The Morality of Using Dragons

[Lady Pounce of Whiskerrun]

First, as ever, apologies if this has been addressed recently, and I missed it.

How do characters who seem to have (or try to have) a functioning moral compass justify the use of dragons to defeat a foe without any? For example, Ser Barristan is dead set against buying Unsullied, because slavery is immoral. At one point, he says to Dany, "Your Grace, I beg you, win your thrones with dragons, not slaves."

Granted, this is before anyone has seen the dragons in action, but Barristan is a smart guy, and he would know about the Field of Fire. If it's wrong to own slaves ("I own you, do as I say"), why isn't it wrong to deploy dragons ("I own dragons, do as I say, or I'll burn you alive")?

[ab aeterno]

We have been discussing something similar recently. For my money, burning people with dragons is just as bad as burning people in other ways. The best way to use dragons as with any other WMD is through the threat of their use no the use itself.

[Dolorous Nedd]

I would have no problem using them to clean up the horrible mess that has taken hold of Westeros. A huge number of people are going to die no matter what you do when so many people are trying to lay claim to the Iron Throne. You could also argue the Targ's still have a valid claim to the throne. As far as Dany knows, at this point she is the only true Targaryen left. Also consider the advantage of using them against the wights.

[Barty]

First, as ever, apologies if this has been addressed recently, and I missed it.

How do characters who seem to have (or try to have) a functioning moral compass justify the use of dragons to defeat a foe without any? For example, Ser Barristan is dead set against buying Unsullied, because slavery is immoral. At one point, he says to Dany, "Your Grace, I beg you, win your thrones with dragons, not slaves."

Granted, this is before anyone has seen the dragons in action, but Barristan is a smart guy, and he would know about the Field of Fire. If it's wrong to own slaves ("I own you, do as I say"), why isn't it wrong to deploy dragons ("I own dragons, do as I say, or I'll burn you alive")?

Owning people and owning dragons is different. Dragons are animals and pets(can't really think of a better word which applies in this situation). Owning people is dishonorable - killing people in battle using whatever means at your disposal is perfectly understandable.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

I feel as if we haven't been allowed to see the possible good side of using dragons. What if a warg with good intentions had a dragon???

[Dolorous Nedd]

I feel as if we haven't been allowed to see the possible good side of using dragons. What if a warg with good intentions had a dragon???

Good point. They could use the dragons with pinpoint accuracy just to take out key evil people. I so hope that Bran does just that or something similar.

[Lady Pounce of Whiskerrun]

Owning people and owning dragons is different. Dragons are animals and pets(can't really think of a better word which applies in this situation). Owning people is dishonorable - killing people in battle using whatever means at your disposal is perfectly understandable.

Sorry my post wasn't clearer. I didn't meant to directly compare the morality of owning a slave with the morality of owning a dragon. Rather, what's the fundamental difference between compelling a slave to do what you want (because you own them, and you can harm or even kill them for disobedience) and compelling the people of Westeros to do what you want (because if they don't, your dragon(s) will lay waste to their lands and burn them alive)?

If using "whatever means" in a battle is justified, how does someone like Selmy reconcile being OK with using dragons but not OK with using slaves?

[Dolorous Nedd]

Owning people and owning dragons is different. Dragons are animals and pets(can't really think of a better word which applies in this situation). Owning people is dishonorable - killing people in battle using whatever means at your disposal is perfectly understandable.

When you look at some of the weapons that mankind has used in warfare I think dragons stack up as pretty humane.

[straits]

I feel as if we haven't been allowed to see the possible good side of using dragons. What if a warg with good intentions had a dragon???

You're still burning people alive. Hiroshima and Nagasaki yo.

[ab aeterno]

When you look at some of the weapons that mankind has used in warfare I think dragons stack up as pretty humane.

Humane like napalm? At least if a nuke goes off you'll probably be dead before you know what hit you.

[RoamingRonin]

A dragon isn't a slave, they aren't people. They are animals. Using a dragon is not unlike using a mammoth or pack of wild dogs even. Why should anyone that has a dragon care if their opponent doesn't have any? Are we worried that using a dragon in war amounts to cheating? The wildlings had mammoths, giants and wargs on their side and they didn't care what the people south of the Wall had to combat them. Dragons can be killed. It would take a lot of effort but it's not as if it never happened before.

[Lady Pounce of Whiskerrun]

I feel as if we haven't been allowed to see the possible good side of using dragons. What if a warg with good intentions had a dragon???

Remember Brienne's story about Ser Galladon of Morne and his enchanted sword, The Just Maid? He never used it against a mortal man, because--according to Brienne--"the point was honor."

To me, using a dragon to fight the Others (for example) "feels" different than using a dragon to fight an army of regular men.

Or, to use a more contemporary analogy, it's like in "The Dark Knight" when Morgan Freeman's character will use incredibly robust surveillance technology to find the Joker, but he refuses to ever use it again (i.e., because it's morally wrong). ;)

Basically, the "moral" characters generally demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in certain tactics--Stannis won't burn Edric Storm, Ned won't condone the killing of Elia's children, etc. Yet there doesn't appear to be a problem for at least some of these characters when it comes to unleashing dragons in battle.

[Stormcloak]

Dragons are just the weapon, a powerful weapon that gives you an advantage sure but it's the war itself where you've got to ask if it's just or not. It's not that different to one side having guns and the other having bows & arrows.

[Dolorous Nedd]

Remember Brienne's story about Ser Galladon of Morne and his enchanted sword, The Just Maid? He never used it against a mortal man, because--according to Brienne--"the point was honor."

To me, using a dragon to fight the Others (for example) "feels" different than using a dragon to fight an army of regular men.

Or, to use a more contemporary analogy, it's like in "The Dark Knight" when Morgan Freeman's character will use incredibly robust surveillance technology to find the Joker, but he refuses to ever use it again (i.e., because it's morally wrong). ;)

Basically, the "moral" characters generally demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in certain tactics--Stannis won't burn Edric Storm, Ned won't condone the killing of Elia's children, etc. Yet there doesn't appear to be a problem for at least some of these characters when it comes to unleashing dragons in battle.

The point is when it comes to warfare men almost always use the best weapons at their disposal. You could easily compare a dragon to something like using a B-52 to drop a bunch of bombs on the enemy. Very honorable men have used such weapons and will continue to.

[Lady Pounce of Whiskerrun]

A dragon isn't a slave, they aren't people. They are animals. Using a dragon is not unlike using a mammoth or pack of wild dogs even. Why should anyone that has a dragon care if their opponent doesn't have any? Are we worried that using a dragon in war amounts to cheating? The wildlings had mammoths, giants and wargs on their side and they didn't care what the people south of the Wall had to combat them. Dragons can be killed. It would take a lot of effort but it's not as if it never happened before.

I agree with your comparison that using a dragon is like using a mammoth, from the animal's perspective. I think the difference is that a dragon's destructive capabilities are many orders of magnitude above those of, for example, a mammoth. I don't mean to make the argument that any battle between armies that aren't perfectly evenly matched is unfair, or that the army with the tactical advantage is "cheating." I'm more wondering about how characters that are "good" people who might object to slaughtering unarmed me seem to be fine (at least theoretically) with using dragons against men who, even armed, would be no match for them.

[Dolorous Nedd]

Dragons are just the weapon, a powerful weapon that gives you an advantage sure but it's the war itself where you've got to ask if it's just or not. It's not that different to one side having guns and the other having bows & arrows.

Such an important point. In the case where the white man ravaged the Native American's the Native American's were actually in the right defending land that was rightfully theirs. In that case using modern weapons against them was immoral IMO.

The point is, it's ok to use the dragons if the person using them is on the morally high ground.

[straits]

The point is, it's ok to use the dragons if the person using them is on the morally high ground.

That's when you lose the moral high ground. You're no better than your most despised enemy really.

[eddard of the house stark]

Or, to use a more contemporary analogy, it's like in "The Dark Knight" when Morgan Freeman's character will use incredibly robust surveillance technology to find the Joker, but he refuses to ever use it again (i.e., because it's morally wrong). ;)

I just felt obliged to quote you......... ;)

About the morality of using dragons. Barristan didn't object to the actions of the mad king and he fought for him until the end. Why would he object to the use of dragons against the king (and his realm) that forced him into exile?

[Daenerys is my queen]

I'd say they're both not morally great choices. But Dany has dragons and that's it. She is of course going to use them to take over Westeros. And I hope that by the time she does she knows how to control them-and has two more dragon riders. :)

[Dolorous Nedd]

That's when you lose the morally high ground. You're no better than your most despised enemy really.

I disagree. I think using any weapon available would have been ok to use against Hitler for example. It was recognized immediately by the vast majority of people that he was evil. In some cases it's up to future generations to decide who was on the moral high ground in a given situation.