Was Jaime right to push Bran?

[Prince of the Green]

Shortsighted, yes, but it seems strange to say it's unethical to not have contingency plans.

Well, when you stop to consider that these two have been engaged in this relationship for decades, it seems ridiculous that the first course of action one of them may take to silencing someone who was privy to their tryst would be death.

[Prince of the Green]

In Feast, we learn that, even after the Bran incident, Jaime and Cersei have sex at Castle Darry with a passed out Robert sleeping on the floor by the bed. Jaime’s contingency plan (if we believe his statement to Ilyn Payne to be truthful) was to kill Robert if he woke up. And who knows what, in any, plan was in place if they’d been interrupted in the Sept next to Joffrey’s corpse.

At what point does protecting your family from the threats to which your own reckless stupidity keeps exposing them cease being understandable, much less “right”?

What do you think would result if Joffrey or Myrcella had stumbled upon them instead of Bran? I think that's the next logical question.

[A Man Has Said]

You're very confused. I never once claimed that he said it was justified. All I used the interview for was when people said silly things like "JAIME JUST WANTED TO FUCK CERSEI!!!"

This is all a bunch of illogical, emotional nonsense, so don't mind if I ignore it. I don't even understand it. There's nothing substantial here worth replying to. Which is funny coming from you, since you like to get on your pseudo-philosophical high horse and point out logical fallacies as if you know them well. Going on Wikipedia to find fallacy names and philosophical views to look clever doesn't make you a good thinker.

Lol, what's with the ad hominem attack?

If you don't understand it, how can you pass judgment on it as being 'pseudo-philosophical?'

Or on whether there is substance to it or not?

The logical fallacy represented here is called, "argument from ignorance."

It relies on the idea that because YOU personally don't understand something, it must be beyond comprehension.

And no, I didn't have to look that up.

I'm well familiar with how logic works and the many ways that people try to circumvent reason, facts and common sense to win arguments.

Because you know, you see it all the time on the internet. So you learn to respond to it.

And the people who use these eristic rhetorical devices the most NEVER lose an argument, because they're not smart enough to understand a good point from a bad one. So even when they've been pwned, they never admit it.

Their definition of 'a good argument' is "one that agrees with my point" and a bad argument is one that doesn't.

It's really, really childish. I keep hearing "I'm rubber and you're glue" in my head.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

~ Jonathan Swift

“Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.”

~ Laurence J Peter

:agree:

Besides, it's a bit ironic that you would complain about me being 'pseudo-philosophical' when you started this thread with this treatise about 'utilitarianism,' which by the way you didn't even understand what it was. Don't you think?

And I would add that it's doubly ironic that you complained about the length of my initial response to your OP, even though it was less than half as long as the OP itself. What's that about?

[KingslayerHodor]

If you don't understand it, how can you pass judgment on it as being 'pseudo-philosophical?'

Or on whether there is substance to it or not?

The logical fallacy represented here is called, "argument from ignorance."

It relies on the idea that because YOU personally don't understand something, it must be beyond comprehension.

And no, I didn't have to look that up.

I'm well familiar with how logic works and the many ways that people try to circumvent reason, facts and common sense to win arguments.

Because you know, you see it the time on the internet. So you learn to respond to it.

And the people who use these eristic rhetorical devices the most NEVER lose an argument, because they're not smart enough to understand a good point from a bad one. So even when they've been pwned, they never admit it.

Their definition of 'a good argument' is "one that agrees with my point" and a bad argument is one that doesn't.

It's really, really childish. I keep hearing "I'm rubber and you're glue" in my head.

I don't understand it because it's gibberish. You need to lay out your argument more clearly, and explain why it's relevant.

Anyway, you don't even understand what the argument from ignorance fallacy is. It's only a fallacy if you say an argument is false because of the lack of evidence for it being true. I'm merely saying that what you said is nonsense, and I didn't claim it was true or false.

Besides, it's a bit ironic that you would complain about me being 'pseudo-philosophical' when you started this thread with this treatise about 'utilitarianism,' which by the way you didn't even understand what it was. Don't you think?

And I would add that it's doubly ironic that you complained about the length of my initial response to your OP, even though it was less than half as long as the OP itself. What's that about?

Lol, yes, I don't understand what utilitarianism is, even though I'm a trained analytic philosopher. Alright, after all, some guy who spends his time reading fallacy articles on Wikipedia is more educated than I am.

[Marcus Halberstram]

He had just been caught banging his sister so I can understand why he did it but I don't agree with it.

[A Man Has Said]

Lol, yes, I don't understand what utilitarianism is, even though I'm a trained analytic philosopher. Alright, after all, some guy who spends his time reading fallacy articles on Wikipedia is more educated than I am.

I don't believe your claim to have training in analytic philosophy, but that's neither here nor there. And I didn't learn about logic or fallacies from Wikipedia, thank you very much. I think it was a matchbook cover. Or maybe an ad on the back of a comic book. :p

See, I can't even take you seriously anymore.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

~ Thomas Paine

"Most people think they are thinking, when really they are just rearranging their prejudices"

~ Bertrand Russell

Besides, I'm far less concerned with 'utilitarian' arguments being used with regards to 'justifying' some character in a novel than I am about the REAL WORLD people who might find it acceptable in MY universe. It makes a close approach to psychopathy in my opinion. But that's psychology, not philosophy. I'm sure you're also a trained psychotherapist on top of all your other incredible credentials.

[The Mother of The Others]

Its pretty clear Jaime wasn't thinking of Tommen, Myrcella, and Joffrey during the moment.

His panic reaction would lead to those thoughts quickly, though. He'd realize this could be the end of everything. If it comes out in the press that they bang, then that leads promptly to the questions "For how long has this been going on?" and "Are the kids even Robert's?" And then Jaime doesn't get to wallow in pathetic kingslayer sister pity party mode anymore because his head's on a pike next to his family's. So heck yeah he's doing it to protect the family. Wants more sister-boinking; wants continued breathing for the Lannister bunch. Not really separate concerns. (One sprung from the other.)

Can we please close this thread already?

Five out of Seven Westerosi deities agree.

[KingslayerHodor]

I don't believe your claim to have training in analytic philosophy, but that's neither here nor there. And I didn't learn about logic or fallacies from Wikipedia, thank you very much. I think it was a matchbook cover. Or maybe an ad on the back of a comic book. :P

See, I can't even take you seriously anymore.

Besides, I'm far less concerned with 'utilitarian' arguments being used with regards to 'justifying' some character in a novel than I am about the REAL WORLD people who might find it acceptable in MY universe. It makes a close approach to psychopathy in my opinion. But that's psychology, not philosophy. I'm sure you're also a trained psychotherapist on top of all your other incredible credentials.

You didn't make any arguments here.. you completely ignored the points I made. *sigh* I'll find someone else to debate with.

And who knows what, in any, plan was in place if they’d been interrupted in the Sept next to Joffrey’s corpse.

I doubt redeemed Jaime would be willing to kill people.

[chrisdaw]

Bran can get pretty boring.

[devilrob6]

This is a little stupid to say, don't you think? Imagine the Others ordered Jon to kill an innocent child or they'd destroy the entire world. Seems justifiable in that case!

No, THAT is a little stupid to say. If i thought my post was a stupid thing to say, i would not have said it, don't you think?. Your example is in no way comparable to Jaime's situation, and it would still be an immoral to kill that child.

[oba]

You didn't make any arguments here.. you completely ignored the points I made. *sigh* I'll find someone else to debate with.

I doubt redeemed Jaime would be willing to kill people

I am continually bemused by how low the bar is set for Jaime. Sure he's still reckless and selfish, but he might draw the line at killing innocents since his "redemption". Yep, Goldenhand the Just.

[KingslayerHodor]

No, THAT is a little stupid to say. If i thought my post was a stupid thing to say, i would not have said it, don't you think?. Your example is in no way comparable to Jaime's situation, and it would still be an immoral to kill that child.

If you think it's immoral to kill a child to save the world, then I honestly think you're beyond saving.

I am continually bemused by how low the bar is set for Jaime. Sure he's still reckless and selfish, but he might draw the line at killing innocents since his "redemption". Yep, Goldenhand the Just.

I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion.

[devilrob6]

If you think it's immoral to kill a child to save the world, then I honestly think you're beyond saving.

Saving from what?

[WSmith84]

I sincerely hope I never meet some of you people in real life. You're attempting to justify the eventual murder of 3 children. I don't know what I would do in that situation, but I definitely value my children's lives more than a stranger's child.

You don't think perhaps there was maybe some way Jaime could have dealt with the situation other than attempting to kill a child? Like frightening Bran into keeping quiet? Or convincing him that he saw something else? He could have simply taken his sister and kids and ran, or are Jaime and Cersei's livelihoods and positions more important? There is no way we can say that Jaime's children were definitely going to die if he didn't attempt to kill Bran.

Besides, how many children would Jaime have to kill before we could judge this as definitely morally wrong? 2? 3? 4, 5, 6? If he'd been caught by someone and had decided to massacre all of Winterfell to hide his secret would we still be suggesting it was morally right because he did it to protect his family?

[Tommen's Kitten Mittens]

I think it's impossible to say what you'd do in that situation (not that exact situation, hopefully nobody here is sleeping with their siblings!) until you found yourself in it. A snap decision where you get caught doing something that will destroy not only your life, but your family's lives if word gets out. Where you have to choose to do something horrible to protect the people you love. I believe Ned was wise to think to himself that he prayed he'd never have to know what he'd do, because when it's real, not just some hypothetical, you might do something you thought you were incapable of...and might never be able to forgive yourself.

[Fred of Ashai]

I don't buy that, if Bran told Ned, it would have led to any deaths. I don't think Jaime believed that either. Remember that they are in Ned's power in Winterfell.

Last time Jaime committed treason, Ned wanted to send him to the Wall; Robert pardoned him instead.

Also, Jaime knows from the way Ned and Robert went at it over Aegon's death that Ned will not condone the deaths of children. Indeed, the reader knows this too -- when Ned finally finds out about the incest, he gives Cersei time to flee with the kids before going to Robert.

Ned would have let the kids go and sent Jaime to the Wall. Jaime knew that -- all he would have to do was trade a white cloak for a black one.

Which leads one to wonder why the three eyed crow prevented Bran from remembering his fall (you don't need to know that now!). Maybe Bloodraven preferred to have Jaime off starting a civil war instead of serving on the Wall....

[Hellothere]

I think it's impossible to say what you'd do in that situation (not that exact situation, hopefully nobody here is sleeping with their siblings!) until you found yourself in it. A snap decision where you get caught doing something that will destroy not only your life, but your family's lives if word gets out. Where you have to choose to do something horrible to protect the people you love. I believe Ned was wise to think to himself that he prayed he'd never have to know what he'd do, because when it's real, not just some hypothetical, you might do something you thought you were incapable of...and might never be able to forgive yourself.

The thing is there was no reason to make a snap decision.

I'd find it easier to understand Jamies actions if either 1- Somebody was coming up the stairs or 2- It was made at the end of a pained analysis of the best course of action. Neither of those things were true though.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

The OP has been asked and answered and the topic has run it's course.

[/MOD]