269 replies to this topic

[SerBarristan]

Game of Thrones is the prisoner's dilemma.

[voodooqueen126]

Lord Littlefinger, on 24 March 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

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  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 I concur, I think Ice was quite harmful Garrett's neck. Beneficial to who?eh, I think Ned is much more a parasite than PetyrThat is true.  But what about people who do those things to their enemies, while leaving their own people protected.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.Well I don't think Littlefinger and Ramsay have anything in common.  Ramsay inflicts pain on other for the satisfaction of doing so. Occasionally employs the use of violence to achieves is goals, as did Robert, as did Ned as did Jon ArrynI see feel free to violate some laws, Godwin's law 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.

Ah but Ramsay, Joffrey, Gregor, Tyrion, Littlefinger, Tywin all have one thing in common and that is that they put their needs before the needs of others, the only difference is that Ramsay, Joffrey and Gregor have a need to inflict pain on others, which Tyrion, Littlefinger, and Tywin find disturbing, but would happily do the same if it served their need to compensate their little dick syndrome.
In contrast people like Loras and Garlan, Sandor (after he stops serving the Lannisters), Robb, Lord Umber, Jon, Samwell etc fight because it is the right thing to do (protect innocent and vulnerable people).
So whilst their isn't much difference between someone who kills for fun and someone who kills for money/power, there is a huge difference between someone who kills for their personal selfish reasons (be they fun or money/power) and someone who kills to protect their culture, values, religion, nation, family etc.
The former is called murder the latter is called heroism.

Edited by voodooqueen126, 24 March 2012 - 01:20 AM.

[Ygrain]

Lord Littlefinger, on 24 March 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

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.  

People in power may define morality for themselves but not for the society. That is pretty observant if the rulers follow the general perception of morality or not.

[SerBarristan]

voodooqueen126, on 24 March 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

Robb, Lord Umber, Jon, Samwell etc fight because it is the right thing to do (protect innocent and vulnerable people).
So whilst their isn't much difference between someone who kills for fun and someone who kills for money/power, there is a huge difference between someone who kills for their personal selfish reasons (be they fun or money/power) and someone who kills to protect their culture, values, religion, nation, family etc.
The former is called murder the latter is called heroism.

Agree to Jon and Samwell generally. Take issue with Robb and Lord Umber. At best, Robb is fighting a war of independence. I think that's about as close as you get to a legitimate motive for him. Does Rob's desire to free his sisters and get vengeance for his father justify plunging the realm into a war that will result in the deaths and abject misery of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of "smallfolk?" That's less clear. Lord Umber may be fighting for independence, which strikes me as more "virtuous" or "good" than some other reasons given, but he's also fulfilling his duty as a bannerman... He swore an oath to fight his liege lord's wars. Is that a legitimate reason to fight a war? I'd argue no, not on its own.

There there's war for religion, culture and the like... We have enough of those wars in our real-life history to fill volumes. Are any such wars truly "heroic?" Maybe we need to redefine heroism..

Edited by SerBarristan, 24 March 2012 - 01:46 AM.

[Alvyn Sharp]

It depends what kind of honor you mean. Viking honor is much less rigid and restricting. But knightly honor is quite stupid, in my opinion. So yes, I agree with you.

Edited by Alvyn Sharp, 24 March 2012 - 01:47 AM.

[Summerqueen]

SerBarristan, on 24 March 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

Agree to Jon and Samwell generally. Take issue with Robb and Lord Umber. At best, Robb is fighting a war of independence. I think that's about as close as you get to a legitimate motive for him. Does Rob's desire to free his sisters and get vengeance for his father justify plunging the realm into a war that will result in the deaths and abject misery of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of "smallfolk?" That's less clear. Lord Umber may be fighting for independence, which strikes me as more "virtuous" or "good" than some other reasons given, but he's also fulfilling his duty as a bannerman... He swore an oath to fight his liege lord's wars. Is that a legitimate reason to fight a war? I'd argue no, not on its own.

There there's war for religion, culture and the like... We have enough of those wars in our real-life history to fill volumes. Are any such wars truly "heroic?" Maybe we need to redefine heroism..

I think the point with Robb and Umber is that Robb doesn't declare himself. His banner men appoint him. Robb does his duty by them, accepts that his loyal banner men want to follow him and that the beheading of his father has risen the specter of Northern Independence. Robb's actions are at least duty-driven. He is giving the ruling elite a leader that they want/choose. Umber is a classic example of someone refusing to consent to oppressive rule. He is the one who says "we won't stand for this, and what's more, they aren't in a good position to coerce us either."

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Summerqueen, on 24 March 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

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.

Yes yes, there are 5 kings, Stannis, Danny, Euron, Tommen and Aegon.  But Tommen is the pointy metal chair, for now.

[voodooqueen126]

SerBarristan, on 24 March 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

Agree to Jon and Samwell generally. Take issue with Robb and Lord Umber. At best, Robb is fighting a war of independence. I think that's about as close as you get to a legitimate motive for him. Does Rob's desire to free his sisters and get vengeance for his father justify plunging the realm into a war that will result in the deaths and abject misery of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of "smallfolk?" That's less clear. Lord Umber may be fighting for independence, which strikes me as more "virtuous" or "good" than some other reasons given, but he's also fulfilling his duty as a bannerman... He swore an oath to fight his liege lord's wars. Is that a legitimate reason to fight a war? I'd argue no, not on its own.

There there's war for religion, culture and the like... We have enough of those wars in our real-life history to fill volumes. Are any such wars truly "heroic?" Maybe we need to redefine heroism..

I would almost have hesitated to put Jon and Samwell in their at all-frankly their true enemy is the Others, and fighting the Others (and therefore killing others) is like fighting the Plague, cyclones, locusts, malaria mosquitos etc, which really isn't a moral choice, since killing an Other is rather like killing a locust/malaria mosquito.
However they do fight the Wildlings, and the Wildlings are a chaotic, lawless, thieving bunch of rapists so I suppose that counts as fighting an enemy to the benefit of human beings.
Yes I would say that Robb and Lord Umber fought a war of national liberation, remember that both the Targaryen regime and Lannister regime belonged to different races and religions?The Dornish probably should have allied with them and fought a war of national liberation as should the Ironborn (though this would not have been desirable, since the Iron Born are a bunch of thieving, rapists, with boats)

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Ygrain, on 24 March 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

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.

The law in Westeros is the word of the King or in this case the Queen Regent, is the law. The girl is not innocent if the Queen says she is not.

Quote

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.

Surely it is.  As history is full the strong taking advantage of the weak for the personal gain, the gain of their family and their country.

Quote

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.

Yes. But of course if future reciprocation for a people or their offspring then an action is not altruistic.  Further, there's no evidence that the other Starks, Rickard, Brandon, Llyanna and those frozen kings of Winter were anything like Ned.

Quote

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.

That's true. And Littlefinger is not Ramsay. Robert is not Ned. And each lord in Westeros decides what constitutes justification for the use of force.  Further, there is nothing honorable about the idea that older brother should inheret a kingdom.  It just happens to be the law.  There's nothing noble about plunging the realm into the war for the sake what should be worked out in a session of family therapy. Its quite possible that more lord like littlefinger and fewer like Ned and Edmure would lead to less war and suffering not more, despite the fact that they are acting selfishly in their own interest.  See Doran Martell in Dorne, or Petyr in the Vale. Even Roose Bolton notes, that its a pity Rob Stark is too young to know to bend the knee.

[Howling Mad]

Lord Littlefinger, on 23 March 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

OK, OK. So I think Ned is stupid.  

I also find the concept of honor to be nonsensical

Then you are simply espousing a society based on nihlism, no thanks.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

voodooqueen126, on 24 March 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

I would almost have hesitated to put Jon and Samwell in their at all-frankly their true enemy is the Others, and fighting the Others (and therefore killing others) is like fighting the Plague, cyclones, locusts, malaria mosquitos etc, which really isn't a moral choice, since killing an Other is rather like killing a locust/malaria mosquito.
However they do fight the Wildlings, and the Wildlings are a chaotic, lawless, thieving bunch of rapists so I suppose that counts as fighting an enemy to the benefit of human beings.
Yes I would say that Robb and Lord Umber fought a war of national liberation, remember that both the Targaryen regime and Lannister regime belonged to different races and religions?The Dornish probably should have allied with them and fought a war of national liberation as should the Ironborn (though this would not have been desirable, since the Iron Born are a bunch of thieving, rapists, with boats)

Well surely you don't really think Martin will truly make the Others "evil".  Invariably the will turn out to be some misunderstood children of the forest type beings.  Just as the wildlings were previously misunderstood.

[Summerqueen]

Lord Littlefinger, on 24 March 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

Yes yes, there are 5 kings, Stannis, Danny, Euron, Tommen and Aegon.  But Tommen is the pointy metal chair, for now.

So...you missed the point and thought I was confused about that or something?
*sigh*

The point is that "the law" comes down from a king that the people have more or less consented to be ruled by. With five kings on the board at any given time, consent can hardly be taken for granted here. And in any case, what does the granting of titles or lands have to do with the law. Your posts seem generally confused about what the law is, actually. Deserting the NW is against the law, for example. Conspiring to commit treason (by placing your own bastard or supporting the queen who wants to do this) is also illegal. Sure, possession is nine tenths of the law, I guess, but little Tommen has not won the throne yet.

Edited by Summerqueen, 24 March 2012 - 02:51 AM.

[voodooqueen126]

Lord Littlefinger, on 24 March 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

Well surely you don't really think Martin will truly make the Others "evil".  Invariably the will turn out to be some misunderstood children of the forest type beings.  Just as the wildlings were previously misunderstood.

Is a mosquito or a locust evil? No of course not, they are not human and therefore lack souls/moral choices.
But they are inimical to human life, so the others could have the disposition of saints, and that would not make them any less inimical to human life.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Ygrain, on 24 March 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

People in power may define morality for themselves but not for the society. That is pretty observant if the rulers follow the general perception of morality or not.

Well, it depends.  How you define morality.  The knights are fairly powerful in westeros.  And with brotherhood without border them "foraging" The Hound.  Adopting the moral standards of knights and lords.  The Hound who himself rejects the knightly standard of honor.   Note that Barristan tells Dany a knight anointed by Rhaegar was held in the highest regard and yet such a knight was Ser Gregor Clegane, who later rape and kill Rhaegar's wife and children.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Howling4Reed, on 24 March 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Then you are simply espousing a society based on nihlism, no thanks.

well that's not what I said.  I know many people who believe similarly and yet we don't go around murdering and robbing people.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

voodooqueen126, on 24 March 2012 - 02:31 AM, said:

Is a mosquito or a locust evil? No of course not, they are not human and therefore lack souls/moral choices.
But they are inimical to human life, so the others could have the disposition of saints, and that would not make them any less inimical to human life.

well there are those of us who do not believe in souls. And of course that is exactly what the First Men said about the Children of the Forest.  And yet the First Men and the Children of the Forest fought as allies against the Andals.

[Howling Mad]

Lord Littlefinger, on 24 March 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

well that's not what I said.  I know many people who believe similarly and yet we don't go around murdering and robbing people.

If that's true then you hold to a moral code of conduct on some level that in the correct set of circunstances will cause you to act against your own self interest.

[SerBarristan]

voodooqueen126, on 24 March 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

I would almost have hesitated to put Jon and Samwell in their at all-frankly their true enemy is the Others, and fighting the Others (and therefore killing others) is like fighting the Plague, cyclones, locusts, malaria mosquitos etc, which really isn't a moral choice, since killing an Other is rather like killing a locust/malaria mosquito.
However they do fight the Wildlings, and the Wildlings are a chaotic, lawless, thieving bunch of rapists so I suppose that counts as fighting an enemy to the benefit of human beings.
Yes I would say that Robb and Lord Umber fought a war of national liberation, remember that both the Targaryen regime and Lannister regime belonged to different races and religions?The Dornish probably should have allied with them and fought a war of national liberation as should the Ironborn (though this would not have been desirable, since the Iron Born are a bunch of thieving, rapists, with boats)

Erm. If we assume the Others are, in fact, just some harmful "force of nature," how does that undermine the value of what Jon and Samwell are doing? If morality stems from protecting life (human lives) and preventing human suffering (anthropocentric sure, but c'mon plz) then I don't see any reason why Jon and Samwell's service is in anyway lessened. Plagues are bad. They threaten to kill people, to cause suffering. Thus, what folks at places like the CDC do is good -- they're saving lives and minimizing harm. Ditto for folks who ward off um.. locusts or something. Those are good works! Bonus points to Jon and Sam for going the extra mile and putting their physical safety on the line for the good of others. (To the best of my knowledge, most lab techs aren't in a lot of danger, but I've no idea..)

Edited by SerBarristan, 24 March 2012 - 02:55 AM.

[SerBarristan]

Lord Littlefinger, on 24 March 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

well that's not what I said.  I know many people who believe similarly and yet we don't go around murdering and robbing people.

It would be helpful LFL if you would crystallize what you DO believe about morality for those of us who got lost navigating this thread's numerous (though certainly interesting!) tangents. I.e. me.

This is what I'm hearing. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1) There is no objective morality. There is only acting in one's self-interest and NOT acting in one's self-interest (which is "stupid).
2) Because Ned didn't act in his self interest, he was stupid.

And an important implication of #1 is that normative statements (e.g. "Ned is a morally superior to Littlefinger") are utterly meaningless.

That the gist of it?

Edited by SerBarristan, 24 March 2012 - 02:55 AM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

voodooqueen126, on 24 March 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

Ah but Ramsay, Joffrey, Gregor, Tyrion, Littlefinger, Tywin all have one thing in common and that is that they put their needs before the needs of others,

As do we all, lest we starve to death because to do otherwise would be to put our need for food above others.  

Quote

the only difference is that Ramsay, Joffrey and Gregor have a need to inflict pain on others, which Tyrion, Littlefinger, and Tywin find disturbing, but would happily do the same if it served their need to compensate their little dick syndrome.

Oh but that's quite a big difference.   You've just described nearly every lord in Westeros.  And your problem isn't with Petyr and Tywin but with feudalism.  And of course, I hear Tyrion's penis is quite large.  That's why he has waddle, when he walks.

Quote

In contrast people like Loras and Garlan, Sandor (after he stops serving the Lannisters), Robb, Lord Umber, Jon, Samwell etc fight because it is the right thing to do (protect innocent and vulnerable people).

Loras and Garlans are knights and do their best to murder as many people as they can on the blackwater. Sandor kidnaps a 10 year old girl, though I think he was always quite noble, with exception of the Mycah incident.  But of course, he was doing his duty as a knight just as Ned did when he hacked off Garrett's head. Samwell is disinherited, I seriously doubt there's anything fuzzy and gentle about The Great Jon, Robb is an incompetent boob, who gets himself and many of those cares deeply about murdered.   Jon is a pretty good guy, but turn a blind eye to Craster's International House of Incest,( And Pancakes).

Quote

So whilst their isn't much difference between someone who kills for fun and someone who kills for money/power, there is a huge difference between someone who kills for their personal selfish reasons (be they fun or money/power) and someone who kills to protect their culture, values, religion, nation, family etc.
The former is called murder the latter is called heroism.

Says who?  Being a lord in the 7 kingdoms is a contract to kill in exchange position/money/power.  There is no distinction between someone who kills for their culture, values, religion, nation, family (with the exception of family in the case of imminent harm).  You don't think the Iron Born think they kill for their culture, value, religion, nation and families?  Littlefinger's values are money and power. Why is that any better or worse than a fucking tree?  Clearly Tywin believes he works in the service of his family above all else.  As does Walder Frey!!!!!!