Jaime's pushing Bran out the window

[Nephenee]

Assume you were forced to choose between yourself, your lover and your 2 kids (he didn't give a damn about Joffrey) and a stranger child that you've never met before. Assume that the murderer told you that if you didn't kill the child who you've never met before, then he would kill yourself and your family. And you knew, somehow, that this situation was going to happen for sure. Would you kill that child just to save yourself and your family?

I'm 100% certain that almost everyone on this forum would kill that child, due to their love for their family. Yet people very conveniently ignore this crucial fact, and whine and bitch endlessly about how Jaime pushed Bran out the window. It makes no sense at all when you would have done exactly the same thing in that situation!

The death of the child is tragic, but the other lives are worth more in total, so the action is justified, even if it's partly immoral due to the death of one child. But it would be far more immoral to let 4 people die. Four lives are worth more than one.

Here are the following counterarguments:

1. Jaime didn't care for his children, but I would care for mine.

2. It wasn't 100% certain that they would have all died.

3. Jaime could have run away with Cersei and the kids.

4. Murdering a child is always wrong even if it's to save your family.

The first 3 are very easy to answer, but the last one is not. Let's go one by one.

1. Jaime did care for Tommen, and if he cared for Tommen, he definitely cared for Myrcella by extension, because there's no reason for him not to. But he understandably didn't give a shit about Joffrey.

"Ser Osmund, relieve me," Jaime said sharply, as Kettleblack turned to chase the crown. He handed the man the golden sword and went after his king. In the Hall of Lamps he caught him, beneath the eyes of two dozen startled septas. "I'm sorry," Tommen wept. "I will do better on the morrow. Mother says a king must show the way, but the smell made me sick."

This will not do. Too many eager ears and watching eyes. "Best we go outside, Your Grace." Jaime led the boy out to where the air was as fresh and clean as King's Landing ever got. Twoscore gold cloaks had been posted around the plaza to guard the horses and the litters. He took the king off to the side, well away from everyone, and sat him down upon the marble steps. "I wasn't scared," the boy insisted. "The smell made me sick. Didn't it make you sick? How could you bear it, Uncle, ser?"

I have smelled my own hand rotting, when Vargo Hoat made me wear it for a pendant. "A man can bear most anything, if he must," Jaime told his son. I have smelled a man roasting, as King Aerys cooked him in his own armor. "The world is full of horrors, Tommen. You can fight them, or laugh at them, or look without seeing . . . go away inside."

Tommen considered that. "I . . . I used to go away inside sometimes," he confessed, "when Joffy . . ."

"Joffrey." Cersei stood over them, the wind whipping her skirts around her legs. "Your brother's name was Joffrey. He would never have shamed me so."

"I never meant to. I wasn't frightened, Mother. It was only that your lord father smelled so bad . . ."

"Do you think he smelled any sweeter to me? I have a nose too." She caught his ear and pulled him to his feet.

"Lord Tyrell has a nose. Did you see him retching in the holy sept? Did you see Lady Margaery bawling like a baby?"

Jaime got to his feet. "Cersei, enough."

Jaime's fatherly treatment of Tommen here indicates that he obviously did care for him; enough to stand up against Cersei.

2. It was certain, even if it didn't happen right away. Ned would have done some research, just like he did in AGOT, and shown the book about Baratheons always having black hair to Robert--even Robert wasn't stupid enough to reject evidence. And then all 5 of the Lannisters would have been executed.

3. This is the easiest argument to respond to. Do you really think Cersei would consent to running away? Do you really think Cersei would consent to her children being taken from her to live in the wild? Do you really think Cersei would want to live in the wild? She was a complete bitch, and she would rather someone die than live without comfort.

4. This is the most important question to answer: is the murder of a child always unjustifiable, even if more lives will be lost (lives of 2 children as opposed to one, and two adults) as a result? This forum is weird, because 55% of Christians actually agree that the murder of a child can be justified in some situations. The majority of people do agree that the murder of a child can be justified. So what is wrong with this forum? Why don't the people in this forum acknowledge it?

Now, the people who have defended this view this word their argument as follows: There is never a situation in which killing a child is justified. As they use the word never, we can think of ANY extreme situation at all to disprove this asinine claim.

Let us say everyone in the world was going to be murdered if you didn't murder one child who you never met. This includes the billions of children that are alive today. And you knew somehow that this situation was going to happen with certainty if you didn't murder that child. Would you murder the child to save the world? I think anyone would, even if they don't want to admit it.

Some people argue that this isn't a realistic situation--that the world will be destroyed if one child isn't murdered--and therefore it is, somehow, wrong. But this is a nonsensical argument, because it is physically possible that a situation like this could occur. And we aren't going to throw away our morals just because some physically possible situation will never occur, even though it can.

Situations like this allow our concepts to be examined to a far greater degree. Putin, for example, could want his daughter murdered for whatever reason and threaten to start a nuclear war if she didn't get murdered. We aren't going to throw away our concepts just because some physically possible situation will never occur--that's just an incredibly ad hoc argument.

In the situation where the world was going to be destroyed, it seems that the reason one would murder the child to save the world would be due to the fact that billions of lives are worth more than the life of one child. So more lives are worth than less, and so on. And it follows that 4 lives are worth more than one--just like Jaime's situation.

Some people--asininely, in my opinion--argue that murder is always wrong for some reason, even if the consequence is the murder of others. I've never received a good explanation as to why murder is always wrong, even if other people were to be murdered, but there you go.

But aren't 4 murders worse than one? By not murdering one child, you're also allowing the murder of four. You're murdering four people instead of one! And I think we all agree that murdering more people is worse than murdering less.

It's a logical contradiction to believe that life is valuable therefore the murder of one person is wrong, and then say that allowing the murder of 4 people is morally just.

Conclusion

Jaime isn't perfect. Jaime isn't a saint. Jaime could have handled the situation better; after all, the entire point of his redemption arc was to show that he was changing from an immature and troubled person to someone more like Ned! But Jaime's intentions for pushing Bran out the window were completely justified and understandable. If you wanted to save your family, I'm sure you would have done the same thing. Pushing Bran out the window to save his family was not one of his crimes. His crimes were needlessly killing Ned's men out of anger, and other things like that.

People who study ethics agree.

A 2013 survey in a paper by David Chalmers and David Bourget shows that 68% of professional philosophers would switch (sacrifice the one individual to save five lives) in the case of the Trolley Problem

[Bob Sacamano]

is the murder of a child always unjustifiable

Yes, I believe it is.

[m00mba]

Yes, I believe it is.

Agreed.

[Nephenee]

Even to save your family?

[Señor de la Tormenta]

f...ck I read your quote and it remainded me I do not want this sweet kid to die. I hope Jaime can bend the knee and give himself to be executed if they take him to the rock and. let him rule there.

Not likely to happen that would be the perfect redemption for jaime.

[TalalOfDorne]

This again?

If Jaime wasnt the selfish scumbag he is, he wouldn't have had the kids with Cersei anyway. He brought this on himself, and he risked his life and that of the ones he "loves". He is in no way justified of murdering anyone, especially a kid, because he got himself into that situation.

[David Selig]

Here's the most obvious and most often cited counterargument which you conveniently ignored - Jaime put himself in this situation by committing a capital crime and risking the lives of his whole family and a huge war. And he didn't do it once, he did it regularly for 15 years.

[N/A]

are we seriously going to go over this again ?

check Winter's knight's thread http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/94171-so-youre-in-love-with-a-controversial-character/

(you don't have to explain why you love the guy)

and just for the sake of argument, how do you explain jamie wanting to kill arya in AGOT ?

[blood of the dragoon]

Yes, I believe it is.

Hence it bring called murder.

And it was the culmination of decades of immoral behavior, not just one it's or them call.

[Duncan the Average Sized]

Always saw this scene as being used to set the tone of the books/series. Child out of window, here we go. Written perhaps before Jaime was resurrected as redeemable character.

[Overlord of Skagos]

while i agree with the OP..what makes me judge Jaime is the fact that he dosent feel any guilt or remorse over that deed....yes,he saved his own life and the life of the queen and her children, but if I did kill a child, I'd feel guilty about it all my life. Jaime dosent seem to show such signs.

[Mr Hodor]

if you start doing this you can justify anything. Slavery, racism, sexual discrimination included.

[brAnthelAstgreenseer]

Please stop Nepheene

[Andrés Garcia]

Also, by pushing Bran Stark from the window, Jaime prevented a possible war between the crown and the Westerlands. If Robert Baratheon somehow found out what Bran saw, and he was smart enough to put two and two together, he'd probably not hesitate to execute enough Lannisters to provoke Tywin's wrath. It's possible, in other words, that Jaime once again saved the lives of thousands.

[aceluby]

There is no justification for what he did to Bran, it's also what makes his redemption arc so compelling (IMO). If you are to justify that he has always been a good guy and justify every action he's made as selfless acts his 'redemption arc' isn't really redemption, but just a telling of a white shiny hero.... in other words... BORING!

No, there is no justification and that's what makes him interesting as a character.

[Groat]

while i agree with the OP..what makes me judge Jaime is the fact that he dosent feel any guilt or remorse over that deed....

Except he states he regrets doing it.

[TalalOfDorne]

Also, by pushing Bran Stark from the window, Jaime prevented a possible war between the crown and the Westerlands. If Robert Baratheon somehow found out what Bran saw, and he was smart enough to put two and two together, he'd probably not hesitate to execute enough Lannisters to provoke Tywin's wrath. It's possible, in other words, that Jaime once again saved the lived of thousands.

On the whole, I'd say Jaime has saved far more lives than he has ever taken. The same can probably not be said of Eddard Stark, for example.

Jaimes kids being illegitimate was what got Stannis and Ned to challenge their claim, and so the WOT5K began. A bigger and bloodier war than your hypothetical Crown VS West war.

[Jory Cassel]

The quote you brought up shows him giving counsel to Tommen and treating him respectfully, no tenderness and no love displayed here. Plus, when Tywin gave him the chance to take Casterly Rock and to take Tommen with him, in order to squire for him, effectively raising him, he refused.

And you conveniently neglect that Jaime himself stated that he did so in order to hide his affair, not to save his children.

If you endorse such an extreme form of utilitarism, neglecting that Jaime and Cersei put themselves in that situation, fully aware of the risks, that's fine, I (and supposedly many others), simply don't.

[Overlord of Skagos]

Except he states he regrets doing it.

Maybe the fact that Bran lives,lessened the feeling for Jaime...But if I was someone with a good heart and I killed/crippled a child as an act of extreme desperation,I'd be haunted by that memory for every single moment..whenever I see a similar boy..I'd constantly be reminded of my deed.....

Would have been clear if we had a Jaime PoV in AGoT i guess..

[Groat]

Maybe the fact that Bran lives,lessened the feeling for Jaime...But if I was someone with a good heart and I killed/crippled a child as an act of extreme desperation,I'd be haunted by that memory for every single moment..whenever I see a similar boy..I'd constantly be reminded of my deed.....

Would have been clear if we had a Jaime PoV in AGoT i guess..

He's had other issues to deal with, like being a prisoner of war and getting his hand chopped off, but he has explicitly stated his regret for the what he did to Bran. If you want to argue he "didn't mean it" then that's another topic. Plus, this is a time when birthing and infancy are dangerous periods, not every child makes it to adulthood, so while in our view a child dying is horrible, it's not as bad from the character's PoV's.