Vows vs. Doing What's "Right"

[Maxxine]

I brought this up in the "If Sam Never Leaves the Wall..." thread and it's something I've always kinda thought about. So I wanted to see what others felt about it. By the end of Dance, I think it's clear that Jon has broken his vows or at least it about to break his vows before he's stabbed by Bowen & Co. I've seen a good number of people on here say something along the lines of he broke his vows and he was wrong so he deserved what he got. I don't see it that way. I acknowledge that he broke his vows, but I don't think he was wrong to so. What he knew was that his sister, an 11 year old girl, was forced into a marriage with someone who is going to rape and abuse her and he had the means to try to help her. Was he really wrong to do that even though it broke vows? He decided to march on a guy that threatened him and the NW; the NW that is the thing between the Others and the Realm. Is he really wrong to want to protect NW even though he's breaking his vows? (Btw I recognize that the things he thought were not true; I'm just thinking of Jon's POV, not we know as readers)These vows cannot be so absolute that you ignore the "right" thing. This is what happened with the KG during the reign of Aerys, Joffrey, and to a certain extent Robert. Aerys' KG watched as the king brutally raped his wife and burned people alive because the had to keep their vows. Joffrey's KG followed orders to slap around a helpless 12 year old girl because they had to keep their vows. Barristan stood by as Robert drunkenly tried to kill a boar because he had to keep his vows. Do people think they did the right thing because they kept their vows? Had Jaime kept his vows a whole city and all the people in it would have burned. Was he wrong because he didn't keep his vows?

So what should the balance be between keeping your vows and making the right decisions? Should it be your vows are your vows and nothing else matters? Should it be yeah you have your vows and you should keep them, but there are some circumstances where breaking your vows is necessary?

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

Very interesting issue you raise. The Westrosi culture clearly puts high value on oaths, vows, etc. This is probably because in the way the society is set up swearing "allegiance" is key to establishing the hierarchy, and if your word turns out to be useless then nothing is certain. It's interesting that in Jaime's case, no-one seems to care that Aerys was killed, in fact it was accepted that someone would have had to do it, but rather that Jaime broke his vows.

Personally, I think that the judgement against Jon is madness. His sister (as far as he knows) is in mortal danger. Of course he should do whatever he can to save her. The NW oath is bullshit anyway. 

[Ashes Of Westeros]

The debate of what is more important defending the Realm or your nearest and dearest is one too wildly speculative road for me to venture walking in. In the end it's always a personal choice. The best example of this is the tragic figure of maester Aemon.

Quote

"Three times the gods saw fit to test my vows. Once when I was a boy, once in the fullness of my manhood, and once when I had grown old. <...> I was helpless as a suckling babe, yet still it grieved me to sit forgotten as they cut down my brother's poor grandson, and his son, and even the little children . . . "

Jon was in deep conflict with himself everytime he was about to break his vows. I think this conflict isn't about vows vs. "right thing", but between what feels right for a private person vs what is right for the Realm. Taking an oath for the NW, the KG, the CItadele is dedicating someone's life to something universaly important (like defending the Realmagains the Others), regardless to personal matters and lifes. Aemon chose the Realm and suffered his whole life because he had to give up his family and he apparently thought many time what if he made another choice.

Quote

"It hurts, boy," he said softly. "Oh, yes. Choosing . . . it has always hurt. And always will. I know."

 

[CJ McLannister]

The whole conflict between honor and morality is a central theme of the series.  To follow one's vows is just, but it is not always Good.  Jaime summarizes this point as well as the conflicting interests.  By breaking the NW vow, Jon is turning his back on his duty to defend the realm in order to defend his family.  Which one is the right thing to do?  

[Jeeves]

What is "right" for Jon is to do his job and put the "greater good" ahead of Arya.  He chose to join the night watch.  He took their vows.  He was elected by the narrowest of margins to lord commander and he accepted the responsibility.  He was completely wrong to break night watch rules to help get Arya away from her marriage.  Jon was wrong to let Mance Rayder walk free from his crimes.  Jon was wrong to send Mance Rayder to sneak his sister out of Winterfell.  Jon was wrong to put a wildling raiding party together to attack the Boltons. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 minutes ago, Heavy D said:

He was elected by the narrowest of margins to lord commander

No he wasn't, he was elected by landslide. 

 

2 minutes ago, Heavy D said:

He was completely wrong to break night watch rules to help get Arya away from her marriage.  Jon was wrong to let Mance Rayder walk free from his crimes.  Jon was wrong to send Mance Rayder to sneak his sister out of Winterfell.  Jon was wrong to put a wildling raiding party together to attack the Boltons. 

Can you explain why these actions were wrong?

I think it's important not to conflate "the good of the realm" with "keeping your vows". Jaime killing Aerys was clearly what was best for the realm. In my opinion, Jon killing Ramsay and Roose would be good for the realm, vows or no vows. 

[Philokles]

Given how misguided the stated purpose and illogical the oaths of the Night's Watch are, Jon was correct in doing what he thought was right. Despite contravening the letter of the vows, he remained true to the real purpose of the NW - to protect against the others.

[Runaway Penguin]

Then again, you can turn this around. Is sticking to the letter of the oath universal value, or personal one? The greater good would be an universal value then and you not willing to break your oath, greater good be damned, would be a personal value.

What if two oaths collide? I mean yes, the Kingslayer violated his Kingsguard oath, but he upheld his knightly oath - he protected the weak and the innoncent. 

Some oaths are not oaths, but traditions - like "the NW does not take part in the goings of 7k". I mean they are by default if they serve as a disposal ground for criminals, esp. the noble ones. And the safety of realms of Men depends on NW being able to act - so what if Northern lords decide to cut off supplies for the Watch? What if kingdoms fall to supernatural threat from the South? What if downfall of the Watch was not caused as muych by Targs not wanting huge independent army... But by failure of this army to act when 7k was under attack by dragons? Heck, the entire war with wildlings is a Watch tradition, which many members now take as part of an Oath. 

Do not forget that Roose and Ramsey wanted to use fArya to cement their rule of the North. So from the greater good aspect... What is better for the Watch, to have a Stark in Winterfell... Or a Bolton? Especially when the ultimate challenge comes... Is making sure that the Lord of Winterfell is friendly to the Watch really going against the spirit of NW oath? Or is it going against the tradition? I mean Jon is not going there to TAKE the throne (in books at least). He is not going there to win glory (or to father children). But he IS going there to protect the Realms of Men.

[Maxxine]

16 minutes ago, Heavy D said:

What is "right" for Jon is to do his job and put the "greater good" ahead of Arya.  He chose to join the night watch.  He took their vows.  He was elected by the narrowest of margins to lord commander and he accepted the responsibility.  He was completely wrong to break night watch rules to help get Arya away from her marriage.  Jon was wrong to let Mance Rayder walk free from his crimes.  Jon was wrong to send Mance Rayder to sneak his sister out of Winterfell.  Jon was wrong to put a wildling raiding party together to attack the Boltons. 

So was he wrong just because it resulted in breaking his vows? There's a girl who is going to be raped and abused (Arya or not) and Jon had a way to discreetly help her. He has vows so he's wrong to help her? And the raiding party was only put together after the NW was threatened. But he was wrong to try to protect the NW because it broke his vows? That's an interesting viewpoint to me. By that logic it's right for the KG to slap Sansa around because they were keeping their vows.

25 minutes ago, CJ McLannister said:

The whole conflict between honor and morality is a central theme of the series.  To follow one's vows is just, but it is not always Good.  Jaime summarizes this point as well as the conflicting interests.  By breaking the NW vow, Jon is turning his back on his duty to defend the realm in order to defend his family.  Which one is the right thing to do?  

Do they have to be mutually exclusive (defending the realm and defending the family)?

[Oracle.Clear.Rivers]

1 hour ago, Maxxine said:

 

[Oracle.Clear.Rivers]

 

2 hours ago, Maxxine said:

So what should the balance be between keeping your vows and making the right decisions? Should it be your vows are your vows and nothing else matters? Should it be yeah you have your vows and you should keep them, but there are some circumstances where breaking your vows is necessary?

Sorry about the my first post in thread. It won't let me write comments below the quote. So I just left it blank. Sorry.

Anyway, these are all difficult questions that, for me, all boils down to the interpretation of the person of his/her vows. The Westerosi vows we know are inherently good. It's just the manner of execution and interpretation of it is when problems arises.

Let's take KG as an example. Their vow is to protect the king. Obvious interpretation, the king must be protected from outside forces that could threaten him. Deeper interpretation, the king should be protected from all kinds of dangers - even from himself. With that perspective, one can say that the KG is within their rights to interfere with Aerys' madness. His actions is harming his own reputation which can turn into a more tangible danger later on like a rebellion (which did happen in canon). As KG tasked to protect the king, they should have made an effort to protect him from his own madness. So in a way, KG already failed their king through inaction.

However, this is easier said than done. Vows are often taken literally and people who take them often don't look deeper into its meaning. The easier (shallow) interpretation is easier to follow. Observing and following the nuances of it is far more difficult. It's takes courage to take that difficult path and only a few people can do it. Sadly majority often rules and no matter how true your interpretation of your vows are, following said interpretation would still be seen as "breaking of your vow" because it doesn't agree with their own. Case in point: Jon and NW.

This power of majority also creates fear among the "true" keepers of the vow and can even stop them from doing what they really ought to do. Examples again: KG and Jaime about Aerys raping Rhaella; NW and Jon about confronting the Boltons.

Let's use an non-ASoIaF related situation to (hopefully) make it clearer. Let's say I made a vow to always help hungry people.

Shallow interpretation of the vow: I must satisfy their hunger. EXECUTION: Feed them.

Deeper interpretation of the vow: I must make sure they won't go hungry again. EXECUTION: Teach them how to get food.

Feeding hungry people is a lot easier. Its effect can be seen immediately too. But the benefits are only temporary and hunger will easily come back. The problem will be never ending.

Meanwhile, the difficult and complicated task of teaching people to get food would be much more rewarding because you are making them learn to be self sufficient which will help them overcome food shortage and, therefore, hunger.

Both manners of execution and interpretation can help me keep my vow however, the deeper version is truer to the reason I made that vow - helping people. Wouldn't stopping them from experiencing hunger again the best help you can give them?

However, many people might not see it that way. So instead of me being thought as true to my vow by teaching hungry people to farm and hunt, they might see me as coldhearted and cruel for making them work instead of feeding them. Hence, I'm an oathbreaker in their eyes.

I know. This all sounds weird and overly complicated (Sorry) but it's how I see vows are supposed to work. Well, vows that have good purposes.

[Protagoras]

This topic sounds like weak attempt to assume that "what´s is right" is somewhat different than the society's demand on you. But it isn´t.

What action is moral is decided by all of us. There exist no kind of objective framework since "right", "wrong" and standards of reasoning are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment. It is impossible to provide the objective truth or the universal validity of moral claims. The fact that the moral objectivists (like Kant) themselves cannot agree about which moral system is correct, or what its philosophical foundation should be really shows their lack of argument. And for morals to be truly absolute, they would have to have a universally unquestioned source, interpretation and authority, which is impossible. So, what is, is that societies decides what is moral since we are all a product of the society we live in. 

So when, say Jon, is given an order to stay neutral and refuses to do so in order to save his sister from rape it is not a moral action. The society in question gave him a task well aware that in some cases other things will try to interfere with his job and he, in such a case, should choose his task over the distraction. That is the essence of swearing an oath in the first place - that you give your word to perform something regardless of how much it appeals to you.

Rape in turn is not an evil act unless the society say it is and in this case it clearly doesn´t. Ramsay has the right, according to the standards of Westeros, to have sex with his wife. Jon is interfering with this right. In addition, Jon has also taken a wow to not interfere. Conclusion, according to the world Jon live in, Jon is not allowed to act as he did regardless of how supportive we are to Jons behaviour with our current moral standard. 

If you live on an island with 10 rapists and the majority of the islands inhabitants think rape should be OK, then rape is a moral act, regardless of what we today would think of such a society (since again - we have a different framework of assessment and we cannot prove that their way is morally wrong and our right other than saying "We don´t do this in our society" (and they could say the same)). 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

First, that Society dude you keep invoking as your authority is himself conflicted. You say Society is OK with Ramsay abusing his wife? Roose Bolton says otherwise. You say Society condemns Jon Snow for his attempted rescue of Arya? I personally haven't heard him giving his verdict on Lord Snow's actions yet. Not Society himself, nor any individuals, outside of very few in Castle Black. Mebbe Hugo Wull would hold a different view than Bowen Marsh, for example.

And second, your dichotomy "Society allows / Society disallows" is insanely simplistic. It leaves no room left for "the human heart in conflict with itself", nor for "society in conflict with itself", basically for no stories more sophisticated and nuanced than, say, "Teletubbies".

[Lurid Jester]

31 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

And second, your dichotomy "Society allows / Society disallows" is insanely simplistic. It leaves no room left for "the human heart in conflict with itself", nor for "society in conflict with itself", basically for no stories more sophisticated and nuanced than, say, "Teletubbies".

Not really simplistic. Disturbingly accurate more like. 

You and I might be disgusted at the idea of killing our daughter because she was seen kissing a boy, but there are places in this world, our world, where very large groups of people would and do find that socially acceptable and the "right" thing to do.  

The society we grow up in sets our moral compass. There is some overlap of what is considered right and wrong between societies but those shouldn't be considered the natural norm.  

There is no instinctive human morality.  I wish there was, but only if it matches my own learned morality. 

Otherwise id be screwed. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

2 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

Not really simplistic. Disturbingly accurate more like. 

You and I might be disgusted at the idea of killing our daughter because she was seen kissing a boy, but there are places in this world, our world, where very large groups of people would and do find that socially acceptable and the "right" thing to do. 

And, guess what: it creates conflicts, within these "places in this world", between people inhabiting them, in the people themselves. You mention those "honor killings" - and aren't those vehemently protested?

Prot's vision, where's there some Society fella, who has his set views on what goes and what goes not, and is at peace with himself, content that he got it right, is very simplistic. Not in the slightest part accurate. But I agree on the "disturbing" part.

[Protagoras]

19 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

Not really simplistic. Disturbingly accurate more like. 

You and I might be disgusted at the idea of killing our daughter because she was seen kissing a boy, but there are places in this world, our world, where very large groups of people would and do find that socially acceptable and the "right" thing to do.  

The society we grow up in sets our moral compass. There is some overlap of what is considered right and wrong between societies but those shouldn't be considered the natural norm.  

There is no instinctive human morality.  I wish there was, but only if it matches my own learned morality. 

Otherwise id be screwed. 

Exactly - I am completely with you all in here that rape is a horrible crime, but A. That doesn´t mean the opinion "rape is wrong" is true, just because we all agree on it here on this forum (Thats called intersubjective reality) and B. That we can agree in the first place is because we are both part of culture that think so - we are simply formed by the standards we live in and it is more or less certain that if we were romans in the Roman empire we would think differently of say raping slavegirls (or slavery!). And how do you prove for a Roman that such act is morally wrong. You can´t - due to that different framework I talked about earlier.

Don´t hate the Protagoras, hate the game. Or as The Hound said - "I'm honest. It's the world that's awful".

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

First, that Society dude you keep invoking as your authority is himself conflicted. You say Society is OK with Ramsay abusing his wife? Roose Bolton says otherwise. You say Society condemns Jon Snow for his attempted rescue of Arya? I personally haven't heard him giving his verdict on Lord Snow's actions yet. Not Society himself, nor any individuals, outside of very few in Castle Black. Mebbe Hugo Wull would hold a different view than Bowen Marsh, for example.

And second, your dichotomy "Society allows / Society disallows" is insanely simplistic. It leaves no room left for "the human heart in conflict with itself", nor for "society in conflict with itself", basically for no stories more sophisticated and nuanced than, say, "Teletubbies".

Not sure if you are quoting me but I will answer anyway.

First - indeed do certain parts of society think different but rules exists for a reason. I think it is a reasonable assumption that if a rule say that a girl can be married away and be forced to have sex with her husband then it doesn´t constitute a crime, regardless of what an individual like Jon Snow might think. Rules are the will of its people. Otherwise they wouldn´t exist. So, there will be more Bowen Mashes than Mebbe Hugo Wull or the Bowens wouldn´t have been able to set the law in the first place. 

Secondly - who said I wanted to read a book where everyone acts perfectly in tune with the morality of a society. That doesn´t sound like a particulary exiting book. 

 

[John Doe]

4 hours ago, Maxxine said:

I brought this up in the "If Sam Never Leaves the Wall..." thread and it's something I've always kinda thought about. So I wanted to see what others felt about it. By the end of Dance, I think it's clear that Jon has broken his vows or at least it about to break his vows before he's stabbed by Bowen & Co. I've seen a good number of people on here say something along the lines of he broke his vows and he was wrong so he deserved what he got. I don't see it that way. I acknowledge that he broke his vows, but I don't think he was wrong to so. What he knew was that his sister, an 11 year old girl, was forced into a marriage with someone who is going to rape and abuse her and he had the means to try to help her. Was he really wrong to do that even though it broke vows? He decided to march on a guy that threatened him and the NW; the NW that is the thing between the Others and the Realm. Is he really wrong to want to protect NW even though he's breaking his vows? (Btw I recognize that the things he thought were not true; I'm just thinking of Jon's POV, not we know as readers)These vows cannot be so absolute that you ignore the "right" thing. This is what happened with the KG during the reign of Aerys, Joffrey, and to a certain extent Robert. Aerys' KG watched as the king brutally raped his wife and burned people alive because the had to keep their vows. Joffrey's KG followed orders to slap around a helpless 12 year old girl because they had to keep their vows. Barristan stood by as Robert drunkenly tried to kill a boar because he had to keep his vows. Do people think they did the right thing because they kept their vows? Had Jaime kept his vows a whole city and all the people in it would have burned. Was he wrong because he didn't keep his vows?

So what should the balance be between keeping your vows and making the right decisions? Should it be your vows are your vows and nothing else matters? Should it be yeah you have your vows and you should keep them, but there are some circumstances where breaking your vows is necessary?

Jon risks the whole humanity by breaking his vows and weakening the NW, I think he should have stayed at the Wall.

[Clegane'sPup]

4 hours ago, Maxxine said:

So what should the balance be between keeping your vows and making the right decisions? Should it be your vows are your vows and nothing else matters? Should it be yeah you have your vows and you should keep them, but there are some circumstances where breaking your vows is necessary?

Speaking only about these novels and one specific situation and placing my judgment. The moment Jon discovered the Mance & Rattleshirt switcharoo Jon as LC should have taken the Mance into custody because Mance was a deserter. Penalty for desertion is death.

BUT this story don’t work that way. It was not until Jon spent time with the wildlings that he understood the true threat to the realm. Keep in mind that Mormont said the NW had forgotten its purpose. Still doesn’t change that the Mance is a deserter from the NW and penalty for desertion is death.

In this story there is Stannis, NW and wildlings teaming up to defend the realm against their perceived common enemy. They deem this the greater good of the realm. Hopefully for me, as much as luv the Mance, Martin will have the Mance meet a heroic end. I say that because actually I would like to see Mance survive the story and dislike the idea that he is in a cage.

Jon did not send Mance to WF. Jon agreed that Mance was to intercept a girl on a horse somewhere near Long Lake.  Mance went to WF without consulting anyone. Does not change that Mance is deserter from the NW and as such that penalty is death.

Personally I subscribe to the line of thought that one wrench does not fit all nuts especially when it comes to oaths, vows, honor, dignity or matters of conscience/principles.

As I said, my opinion is based only on the above situation and set of circumstances.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just to unpack the extent to which the Watch has forgotten its purpose, confirming that the current vows likely have very little in common with the true purpose of the Watch:

Consider that the entire Wildling population numbers perhaps 100,000 people. Compared to maybe 5 million that live in the North itself.

And for that you build a 700 foot high Wall? Heck, the very idea that the purpose of the Night's Watch and the origin of its vows has anything to do with opposing the wildlings is absurd. At only a fraction of the North population, they present no real threat to the citizens of the Seven Kingdoms.

So Jon realizing this, and returning to the true purpose of the Watch, likely makes him truer to the foundational reason for the Watch's existence than any of the Lord Commanders that came before him in the last few thousand years.

[NOT A TARG I SWEAR]

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Jon risks the whole humanity by breaking his vows and weakening the NW, I think he should have stayed at the Wall.

No, the Night's Watch policies do that by their nature, anything Jon does here is going to be a tiny drop in the bucket in the relative short term and possibly even a boon if somebody more amenable to the Night's Watch is installed as Lord of Winterfell.

The Night's Watch was in no position to defend against any significant threat prior to Jon ever joining it due to their terrible interpretations of their oaths and creating a complete inability to recruit. The "take no positions in the realms of men" policy is just not a viable position to take, especially when you have lords south of the Wall prone to threatening the Watch either directly through violence or indirectly by failing to provide adequate people and supplies. 

Vows like laws are prone to be written really terribly and/or incompletely, interpreted poorly, stray far from the spirit of why they were implemented initially, be so vague as to be rendered meaningless, or are so incredibly slow to change they become a mere hindrance to the current state of things. 

Laws absolutely have their place, but I'm sorry if I don't find somebody failing to adhere to the generally lackluster Night's Watch policies as being worthy of scorn in many circumstances. If Jon had used his position to force the entire Watch to charge on Winterfell I'd be a lot harder on him for what he did. In this case based on my opinion of the policy  and the potential good that can come from not only freeing somebody being tortured but also the possibility of upgrading the Lord of Winterfell to somebody more capable of uniting people and recognizing the threat of the Others I look at the general idea of what he did as more positive than negative.