Jamie's killing of Aerys is a self-redemptive action, because the action resulted in an instantaneous and permanent saving of thousands of lives. There is no further justification needed.
My point in bringing up the other characters is that at least one of them was a anointed knight, who had sworn vows not to do teethings they did. Each of the three from different cultures with different notions of honor did things that no one would consider honorable, whereas Jamie did none of those things. This is in general support of the grayness of characters and the vague and poorly implemented system of vows and conceptions of honor.
As far "whataboutism" I am pretty sure you brought up the sister-banging yourself. The way in which y ou said it made me think that you thought it was a bad thing, but that did not make sense to me because you are not also criticizing Aerys Targaryen for doing the same thing to his sister. I mentioned that Aerys Targaryen repeatedly raped and mutilated his sister, and act that you may actually be defending, by not condemning it now that it has been brought into the conversation. Jamie knew bout the repeated sexual violence perpetrated by Aerys Targaryen and it is stated in the text that he wanted to do something about it, but was prevented from doing so because Aerys Targaryen was the king.
Don't take it too hard, I really enjoy reminding people what an absolute piece of shit Aerys was. If I can come and do it in a
"oh noes the poor wronged Targeryens" thread, it makes me double happy.
As others pointed out above, by the time Jamie killed Aerys the rebellion was over, the city had fallen to the rebels, the Red Keep had been breached, and Aerys Targaryen was king of nothing. Aerys Targaryen knew this and wanted to take everyone down with him, and Jamie decided to stop him. Jamie would have died in the fire as well, so he was also saving his own life by killing Aerys Targaryen.
So let us recap:
Reasons why Jamie Might Have Killed Aerys Targaryen:
- Save innocent lives in King's Landing from wildfire (this counts as part of knight's oath)
- Save rebel army from wildfire (counts as implicit family oath)
- Save himself from wildfire (self defense)
- Execute a former king (as stated above, Aerys had already lost. At this point in time, he wasn't even king anymore) who was an insane murderer (falls under knight's oath)
- Execute a former king who was a serial rapist (yep, knight's oath)
- Save the kingdom from further way by removing the deposed king of the former regime from the political equation
- (Possibly) obeying an order from his father (implicit family oath)
- for the lulz
So we have all these vows floating around, but we don't have an established hierarchy of vows. What is more important, the vow of chastity or the vow of loyalty to your king or your vow to protect the weak?
My dude, you mention that Jamie killed The Mad Rapist King Aerys Targaryen because he wanted to, but I am not finding textual support but I would like to read some if you have it. From my readings, Jamie never killed anyone except in battle before he executed Aerys, so we don't have an established pattern of wanton violence and killing for pleasure like we do with Hoat, Weeper, or Lorch from my examples. Even Aerys Targaryen killed for pleasure. He would burn motherfuckers for weird-ass reasons and then use the resulting boner to go rape and mutilate his sister.
Like, Jamie executed the mad king, and he threw Bran out the window... but what else did he do that makes you think he killed Aerys out of naked desire to kill him?