• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About thewolfofStarfall

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

689 profile views
  1. What separates Daenerys from people like Joffrey?

    I feel like Joffrey's behavior is more understandable considering how he was raised. He was brainwashed to believe he's allowed to do whatever he wants to people because he's a Lannister by his mother. Daenerys was taught to believe in Targaryen superiority by her brother, but I honestly believe she is just naturally self righteous with a victim complex because "her kingdom was taken from her".
  2. Daenerys is self righteously cruel. She revels in the suffering of others if she thinks they derseve to suffer. This description of her chracter came to me from an old thread discussing a disgustingly evil act she committed: her burning of Miri to death. It was by @Petyr Patter. That cruelty was the first of many if you don't count her standing by as her own brother was killed in an externally disgusting way. Viserys was a lunatic, but pouring molten gold on someone's head is even more insane than he was.
  3. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I never said the whole of humankind was was particularly good at reckonsing those ethical standards. Also, we do not depend most of the enndgagered species in earth for survival yet is still wrong to drive them to extinction. Ethics is not defined by what is natural or needed for survival, but does councide with if at times. There is no evidence that Others need to destroy all life in order to survive. We nothing about their motives. I'm confused by you mean by "it's in their nature", are you saying the Others are just a supernatural force who are not sentient, thus have no choice in what they're doing?
  4. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Reasons can be important in evaluating an action to be right or wrong. However, many people seem to believe simply having a reason behind a reprehensible action is enough to absolve a person from condemnation and assert "everyone's the hero of their own story". This makes no sense whatsoever. The actual reason is what is important, not the mere presence of one. As I've stated before, everyone has "reasons" behind their actions.
  5. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    It's ambiguous in the sense that the person's actions can fall anywhere on the spectrum depending on what they want rather than standards of right and wrong. It means there is no clear line between good and evil. People's actions are a big mess of "grey" composed of what we usually think of being "good" or "evil" actions but at end of the day there there no good or evil, according to moral relativists, nor is there good or evil people. People operate according to their own desires and we attach value to those actions based on our persceptives. Our persceptive is what makes an action "ambiguous", not a true existence of right and wrong. The "greyness" is ultimately a meaningless sea of nothing.
  6. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I never claimed people don't justify their actions by pretending or genuinely thinking they're doing the right thing in real life or the books. I'm simply claiming that not everyone operates that way, and that there are people who do not care whether something is right or wrong.
  7. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I just wanted to clear any confusion and say that my main point with the Others isn't necessarily about whether they're evil or not, I'm arguing against the assertion that it is impossible for the Others to be evil because of the oversimplification this saga has been reduced to. This is under the assumption that the Others are sentient beings, which is very clear in the show but maybe I haven't gotten far enough into the books to judge if the case is the same. The bottom line is it's possible that by the end of the story I'll be convinced that the Others at least aren't purely evil, but that end is yet to come.
  8. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I would say ethical standards should be beneficial to life in general, not just human life. A species trying to annihilate another species is evil regardless of what species were are talking about. Just like the Andals slaughtering the children of the forest were also reprehensible actions. The evilness of genocide really has nothing to do with what "race" were taking about. Futhermore, all those things you listed are entirely distinct from moral ambiguity. Having to face dilemmas is moral complexity and implies an existence and respect for ethical standards. Moral ambiguity is essentially amorality, meaning descions are simply based on characters' selfish desires much like Tywin, Littlefinger, and Daenerys. I don't buy her "abolistinst" act, she's okay with virtually any reprehensible act if it benefits her or sadistically punishes those she deems as worthless, so she can get her "ruthlessness" across.
  9. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Yup I agree completely. Trying to force moral greyness onto a fictional world is truly just another way for people to communicate their own world view.
  10. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    I was raised in a devout Christian home and attend a Christian school, so that definitely colors my beliefs and convictions, but I'm not actually sure what I would call myself at the moment, haha. Yeah I agree, I think it's one thing to examine the characters' actions in universe. It raises a lot of interesting questions about the society's perception of honor, despite their being a lot of injustice that their "honor" either covers up, ignores, or commends . This is best seen in the "Jamie dilemma", where he had to break his kingsguard vows to kill the lunatic he served, and is now know as the "kingslayer". I'm glad Jamie has these aspects, like all the other well written characters. This is sort of the difference between "moral ambiguity" and moral complexity. A morally complex character actually has standards of right and wrong, and faces dilemmas where the correct path doesn't seem clear. I think Stannis could be described as morally complex to an extent, yet everyone wants to employ a sort of "one drop policy", where all characters are a sea of grey. It really takes away from characters IMO. A morally ambiguous character bases nearly all of their descions on their own lustfull desires, and their actions can fall anywhere on the sprectrum. They can justify clearly immoral, even atrocitous actions if it fits their agenda, or they simply don't care. IMO this is not key to good writing at all. Moral grayness can be far more trite than classic stories that are perceived as "black and white". In fact, the concept of moral relativism is more absolute than a straightforward understanding of ethics because you're saying "there is no moral truth". It's amorality. Everything is the same. Getting pleasure from murdering a child is no different from getting pleasure from eating a hamburger (there is a similar quote by the serial killler Ted Bundy on this). This is of course an extreme example of moral relativism, but it still shares the same underlying principle that many people on this forum seem to be guided by. It's a bit disheartening that so many people can claim there's no good or evil in a work a fiction just as easily as they can say that about the real world. I'm not sure what's more confusing: that people can see the rampant murder, rape, and torture that takes place in Westeros and beyond and claim "there's no evil", and "everyone's a hero of their own story", or that people can look at the real world and say the same things.
  11. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Likewise I could argue the same about assuming people are not evil or have good intentions just because we know little about them. I would actually say that is a far riskier assessment depending on the situation. Also, I'm not even basing my opinion on the Others from what I don't know but from what I do know. At the end day, we do understand the Others. We really don't need to know much about them to know they must be stopped and since they are making conscious decisions to kill innocent people they can be described as evil regardless of their motives. It would be a whole other matter if they were not conscious beings, which I'm claiming they more than likely are in the books, and definitely are in the show.
  12. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Fair enough. However, I'm not at all concerned about the mere fact that twisted moral reasoning bothers me, so it can not actually be an "issue". I do find certain perceptions unsettling, so I decided to call it out. I don't see how this wrong, not like it will stop me from voicing my opinion. It's the underlying principles that people apply to real life that's makes it unsettling. I'm pretty sure fiction is suppose to make you reflect on real life, so again I find it perfectly normal to find issue with the popular moral beliefs on this fandom.
  13. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Well, I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The Free Northman mentioned how there's a difference between acknowledging the pitfalls that humans have to going out your way to glorify the notion that we're all "grey" instead of striving to make ethical decisions. Furthermore, there's a wild difference between acknowledging human capability and willingness to make wrong decisions at times, as opppsed to transforming this basic concept into an "everyone's the hero of their own story" assertion. I hope you realize that not everyone actually sees themselves as the "hero of their own story". That's not how life works. Many people are acutely aware of the immorality of their own actions, they simply don't care. Most evil people don't fool themselves into believing they're "the hero", however they do delude others into believing their actions are for "the greater good" to gain followers. This has been true since time immemorial. I think the problem is you think I'm claiming ASOIAF is a "black and white story", when I'm actually not. I'm claiming "black and white stories" don't exist. That's why I said "whatever that means" in my OP. It's simply common sense that people are infallible in their choices. This is even taught in Christianity. People have been hearing we're "all sinners" since kindergarten. Most people have lightness and darkness inside them. What defines us is what we choose to do and our willingness to learn and and improve. This basic concept has nothing to with moral relativism, in fact it is moral relativism's antithesis.
  14. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Maybe most the evil happens off screen in the books because so far we've seen plenty of evil he the show. Also, you ideas are entirely speculative. You claim that we know nothing about the Others, so the assessment that they're evil is just as valid as them having some sort of "other side" which again doesn't excuse their actions.
  15. "Moral ambiguity" is overrated and overestimated

    Yeah pretty much everything you said. I care about the origins of the Others, but no so much about their intentions which a lot people are wholly fixated on. Their motives are completely irrelevant to the fact that they're agents of destruction that need to be stopped. Although, I'm not sure if I would characterize the Others assimply a destructive force akin to a tsunami or earthquake. They are clearly sentient beings and this is even more highlighted in the show. They're pretty sadistic. It's not so far fetched to characterize them as evil imo because they're making conscious decisions unlike some natural or supernatural force, so they're not so different from humans. The moral relativism attached to human actions is unsettling, but I see the justification the Others recieve as an extension of the ones the human characters receive. I used them as example becayse they're the "big bad" of the series yet they seem to receive the most justification and benefit of the doubt. I find it strange that people claim we know nothing about the Others, but use completely baseless ideas to add "moral ambiguity" to their nature as opposed to what we already know. There's nothing to suggest the Others are the natives, or anything else the other user said.