of, in fact he may be working to off his own son). How is that smart in the long run? It's really not. At some point, you have to live for something more than your self or you really have nothing but yourself. That's a rather pathetic existence.

Edited by Summerqueen, 23 March 2012 - 11:41 PM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren, on 23 March 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

I think a lack of understanding of the value of morality is stupid. Which makes characters like LF who are smart in some issues be stupid in others. I think it is pathetic and not very intelligent to have a pathological need/desire for revenge and power and that to be what drives your actions. I find Ned's motives more intelligent. Wants to help his king, friend, has loytalty to his kingdom. Cares about other persons, especially his family. Tries to not hurt the innocent because it is convenient, and so on. Although it is true that being moral and law abiding is not easy and a character who is possible to feel as much empathy for others as Ned if he thinks about the events can be rather conflicted. This is the man that ultimately supported a traitor not real heir for the sake of his daughters. So it isn't easy, sometimes there might be two competing choices, but it isn't arbitrary at least to some very important extend that makes having moral values important. There is a huge difference with people like LF, Ramsay and Ned who tries to be moral and honorable even though it isn't something easy. That difference in values (between the selfish power hungry parasites or sadistic lunatic) shows how morality is not purely arbitrary even if in some issues finding the exact moral solution is not necessarily easy. You can still rather easilly come up with highly immoral comparative actions. I know that all this is pointless to the OP and he will continue equating the likes of LF to Ned as far as morality goes or consider being honorable as stupid.

Well but you're begging the question.  The issue, isn't whether or not morality has value.  It obviously has value, it is also valuable to be able to subvert said morality for personal advancement.  Further, morality and legality or not equivalent.  It is completely possible to be amoral and remain within the bounds of legality. And to be moral and violate any number of laws of Westeros.

You've stated that you don't believe such distinctions are arbitrary. But you do not actually explain how they are not.  Again, there are character who believe killing is wrong and lead honorable lives without betraying their values.  Again, Septon Maribald is one.  But, I fail to see how Ned Stark falls into this category simply because he says that he does.

I would never equate Littlefinger to Ned.  Littlefinger is a clever man of low birth who rose up using his own wits. Ned inherents his position and then frittered it all away.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Summerqueen, on 23 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Self interest is different from selfishness or greed or revenge or power hunger.

And what would you call Robert's Rebellion?

Quote

These are the motives of those around him. Cersei leaving KL ahead of an angry Robert would be acting in her self interest. Killing Robert before he becomes angry is murder, full stop. I think the word 'rational' in your comment needs to be reassessed. Ned has nothing to fear from most people. The moral and ethical bankruptcy of LF and Cersei are outside the call for rational self-interest.

But Ned cannot control their actions.  No "honorable" person will ever be able to control the actions of those who do not share their values.  Not recognizing that is stupid.  Just as stupid as a pit fighter telling Barristan he was coward for wearing armor. Failing to account for this is unacceptable for someone who is a Liege Lord's son, Warden of the North, Hand of the King, ect, ect. Its utterly unreasonable, foolish.

[Summerqueen]

Lord Littlefinger, on 23 March 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Well but you're begging the question.  The issue, isn't whether or not morality has value.  It obviously has value, it is also valuable to be able to subvert said morality for personal advancement.  Further, morality and legality or not equivalent.  It is completely possible to be amoral and remain within the bounds of legality. And to be moral and violate any number of laws of Westeros.

You've stated that you don't believe such distinctions are arbitrary. But you do not actually explain how they are not.  Again, there are character who believe killing is wrong and lead honorable lives without betraying their values.  Again, Septon Maribald is one.  But, I fail to see how Ned Stark falls into this category simply because he says that he does.

I would never equate Littlefinger to Ned.  Littlefinger is a clever man of low birth who rose up using his own wits. Ned inherents his position and then frittered it all away.

Clarification, which definition of arbitrary are you using? Morality is not arbitrary in that it is the accepted belief of people living in a system, be it a society or a subset thereof. Regardless, you keep mentioning arbitrariness without offering a reason for thinking arbitrariness is bad. Yet, you seem to approve if LF's value system, which is the very definition of arbitrariness. Can you explain what you mean, what you think is bad about the so-called arbitrariness of honor but is good about the arbitrariness of LF's acting on personal whim?

[Summerqueen]

Lord Littlefinger, on 23 March 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

And what would you call Robert's Rebellion?  But Ned cannot control their actions.  No "honorable" person will ever be able to control the actions of those who do not share their values.  Not recognizing that is stupid.  Just as stupid as a pit fighter telling Barristan he was coward for wearing armor. Failing to account for this is unacceptable for someone who is a Liege Lord's son, Warden of the North, Hand of the King, ect, ect. Its utterly unreasonable, foolish.

I would call RR the necessary action taken to remove a despot from power. What would you call it?
No one can control the actions of another person. But laws outline the consequences for behaving unlawfully. It is generally held to be stupid to break the law. People living in a society are controlled by it. No, Ned didn't see it coming because he is a civilized person living in a civilized world. It's a pretty bleak society that believes ppl should be expected to break the laws that they have consented to be governed by. Assassination is not something he would think would happen before the motive (his knowledge of Cersei's treason) for it manifested.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

FuzzyJAM, on 23 March 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

I offered as many reasons for why it's moral as you did for why it's immoral. . .Obviously morality is subjective. I think executing a deserter is moral because otherwise desertion frequently becomes preferable. Obviously there are complexities - is it a "good" military? why is the deserter in the army in the first place? etc. - but overall it's fair enough. If you want to get into the specifics, that man could have warned everybody about the Others long before they actually found out about them. It could have happened while Robert was at Winterfell. Imagine how different things could be. But he deserted, and thus did not warn anyone.  

I didn't say it was immoral. I simply pointed out that sometimes Ned cuts people's heads off.   Perhaps, Ned should have asked him some questions then before cutting of his head.  Jon seems to think he's paralyzed with fear, unable to even speak or recognize what's happening to him.  Its difficult to speak once your head has been separated from your neck, unless you're Beric Dondarrion

Quote

Middle knowledge, I know, but an example of where both the ends and means support the action as moral. For the rebellion - it's preferable not to have a mad king who shows zero respect for the law

I believe the in Westeros, the King is the law.  It is impossible for him to disregard it.  

Quote

, it wasn't simply vengeange. Obviously war is terrible - I'm close to a pacifist myself - but the war is justifiable and understandable, even if you don't personally support it. As for blaming the War of the Five Kings on Ned - wut? He was incapacitated before it started. We don't even know what he would have done had he seen the situation crop up.

Well Petyr does warn Ned that the Tyrells will never support Stannis.  Renly, warns Ned to take Tommen, Joffrey, and Marcella into his custody.  Varys warns Ned that Lannisters are trying to kill Robert.  Ned, believes the Lannisters are responsible for Jon Arryn's before he ever leaves Winterfell, he should have taken far more men.  

I'm reminded of the parable of the pious man stranded in a flood:

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”

The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. “The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”

To this the stranded man said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”

To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”

To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Lord Littlefinger, on 23 March 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Well but you're begging the question.  The issue, isn't whether or not morality has value.  It obviously has value, it is also valuable to be able to subvert said morality for personal advancement.  Further, morality and legality or not equivalent.  It is completely possible to be amoral and remain within the bounds of legality. And to be moral and violate any number of laws of Westeros.

You've stated that you don't believe such distinctions are arbitrary. But you do not actually explain how they are not.  Again, there are character who believe killing is wrong and lead honorable lives without betraying their values.  Again, Septon Maribald is one.  But, I fail to see how Ned Stark falls into this category simply because he says that he does.

I would never equate Littlefinger to Ned.  Littlefinger is a clever man of low birth who rose up using his own wits. Ned inherents his position and then frittered it all away.

I disagree, subverting morality for owns own advancement is less valuable (and in my view more stupid) than being moral. We just need to analyze and ask what is the value of advancement at a moral cost?  What is so great for it in comparison to what morality provides?

Within reason of course, ultimately a balance between pursuing a rational and usually not hurtful self interest and being moral is probably the best. Though Ned is not purely unselfish even as a moral man, as some might believe. (and no, him not being perfect does not make his morality arbitrary it just means that you want to equate him with people like LF moral wise). I mean if he doesn't warn Cersei he believes that her kids will die and believes that he holds the cards and he will win. If there is a fault in his actions it is probably that one one and not mercy.

Also if morality has value calling it stupid seems kind of unwise. It seems that to call it stupid you would be undermining that value but you recognize that it does have value.

Quote

You've stated that you don't believe such distinctions are arbitrary. But you do not actually explain how they are not.  Again, there are character who believe killing is wrong and lead honorable lives without betraying their values.  Again, Septon Maribald is one.  But, I fail to see how Ned Stark falls into this category simply because he says that he does.

It is also completely possible to find it moral to obey the law but that having negative effects. A fuctioning society will ultimately have a set of laws that are to be followed and if the laws are ignored whenever it is convenient that also has negative consequences.

Morality is not clear cut there are some difficult situations where there are several ways to handle them each with its own set of negatives. Ned unlike power hungry immoral people like LF tries to do his best, does not hurt inoccents because is convienient, shows mercy to children and so on. There is a very clear different and it baffles how one would see the difference between moral (ned) and immoral (LF). More or less we can classify them as such although morality is far more complex when we have to do not with an immoral and pathetic vs moral but between conflicting choices with positives and negatives. It really boggles the mind how someone can't see how Ned is more or less a moral man who even decides to at some point subvert his own sense of right and wrong to save his own children.

You say that there is value in morality yet you equate it with stupidity. (Obviously Ned's honor is a kind of moral code). Of course you also like to keep asking explanation for Ned's morality even when it is constantly offered.

Remember lack of perfect morality =/ not being moral. There is a clear difference between moral people and people who are like LF. That doesn't mean that among the first group there aren't those with more sophisticated, developed and possibly more correct codes of morality.  But having a code in it self is not wrong and valueless. I personally think that Ned does have his flaws and his code too, but he is ultimately a very decent human being who is not stupid for having that morality, on the other hand I would claim the opposite, his morality ultimately makes him and others like him better human beings leading to a better society.

Quote

I would never equate Littlefinger to Ned.  Littlefinger is a clever man of low birth who rose up using his own wits. Ned inherents his position and then frittered it all away.

You would never equate LF to Ned because you see some superiority into LF for I guess the same reasons that LF sees himself superior to others. Unfortunately for all his talents, his moral inadequacy and the pointlessness of his petty and destructive and pathetic motivations doesn't make him superior. There are things more important than political intelligence and that is not the only kind of intelligence there is. And in those other things LF is quite inadequate in comparison to Ned.

Edited by Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren, 24 March 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Summerqueen, on 23 March 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

I would call RR the necessary action taken to remove a despot from power. What would you call it? No one can control the actions of another person. But laws outline the consequences for behaving unlawfully. It is generally held to be stupid to break the law. People living in a society are controlled by it. No, Ned didn't see it coming because he is a civilized person living in a civilized world. It's a pretty bleak society that believes ppl should be expected to break the laws that they have consented to be governed by. Assassination is not something he would think would happen before the motive (his knowledge of Cersei's treason) for it manifested.

Yes, but feudal society all law flows from the king. The King gave Petyr a big castle and Liege Lordship for his good service in betraying Ned.  Ned doesn't live in a civilized society.  He lives in Westeros, the kingsguard contains a man who killed the last king.  His buddy Rob became king by crushing the life out of that king's  "rightful" heir, then Rob married the daughter of the Lord who ordered the children of the "rightful" heir crushed and pureed, respectively.  All of this won on the back of an alliance sealed by the marriage of a pregnant 14 year old girl and a 58 year old man.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren, on 24 March 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

I disagree, subverting morality for owns own advancement is less valuable (and in my view more stupid) than being moral.

Sure, if everyone does it.  But if you do it (and get away with it), its more valuable, to you.

Quote

It is also completely possible to find it moral to obey the law but that having negative effects. A fuctioning society will ultimately have a set of laws that are to be followed and if the laws are ignored whenever it is convenient that also has negative consequences. Morallity is not clear cut there are some difficult situations where there are several ways to handle them each with its own set of negatives. Ned unlike power hungry immoral people like LF tries to do his best, does not hurt inoccents because is convienient, shows mercy to children and so on. There is a very clear different and it baffles how one would see the difference between moral (ned) and immoral (LF).

See again, you are not explaining what makes one more moral than the other.  You are assuming the preexistence of some... user manual.... a priori knowledge of what actions are and are not moral.  Assume that person is deciding for themselves what they do and do not consider moral without a preconceived notion.  What makes one moral, or honorable and one not?

Quote

More or less we can classify them as such although morality is far more complex when we have to do not with an immoral and pathetic vs moral but between conflicting choices with positives and negatives. It really boggles the mind how someone can't see how Ned is more or less a moral man who even decides to at some point subvert his own sense of right and wrong to save his own children. You say that there is value in morality yet you equate it with stupidity. (Obviously Ned's honor is a kind of moral code). Of course you also like to keep asking explanation for Ned's morality even when it is constantly offered. You would never equate LF to Ned because you seem some superiority into LF for I guess the same reasons that LF sees himself superior to others. Unfortunately for all his talents, his moral inadequacy and the pointlessness of his petty and destructive and pathetic motivations doesn't make him superior. There are things more important than political intelligence and that is not the only kind of intelligence there is. And in those other things LF is quite inadequate in comparison to Ned.

[Summerqueen]

Lord Littlefinger, on 24 March 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

Yes, but feudal society all law flows from the king. The King gave Petyr a big castle and Liege Lordship for his good service in betraying Ned.  Ned doesn't live in a civilized society.  He lives in Westeros, the kingsguard contains a man who killed the last king.  His buddy Rob became king by crushing the life out of that king's  "rightful" heir, then Rob married the daughter of the Lord who ordered the children of the "rightful" heir crushed and pureed, respectively.  All of this won on the back of an alliance sealed by the marriage of a pregnant 14 year old girl and a 58 year old man.

Until people rise up in rebellion against this system or it is too unwieldy and corrupt to maintain itself, they are consenting to the law, regardless where it comes from. A rebellion is just such a violent attempt to reorganize the power structure. RR involved only the ruling class. If the small folk want a say in the governance of the kingdom, they will need to fight for it. Joffrey gives Petyr a castle, true, but it has yet to be determined that he is the rightful king. As you said earlier, part of the system is the idea that Might Makes Right. The 7K are in a state of open rebellion. Obviously, the ruling class does not all agree that Joff has the power to reward anyone—to be continued there.

I think we interpret these books very differently. I already knew that, but let me be honest. I do not think we have a hooker's chance in hell of convincing one another of anything.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Lord Littlefinger, on 24 March 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

Sure, if everyone does it.  But if you do it (and get away with it), its more valuable, to you. See again, you are not explaining what makes one more moral than the other.  You are assuming the preexistence of some... user manual.... a priori knowledge of what actions are and are not moral.  Assume that person is deciding for themselves what they do and do not consider moral without a preconceived notion.  What makes one moral, or honorable and one not?

I already made more than one long posts on this issue, some of them in response to you.  This contradicts your view that there is value in morality BTW. How can there be value in morality if you are unable to distinquish between Ramsay or LF or Gregor and Ned and who is moral from those?

Anyway I am not going to repeat my self again in detail so to summarize in somewhat brief fashion.

Hurting others greatly for just your personal advancement or due to being sadist, etc = immoral, bad, evil. All those words have those meanings.

Morality is humans choosing to follow some codes of behavior over others. Rather obviously behavior that is greatly harmful to others is considered immoral. Behavior that is not that and is beneficial is moral.  Such immoral behavior also leads to a worse society, a society full of LF is a very shitty society, a society of people who are not back stabbing power hungry, abusers of others is rather better (and LF worse is very good at being a parasite, he is clever at that). (also see modern ethics, for example people should not be allowed to rape each other because that violates a human's personal liberty, freedom, rights and there can be no good reason for that to be allowed, modern societies have a moral code and law whose values derive from that moral code that recognize certain actions as immoral and others as moral)  Humans don't like to be hurt and suffer. A society where people's morality is antithetical to condoning that suffering is a better society for people. Modern societies moral and law wise are quite better than medieval ones. None of this is arbitrary.

However as I said there are issues where finding  which is the right moral position is harder. Laws complicate things. Obeying laws can lead to a better society but what happens when a particular law is immoral? Does disobeying it set a bad example or be distruptibe to a society when society requires obedience to laws to function? Does obeying it allow beneficial change to not happen?  There are many complicated issues but calling the likes of Ramsay, LF and to offer real life example the Nazis, as immoral is quite uncomplicated.

It perplexes me that you need this to be explained to you. It perplexes me even more that you need this to be explained to you for a millionth time. But I expect you to ask once again, act if all of this is arbitrary and unexplained and not really understand it.

Edited by Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren, 24 March 2012 - 12:35 AM.

[voodooqueen126]

Lord Littlefinger, on 23 March 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

But of course.  Myran Trant was following the law when he obeyed Joffrey and beat Sansa. And Allar Deem was following the law when he slayed the prostitute on of behalf of the Queen Regent.  Of course, both men are nothing but honorable.

Don't pretend to be silly.
the law is quite different from the arbitary orders or individuals kings.
the law is usually written down and decided by society.
Thou shalt not murder (and I don't think people who refuse to kill are all that moral, I mean people like Roose, Gregor and Littlefinger need to be killed so that they don't pass on their psychopath genes)
thou shalt not commit adultery
thou shalt not steal
thou shalt not bear false witness
etc
following orders that contradict these pre-ordained rules, does not follow the rule of law and will lead to a chaotic miserable society.
The Lannisters give orders which they expect to be obeyed
the Starks have rules that they themselves follow and expect others to follow
big difference.
Needless to say the latter is better for society as a whole.

Edited by voodooqueen126, 24 March 2012 - 12:36 AM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren, on 24 March 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

I already made more than one long posts on this issue, some of them in response to you.  This contradicts your view that there is value in morality BTW. How can there be value in morality if you are unable to distinquish between Ramsay or LF or Gregor and Ned and who is moral from those?

Because in order for  a society to operate we need to be able to anticipate the behavior of others.  We need a social contract so that we can coordinate our activities in order to achieve more prosperity than we would as individuals or small groups.  But that does not presuppose what constitutes such a contract

Quote

Anyway I am not going to repeat my self again in detail so to summarize in somewhat brief fashion.

Hurting others greatly for just your personal advancement or due to being sadist, etc = immoral, bad, evil. All those words have those meanings.

Well I would certainly say that sadism and personal advancement equivalent.  Ramsay and Tyrion are not equivalent.  Ramsay and Loras or not equivalent.  The entire existence of knights, professional soldiers, is the exercise of violence, hurting others, in order to gain personal advancement.  Surely they're going to have to stop handing out medals of battle prowess

Quote

Morality is humans choosing to follow some codes of behavior over others. Rather obviously behavior that is greatly harmful to others is considered immoral.

I concur, I think Ice was quite harmful Garrett's neck.

Quote

Behavior that is not that and is beneficial is moral.

Beneficial to who?

Quote

Such immoral behavior also leads to a worse society, a society full of LF is a very shitty society, a society of people who are not back stabbing power hungry, abusers of others is rather better (and LF worse is very good at being a parasite, he is clever at that)

eh, I think Ned is much more a parasite than Petyr

Quote

. (also see modern ethics, for example people should not be allowed to rape each other because that violates a human's personal liberty, freedom, rights and there can be no good reason for that to be allowed, modern societies have a moral code and law whose values derive from that moral code that recognize certain actions as immoral and others as moral)  Humans don't like to be hurt and suffer.

That is true.  But what about people who do those things to their enemies, while leaving their own people protected.

Quote

A society where people's morality is antithetical to condoning that suffering is a better society for people.

Certainly, but we've already agreed that causing some amount of suffering is acceptable in some circumstances.  Robert's Rebellion, desserters from the Night's Watch, ect, ect.

Quote

However as I said there are issues where finding  which is the right moral position is harder. Laws complicate things. Obeying laws can lead to a better society but what happens when a particular law is immoral? Does disobeying it set a bad example or be distruptibe to a society when society requires obedience to laws to function? Does obeying it allow beneficial change to not happen?  There are many complicated issues but calling the likes of Ramsay,

Well I don't think Littlefinger and Ramsay have anything in common.  Ramsay inflicts pain on other for the satisfaction of doing so.

Quote

LF

Occasionally employs the use of violence to achieves is goals, as did Robert, as did Ned as did Jon Arryn

Quote

and to offer real life example the Nazis, as immoral is quite uncomplicated.

I see feel free to violate some laws, Godwin's law

Quote

It perplexes me that you need this to be explained to you. It perplexes me even more that you need this to be explained to you for a millionth time. But I expect you to ask once again, act if all of this is arbitrary and unexplained and not really understand it.

I don't need it explained per se.  I'm simply pointing out, as I did when I was 12 in world civilization class that there is no such thing as objective morality.  That generally people in power define morality in a way that is beneficial to them and then feel free to ignore said morality whenever it is convenient for them.  I don't see Ned any different than this or than Garrett.  There's nothing particularly noble about him and compromises his morality to the extent he finds it convenient, (ie: it would be hard to man the wall, if he didn't chop off people's head), the only reason he doesn't compromise further is because he doesn't realize he needs to... until we get to EMO Ned crying in the black cells.  He's really pathetic.

[_Oberyn_]

This idea that honor and morality have anything to do with law is bs. The good portion of the laws can be broken and it would not be imoral or or dishonest, but thats mainly to do with having a retarded number of laws about every little thing these days.

But if you take murder as the ultimate example. There is a large number of cultures out there where killing someone because of a "honour dispute" is aceptable by the society but not by the law.  And there is countrys out threre that have some despicable and imoral laws by any standart.

Edited by _Oberyn_, 24 March 2012 - 01:10 AM.

[Ygrain]

As others have pointed out, honour - or morals - are not some random personal sets of codes but social constructs. THe honour "manual" may not cover every single situation but it doesn't mean it's useless - lawbooks are not perfect, either, and for each unique situation, a precedens is established; yet no-one ever claimed that we should abandon the law.

The law of Westerosi says that  abandoning your post in NW is a crime punishable by death, as a desertion of  duty. Can you please elaborate how executing a criminal is the same as following an order to murder an innocent girl and her child? - BTW, the clash between the lawful and the moral is a pretty old one, and history is full of people who place the moral above the lawful when the law is crappy, regardless of consequences for themselves. And they surely do not expect others to follow the same codes as themselves, but they feel it is necessary to make a stand against the wrong.

Which gets us to the final point, and that's altruism. Acting selflessly on behalf of another, even at a personal risk, or risk to the family. Again, if you take a look at history, you have there people helping those unjustly prosecuted, even though such help could, and often did, lead to repercussions not just for the person involved but for their whole family.

You may write all these people off as too stupid to live but the fact that this pattern of behaviour is still kept within the population suggests it does have its meaning. If I'm not mistaken, sociologists call this the hawk-dove (or maybe English uses other terms) survival strategies, and each has its merit. Freys, Lannisters and Boltons are hawks are follow a ruthless survival strategy for immediate, short-term gain, generating conflicts, which may eventually turn against them. Starks are the doves, who may not survive personally but their strategy works in long-term, winning respect and loyalty and thus ensuring stability, not just for themselves but also others, upholding the society as a whole.

No person is a 100% embodiment of some principles but this doesn't mean they cannot be ascribed a certain label and that a person who is "only" 90% honourable is the same as someone who wouldn't recognize honour even if it came to bite his ass.