Vows vs. Doing What's "Right"

[Protagoras]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, Oracle.Clear.Rivers said:

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.

Both these posts takes up something very intresting - the question on how to interpret a wow. I also find them utterly wrong.

In itself, the question is very valid - something can be interpreted in many different ways. However, while personal morality might differ, morality (or ethics if you prefer) is decided by all of us. There (again) exist no kind of objective framework. So how should something be interpreted? What does "help hungry people" or "Guard the realms of men" really mean? Well, it is defined according to the standards of the society, of course.

Wittgenstein might disagree, but interpretation of language is not the end of philosophy. To take his example, screaming "murder" doesn´t mean "I want you to murder me" but "someone has been murdered" simply because that is our current standard. It is the way we define it in todays society and while people certainly can act intellectually dishonest to easier defend people or ideas they like - these things are seen in a specific way with a high degree of intersubjective reality (The reason some think they are objective truths in the first place).

In Westeros and Jon, to "guard the realms of men" mean "protect Westeros according to the standards we have". That is - our CURRENT standards. Claiming that another purpose was the true intent before might be correct but doesn´t really matter since again, it is defined by the society they all live in. Is there a perception that the wall is there to defend against the wildlings then that is the truth and the framework in which the lord commander needs to work with. After all, its not ghosts that hold him responsible but humans today with clear standards.So, if Jon say "I am going to go south" it doesn´t really matter if he technically can defend it or not, but what the general perception is. If Jon is seen as an oathbreaker then he is an oathbreaker. Similiary with the food - if people think "help hungry people" means "feed them" then that is the framework you need to work from regardless if you agree or not. Creative interpretations is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

What this often comes down to are priorities - which oath weights the heaviest and while some, like Jaime, likes to pretend that "You swear too many oaths" - you KNOW which one are heavier (the promise to my boss to work is heavier than my promise to my buddies to go and take a beer) due to (again) the standards in your society. Jaime himself (to really see his hypocrisy) knows and acknowledges this himself in AFFC, that his oath to the king supersedes his oath to Catelyn. One is more important and have a heavier weight.

Yet then the question comes - if the oath to the king is highly prioritized and that some oaths are more important than others, how can you claim that it is so hard when it comes to obeying Aerys. If the oath to the king comes first when sieging Riverrun, the oath to the king SHOULD ALSO come first when the king wants to have sex with his wife and burn down king´s landing or, at minimum, you need to define exactly why the oath to the king is prioritized in one case and not the other (or we can do like Jaime and be hypocrites).

[Cridefea]

5 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?

Very interesting. I think in ASoIaF one of the most important lesson it's showing us, is that you have to reach a compromise between your own values. And we are learning how to reach the balance with Brienne. She is a very strict person who is discovering how wrong it can be if you don't break vows. Probably she will have to break one soon with LS. 

[Protagoras]

1 hour ago, NOT A TARG I SWEAR said:

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. .

They are not taking that position because they want to - they are taking that position because they must, because if they do not, the watch wont be allowed to exist.

The Night’s Watch is meant to take no part in the affairs of the realm so it can focus on a larger threat. Involvement in the realm’s issues, even for "good reasons", can jeopardize the Watch’s position and its mission. If the kings and lords gets angry at the Watch, they can make sure that there will be no more Watch, and therefore no more defense against that large threat.

So, do you want a watch that exist under limitations or don´t you want one in the first place. There is no other realistic option.

[Free Northman Reborn]

17 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

 

Both these posts takes up something very intresting - the question on how to interpret a wow. I also find them utterly wrong.

In itself, the question is very valid - something can be interpreted in many different ways. However, while personal morality might differ, morality (or ethics if you prefer) is decided by all of us. There (again) exist no kind of objective framework. So how should something be interpreted? What does "help hungry people" or "Guard the realms of men" really mean? Well, it is defined according to the standards of the society, of course.

Wittgenstein might disagree, but interpretation of language is not the end of philosophy. To take his example, screaming "murder" doesn´t mean "I want you to murder me" but "someone has been murdered" simply because that is our current standard. It is the way we define it in todays society and while people certainly can act intellectually dishonest to easier defend people or ideas they like - these things are seen in a specific way with a high degree of intersubjective reality (The reason some think they are objective truths in the first place).

In Westeros and Jon, to "guard the realms of men" mean "protect Westeros according to the standards we have". That is - our CURRENT standards. Claiming that another purpose was the true intent before might be correct but doesn´t really matter since again, it is defined by the society they all live in. Is there a perception that the wall is there to defend against the wildlings then that is the truth and the framework in which the lord commander needs to work with. After all, its not ghosts that hold him responsible but humans today with clear standards.So, if Jon say "I am going to go south" it doesn´t really matter if he technically can defend it or not, but what the general perception is. If Jon is seen as an oathbreaker then he is an oathbreaker. Similiary with the food - if people think "help hungry people" means "feed them" then that is the framework you need to work from regardless if you agree or not. Creative interpretations is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

What this often comes down to are priorities - which oath weights the heaviest and while some, like Jaime, likes to pretend that "You swear too many oaths" - you KNOW which one are heavier (the promise to my boss to work is heavier than my promise to my buddies to go and take a beer) due to (again) the standards in your society. Jaime himself (to really see his hypocrisy) knows and acknowledges this himself in AFFC, that his oath to the king supersedes his oath to Catelyn. One is more important and have a heavier weight.

Yet then the question comes - if the oath to the king is highly prioritized and that some oaths are more important than others, how can you claim that it is so hard when it comes to obeying Aerys. If the oath to the king comes first when sieging Riverrun, the oath to the king SHOULD ALSO come first when the king wants to have sex with his wife and burn down king´s landing or, at minimum, you need to define exactly why the oath to the king is prioritized in one case and not the other (or we can do like Jaime and be hypocrites).

Well, your fundamental premise, namely that all morality is relative and entirely dependent on the prevailing norms of a society, is in itself highly contestable, and indeed contested.

So without getting into a philosophical debate here I would merely suggest that your interpretation is exactly that, one interpretation, rather than the final word on the matter. I, for example, much prefer C.S. Lewis's  "Natural Law" view on this issue.

[NOT A TARG I SWEAR]

Just now, Protagoras said:

They are not taking that position because they want to - they are taking that position because they must, because of they do the watch wont be allowed to exist.

The Night’s Watch is meant to take no part in the affairs of the realm so it can focus on a larger threat. Involvement in the realm’s issues, even for "good reasons", can jeopardize the Watch’s position and its mission. If the kings and lords gets angry at the Watch, they can make sure that there will be no more Watch, and therefore no more defense against that large threat.

So, do you want a watch that exist under limitations or don´t you want one in the first place. There is no other realistic option.

It can't focus on the larger threat because they aren't adequately staffed. Like I said, it can't fulfill it's mission with the current rules and practices in place. It doesn't matter if they were self- imposed or forced on them. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

8 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

They are not taking that position because they want to - they are taking that position because they must, because if they do not, the watch wont be allowed to exist.

The Night’s Watch is meant to take no part in the affairs of the realm so it can focus on a larger threat. Involvement in the realm’s issues, even for "good reasons", can jeopardize the Watch’s position and its mission. If the kings and lords gets angry at the Watch, they can make sure that there will be no more Watch, and therefore no more defense against that large threat.

So, do you want a watch that exist under limitations or don´t you want one in the first place. There is no other realistic option.

Back to the practical realities within the setting, I would frankly prefer the Watch not to exist at all. A force of 900 outcasts, criminals and dregs of society means less than what House Mormont could raise on its own, in case of a threat.

Instead, the Watch should have been a glamourous institution, to which able bodied men aspiring to knighthood are sent as a right of passage, on a rotational basis, say for a year of military service. Thereby proving themselves as worthy of higher honors. It could have achieved so much more under such a system, with willing, enthusiasitic and capable members joining it every year, and in far larger numbers, than the pathetic organisation it eventually became.

But of course, Martin loves this kind of messing around with our expectations. He created the decrepit, despised and depressing Watch for the sake of drama, and not for its practical value. If he wanted a highly efficient organisation guarding the realms of men, he would have designed something far better than the ridiculous Watch system. Instead, he wanted a realm left defenseless against a forgotten threat.

So he created the Night's Watch that we got.

[Runaway Penguin]

One thing to consider:

Arya (who everyone seemed to think Ramsay has) is not just Jon's sister. She is the last lawful heir to Winterfell with Bran and Rickon missing, presumed dead and Sansa missing (no saying disinherited, as that was in Robb's will and that did not pop up yet).

 

Book is full of references about support and friendship between Winterfell and Watch. Far more so than about any other House... And there is no mention of good relations with bolton. Boltons already failed to support Watch against Wildling attack - instead it was the Southron pretender who came. Hence... Bolton rule ovešr Winterfell (sealed by Arya) means Watch loses its main supporter. 

 

That IS something that should concern Watch, especially when the whole continent is at stake. Then again, the dullard orthodox in the Watch objeced even swearing Wildlings in.

 

Read the oath again and tell me what did Jon violate... Right. He did not violate oath, he violated tradition. And as Halfhand bashed into him, the NW is not about personal honor or feelings. I shall win no glory, remember? The proper Watchman needs to do whatever it takes to shield the Realms of Men. If it means making sure there is a Stark in Winterfell... (another Northern mantra after Winter is coming... And one shared by many Northern houses, both traditional who may kinda remember why and new who owe Starks for everything) ... So be it.

[John Doe]

1 hour ago, NOT A TARG I SWEAR said:

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.

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. The "take no part in the fights of the realm" was what guaranteed their survival throughout different conflicts and wars in the past, Aemon wouldn't have made such a big deal out of the Night's Watch neutrality if it hadn't been so important. Jon, while well-spirited, effectively risked the dissolution of the Watch by taking a major part of their forces south to fight a personal- even though just- war against the Boltons, and deserting his post as lord commander. The Others are a much bigger threat than Ramsay. I honestly don't see any wrong in his actions before that though, how he treated the whole situation with Stannis, the Wildlings, and Janos Slynt was great.

[BricksAndSparrows]

This discussion makes me think of  Malum in se, vs. Malum Prohibita.

Malum in se: Are things that are wrong by them selves: murder, rape, theft, etc...

Malum Prohibita: Would be things that are simply prohibited: Growing a pot plant, owning a machine gun, or fathering children if you are a man of the Night's Watch.

I also really like The Halfhand's comment to Jon: "Our honor is worth as much as our lives."

So I just mention those things to give this my comments some context.

The rules that Jon is said to have broken are all extremely important, but in life there are usually (almost always) exceptions. But I don't think Marsh and Co. killed Jon as punishment. It wasn't just because they thought he was breaking his vows. I believe they killed him for their own interpretation of the "greater good." The mutineers saw Jon's actions as destructive, and they thought he was going to run the watch into the ground and cause them to lose the Wall.

Jon's conundrum was beyond a simple matter of rights and wrong. Because the strength of Watch had diminished so, Jon had to find ways to get more support. As the Lord Commander, it was his responsibility. And there was simply no realistic, conventional way to do it.

There are idiots, who would have sat, and watched the Wall crash down around them, after having passed up the opportunity to align with the Wildlings. There are those people, and they would think "but the wildlings are our enemies."

Throwing in with the Wildlings was the right thing to do in every conceivable way. Though they had become enemies of the Watch over the years, there was no intrinsic element of the "code" of the Watch that forbid fighting by their side. Especially if it is against the Others. I did disagree with Jon's idea to accept the Weeper, but it's a small issue.

But that was not the end of it...

Leading the Watch against Ramsay put the remainder of their strength in Jeopardy. Or a significant portion of their strength. That have precious little forces and it seems like the White Walkers are coming. So.... I can't completely blame Marsh and Co.

When you read Cersei's POV's, her mistakes are so fucking blatant. But Jon's mistakes are more subtle (to me anyway,) and so it's easy to side with him. It he IS trying to do the right thing. And he is preparing for the real fight that is coming, so like I said, it's easy to side with him. But there were a few scenes that really jumped out at me and made me think, "Damn, Jon fucked up."

I'm at work, so I don't have the books but I remember a part (maybe in Jon's last chapter,) when he is talking about how unhelpful his advisors are. I think it is Yarwick who objects when Jon decides to put the Wildlings in the castles on either side of them, sighting that they would have enemies on either side of them. And Jon doesn't see it as counsel, he just see's it as unhelpful criticism. This is a mistake that Cersei makes.

Jon mentions how he is grateful that the Marsh and Yarwick aren't lickspittles, but he is still considers them to be completely unhelpful and complains about their criticisms and objections. But their objections are their counsel, and I think Jon is too young to see that.

The best thing about these books, is that their are as few easy choices as their are absolute villains. The decisions that Jon makes impact the realm since the Others are coming. So, saving a young girl might be the right thing to do, but what is the use if the Wall comes down...

 

[Oracle.Clear.Rivers]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, your fundamental premise, namely that all morality is relative and entirely dependent on the prevailing norms of a society, is in itself highly contestable, and indeed contested.

So without getting into a philosophical debate here I would merely suggest that your interpretation is exactly that, one interpretation, rather than the final word on the matter. I, for example, much prefer C.S. Lewis's  "Natural Law" view on this issue.

Like @Free Northman Reborn, I also believe that there is a Natural Law (Aquinas)  and we all abide it subconsciously. Why else would revolutions happen or some people break away from dogmatic traditions without outside influence? It's like with Cass Cain (Batgirl II - PreNu52). She was raised with no morality (or well, killing is an ok morality). Yet when she took a life for the first time, she felt wrong about it and desired to never do it again. Nobody taught her that. So Natural Law was at work in her story.

I guess in this matter, we can all agree to disagree. This is a matter of philosophy which is highly subjective. There really wouldn't be any right or wrong answers about this in the end. It will just be an argument of what explanation (we think) is best - a concept which is also very subjective.

 

[Protagoras]

On 2016-08-26 at 1:04 AM, Oracle.Clear.Rivers said:

Like @Free Northman Reborn, I also believe that there is a Natural Law (Aquinas)  and we all abide it subconsciously. Why else would revolutions happen or some people break away from dogmatic traditions without outside influence? It's like with Cass Cain (Batgirl II - PreNu52). She was raised with no morality (or well, killing is an ok morality). Yet when she took a life for the first time, she felt wrong about it and desired to never do it again. Nobody taught her that. So Natural Law was at work in her story.

I guess in this matter, we can all agree to disagree. This is a matter of philosophy which is highly subjective. There really wouldn't be any right or wrong answers about this in the end. It will just be an argument of what explanation (we think) is best - a concept which is also very subjective.

 

If people don´t want the debate, I wont push anyone.

However, for those interested in reasons against it - in short, easy-to-read bulletpoints, this link is adequate.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_7_Deontological_Theories_Natural_Law/Problems_with_Natural_Law.htm

[Wm Portnoy]

On 8/25/2016 at 10:11 AM, 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?

With regards to the Night Watch, honoring your vows is the right thing.  The Night Watch serve and protect the entire realm from the threat of the white walkers.  The vows kept the watch intact for 8000 years.  Leaving Arya to her fate is the right thing to do.  You do not trade away what is good for the realm just to help Arya.  That is selfish.  Jon acted selfishly and deserved to get executed. 

[Lurid Jester]

On August 25, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Oracle.Clear.Rivers said:

It's like with Cass Cain (Batgirl II - PreNu52). She was raised with no morality (or well, killing is an ok morality). Yet when she took a life for the first time, she felt wrong about it and desired to never do it again. Nobody taught her that. So Natural Law was at work in her story.

Wait. Are you using a fictional character written by a western author as a case study for the existence of a natural universal moral law?  

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

14 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

Wait. Are you using a fictional character written by a western author as a case study for the existence of a natural universal moral law?  

Right. Save that for forums and threads solely dedicated to judging fictional characters written by western authors.

Wait, where are we again?

[Runaway Penguin]

20 hours ago, Wm Portnoy said:

With regards to the Night Watch, honoring your vows is the right thing.  The Night Watch serve and protect the entire realm from the threat of the white walkers.  The vows kept the watch intact for 8000 years.  Leaving Arya to her fate is the right thing to do.  You do not trade away what is good for the realm just to help Arya.  That is selfish.  Jon acted selfishly and deserved to get executed. 

Disagree. Cancelling control of the North to faction hostile to NW by default (it can be implied by all the mentions about which Houses are firendly to Watch) when the Long Winter is coming is vital for Watch mission. Marrying the last known heir of Lord Stark would seal this control. It actually does NOT violate the oath - it is not done to win crown, win glory, father children etc... But it is done to protect the Kingdoms of Men. The oath does not say exactly against what

This is just the political aspect. If we go into the mythical... There must always be a Stark in Winterfell. Or the NW and humanity loses...

[Lurid Jester]

1 minute ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Right. Spare that for forums and threads solely dedicated to judging fictional characters written by western authors.

Wait, where are we again?

Tsk.  There's a huge difference between discussing fictional characters and their individual motivations within the context of a fictional setting, and using those fictional characters as proofs for the existence or absence of something within the real world. 

It would be like saying Superman comes from an alien planet, so clearly aliens exist in the real world. 

[Oracle.Clear.Rivers]

1 hour ago, Lurid Jester said:

 

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Right. Spare that for forums and threads solely dedicated to judging fictional characters written by western authors.

Wait, where are we again?

Tsk.  There's a huge difference between discussing fictional characters and their individual motivations within the context of a fictional setting, and using those fictional characters as proofs for the existence or absence of something within the real world. 

It would be like saying Superman comes from an alien planet, so clearly aliens exist in the real world. 

 

Sigh. Pathetic, I know but I made a self rule not to discuss RL religion, history, and politics online as much as possible because it can get quite stressful which is the exact opposite of why I browse and post online in the first place. Hence why when I give examples, I always use hypothetical, fictional, and mythological characters and events instead and avoid escalations. I'm having enough arguments in RL about these topics as it is and it's not something I want to do in fan sites as well.

I know it's not the best thing (it's quite laughable actually) to do in this kind of discussion but since it was supposed to be my last post in thread, I decided to leave it just that. *shrugs* 

[Lurid Jester]

@Oracle.Clear.Rivers   I totally understand that and I wasn't trying to be an ass, although I've been accused of being one in my resting state. 

It just seems that there a few threads recently that call the morality of various character into question.  The problem is that many of us are viewing those choices through the lens of our own morality which, to be fair, isn't really applicable to aWoIaF.  

Westeros is a much harsher world than 2016 Virginia, U.S.A and some actions have much harsher punishments.  Burning a field of grain here might get you fined and some jail time (maybe) but in Westeros?  It might get you killed since so many people are dependent on that grain for survival.