Thank Mhysa for “Freedom”

[I'm the Party Pooper]

"Whim", "revenge", and "poorly designed" being the operative words here I think. All of which are definitely grounds for criticism, without being some absurd slavery-loving maniac (and there's a very disturbing undercurrent of wanting to paint anyone who dare criticize Daenerys that way, in this thread).

Of course they are, I'm very critic on this aspect. Despite the fact that this thread 'unfortunate' choice of discussion direction had forced me to side with those supporting her.

Do you honestly think what happened to Astapor - and I'm not just talking about the slaves - was acceptable? Okay, that's... an opinion.

I honestly think it is not up to my sleeves to judge it.

I never had the needs and feelings Daenerys had. Men who like debating might want to wonder whether this was an 'unrepeatable' (military) chance for her to progress toward her goal, or might want to put into discussion her entire goal to sit on IT on the first place - arguing living somewhere else and forgetting IT would have been a finer alternative than slaughter (which, to conquer the seat has to come one way or the other) -.

I don't even pay the price, nor enjoy the benefits, of her actions. For a slave who lost his children, no matter what the outcome of her actions, the price is too high. For a slave who was abused and mistreated who raises higher and wealthier, and sees his children get stuff he has never hoped to.. ..the opportunity is invaluable. For a slaver who was kind to his slaves - and treated them hard but justly - and then saw his family butchered and died, this was a nasty exchange. For a slaver who couldn't care less of slaves and their existences, and treated them less than butcher's meat.. that was deserved vengeance.

Who am I to put the interests of some people ahead of others? The lives of future generations born in freedom (if at all) or the lives of those thirsty for freedom and well being - even if for a small time - can stand ahead or behind the lives of those who died for it or will die later on?

I can't give a definitive answer for that, it's beyond my moral background. I think that it's something one has to decide for himself, what is worthy dying and living for.

Even in our own existences - real world - things do not always wait for us to happen. Sometimes events just happen, and we can just choose were to be sided. Sometimes our own side is uniquely identified by our own nature, and we can't even choose it. We have just to deal with the war being declared upon our country, or the economic crisis that makes our business unprofitable, or the societal change that spreads values and behaviours we are not ready to welcome - but have anyway.

I see Daenerys - in all of this - just as a scapegoat. I am a supporter of Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory. To make an example, in my own perspective the first world war did not start because the prince of Austria was killed. It started because all the actors and relationship needed for a world-wide war to be fought were already put in place and ready to enact. The same happens at Slaver's Bay. The great disparity among the two living conditions, the brutality, the dissatisfaction and resentment on slaves side + the false sense of security and disdain for human life on slavers side was ready to be ripen. It was the societal infrastructure itself that enacted Daenrys actions - I'll dare say even more: that gave birth to her own idea to do it. In a society not ready for it, things would have unrolled very differently.. and in some scenario she might even have been unable to take the city in the first place.

Truth is, when the environment conditions are ready for it, these things happens and it's inevitable. In particular, disparity, oppression, famine, taxes are all things that tend to lower people willingness to accept current status and consider chaos as a worthy risky opportunity. And, if truth be told, they practically never end well for a great number of people. If anything, what has been depicted in Astapor is very realistic. There are too many historical examples on how rebellions started for a 'good cause' ended up into complete madness and a blood bath.

It's clear enough that for some of you Daenerys role into all of this was fundamental. For me it isn't, might have postponed the events for a bit, but the net result would have been the same. Maybe ten years, maybe 100 years later. But not forever. Nothing in human history lasts so long.

edit: my final statement was written under the assumption of having the exact same goals Daenerys had at the beginning; under those assumptions, I would have taken the direction that grants the most certain victory. That is, no slaves liberation at all, more city sacking and more blood and fire.

[Hrafntýr]

Terrific post, Party Pooper! I think you're spot on to point to the logic of considering Dany's underlying goal of taking the IT, which few here have questioned. And I'm a fan of Latour, too, and agree that taking into account the total environment is the right way to think about what's going on in SB. Individuals are the vehicles or instruments of actions, rather than the other way around. Of course, moral systems are part of that total environment, and help to shape or direct what actions are merely possible to almost inevitable.

[Mikkel]

Truth is, when the environment conditions are ready for it, these things happens and it's inevitable. In particular, disparity, oppression, famine, taxes are all things that tend to lower people willingness to accept current status and consider chaos as a worthy risky opportunity. And, if truth be told, they practically never end well for a great number of people. If anything, what has been depicted in Astapor is very realistic. There are too many historical examples on how rebellions started for a 'good cause' ended up into complete madness and a blood bath.

It's clear enough that for some of you Daenerys role into all of this was fundamental.

Interesting point that the overthrow of the slavers is inevitable. It's probably true that rebellion on some level would be happening sooner or later, but whether it would have the momentum to succeed is quite another question. Seen in that light, it's hard to call the emancipation anything but an unmitigated Good Deed.

And yet, that's what some of us dare to do. Because a good deed, badly executed, while full of good intentions, is not necessarily the right thing to do. The end result has been wholesale death, sickness and hunger - for very little gain* so far.

Even bringing this up is apparently "dirty" and "slavery-loving". But saying that the way it was done was ill-advised and barbarous is not the same as saying Dany should have left the city alone. But then that was never really an option for her anyway, because the only way she could get her army (of slave soldiers... hmmm) without paying for it was by overthrowing the slavers.

*the slave-trade is currently started back up in all but name in Meereen, and unquestionably just outside the walls.

If, on the other hand, you want to judge Dany merely as a conqueror, and the destruction of Astapor as a military tactic, that's fine, though I don't think that was on her mind, unless she's lying to herself in her own POV chapters. Basically, you can buy into the wanna-be emancipator persona, or not, but in either case Astapor was a humanitarian disaster and the person directly responsible deserves criticism for it. Good intentions or not.

[Kyoshi]

<Snip>

Lots to think about in this post. The World War analogy is a really good one. The same can be said of the War of the Five Kings. I wonder though, are all the factors eventually dependent on another...is the conclusion eventually dependent on all the premises? For example, say Kraznys does not tell Dany how the Unsullied are made, say she does not take a walk along the Walk of Punishment, is she still awoken by the the same epiphany as before. Does Dracarys still happen?

<Snip>

I think the reason people accuse others of pro-slavery posts is firstly because of the premise of this thread, which at its heart seem to question the very necessity of abolition. The OP, to the best of my understanding, is asking the simple question of "Did Dany have the right to end slavery at all?" Once you ask that question then you have to ask yourself "If not Dany, then who?". Pretty soon we arrive at the answer that since none of us have any right, perhaps we should allow slavery to continue, be it fictional or real.

Additionally, people seem adamant to tie Dany to the act. As I've seen stated many times, people often say she is simply arrogant, she is delusional to the point of disrupting an entire societal/political/economic structure. That's not a very good argument IMHO. It seems that some of the people who question Atapor-to-Meereen have their reason firmly rooted in the character, not the actions themselves. It seems necessary to me, as ShadowCat Rivers stated earlier, to sever Daenerys from the act of abolition. Once this is done I think most people's view on the matter will change completely. If you asked people to imagine it were their favourite character doing all those things in SB, you would see just how massively this debate would shift.

[WSmith84]

By many, yes. But there are many more who go much further and argue that emancipation was not morally righteous, in fact was morally wrong, on the basis that Dany did it without first coming up with a complete and foolproof economic/cultural/political plan to redevelop Slaver's Bay from the ground up. Any problems that arise as a result of emancipation are used as a stick to beat the character with and say that she was wrong to act at all. Now, that's clearly a bit of a silly argument, but it's one that keeps on coming up just the same.

Well, yes, it is a silly argument to say that she should have come up with an entire system for SB before acting. But I don't think it's silly to suggest that maybe Dany should have had an overall plan in mind. Was she going for complete emancipation? Emancipation where possible? I don't know, maybe I'm being harsh on her, after all I do have the benefit of hindsight and her attitude in Meereen.

I do attribute some of this to Jorah though. Jorah, whatever his faults, does generally give good advice on all fronts and does tell her what the more morally questionable routes will lead to (always good to know, even if you plan on never traversing those routes), but here, he doesn't seem to tell/remind Dany that leaving Astapor without Unsullied will leave them wide open to attack, even though they discussed it before 'Dracarys'.

That's not my position at all. She does owe them some duty of care. On the other hand, though, there is a limit to that. She isn't solely responsible for everything that happens to them, either.

Ultimately, like any of us, Dany has to choose what to do, thinking about what she can do, and what is beyond her control. She's responsible for the former, but not the latter.

I wasn't saying that was your attitude, sorry if that's how it came across (looking at it now, it does come across like that). That was meant to be towards the board in general.

I suppose that I hold Dany to a higher moral standard than I do some other characters, but that is because I think Dany is set up to be a morally good person and it is probably how she views herself. I tend to hold those kinds of characters (Jon, Brienne) to a higher standard for those reasons.

[I'm the Party Pooper]

Interesting point that the overthrow of the slavers is inevitable. It's probably true that rebellion on some level would be happening sooner or later, but whether it would have the momentum to succeed is quite another question. Seen in that light, it's hard to call the emancipation anything but an unmitigated Good Deed.

Agreeable, in some ways. My perception of it as 'inevitable' relies on two aspects:

- If you look at our history, we have eventually grown out of that - given time the right chances raised

- Every 'equilibrium' is only temporary, even in our own time: some perceive the past as a distant thing, a timeline scattered with walls that humanity did overcome and 'rights' or 'progress' that are definitely acquired and consolidated. I reject this view, and sense how fragile it's the current equilibrium in respect to all the things that are behind us: even our world is ripen for dramatic changes, given the right sparks. And since we are somewhat 'at the top', there is plenty of space for going back in a 'Slaver's Bay situation' as new equilibrium point. or worse. Civilizations have always arisen and then disappeared, only for new ones to come. And culture, morality, science, religion.. all arose and fell with them.

And yet, that's what some of us dare to do. Because a good deed, badly executed, while full of good intentions, is not necessarily the right thing to do. The end result has been wholesale death, sickness and hunger - for very little gain* so far.

Even bringing this up is apparently "dirty" and "slavery-loving". But saying that the way it was done was ill-advised and barbarous is not the same as saying Dany should have left the city alone. But then that was never really an option for her anyway, because the only way she could get her army (of slave soldiers... hmmm) without paying for it was by overthrowing the slavers.

Actually, given what has been depicted in the books, I'm not fully sure of the 'italicized' point.

It's my opinion that if the Unsullied followed her own orders to the point of butchering their former maesters, then theoretically she could well order them to just march with her and be pleased by killing the one-two maesters trying to take Drogon for themselves. The reasons for her butchering have to be sought elsewhere: either in the goal of weakening a newly acquired enemy, or in her empathy feelings toward slaves and vengeance feelings. Ramsay would have done it for the pleasure of doing it and the '+50 exp' messages only he sees on top of dead/tortured people.

Daenerys is quite easy to be criticized, I find.

If you expect her to be a military leader, a conqueror, you can easily end up complaining that she didn't do enough to achieve her goals and that she has left herself many times 'exposed' to her enemies through bad choices.

It would be easy to condemn her on a modern moral background, as much as easy to forgive her on a more primitive moral background: the Roman Empire - and many others that I know about in Europe/Middle East - did not think twice on whether or not razing to ground an enemy city or a rebel camp.

If you expect her to be the guiding light of our modern morale understanding, values and knowledge in an Archaic world, you can easily end up complaining that she didn't act with a fully disinterested heart, that her heart motives were not pure, that her thoughts and decisions have been poisoned by anger/vengeance, that her understanding of the world was much idealized and ingenuous, her decision making naive and prone to mistakes with huge impact.

I expect her to be nothing more than a 'child' (or youngster, as you prefer), lost in a world too big for her, forsaken by her inexperience and tore apart among juvenile dreams of goodness/peace and a sense of entailment/identity that 'demands' her to take the IT with 'fire and blood' inherited - or better, fitted onto her - by the constant presence in her childhood of his brother Viserys. As long as he was alive, this was his goal. Now it's hers. I remember how I was naive and idealistic in my juvenile years, I would divide the world in clear black and white categories - as much as hers. I thought that I was deserved being recognised certain rights because they are 'absolute', 'innate' and 'acquired' by birth, I would see how things were going 'wrong' in the world and propose 'naive' solutions for it, but not understand how - indirectly - my own existence and living standard was - together to that of many others - at the roots of it. Nowadays I would be like Barristan - or Jorah -, a navigated man that has seen much and more in this world, and although understands that the situation in Astapor as terrible - because it is - would do nothing to change it: it's not their business, it's not their responsibility, it's beyond their power. Daenerys does not benefit of this wisdom herself, but at the same time she is not limited by a well grounded 'experience': look at how both of them couldn't even imagine from afar that Daenerys could take the Unsullied and pay nothing for it. They were so scared that she would loose the biggest dragon for just 8.000 unsullied. Because they are so used to accept the schemes of this world, that their reasoning inevitably falls within predefined trails, for which there are foreseeable - and reassuring - consequences. Only an ingenuous creature like her could see such an chance being ready to be harvested, and only a naive creature like her could go as far as doing it without being overwhelmed by fears for all the unforeseeable consequences that making such enemies would bring on her cause. As much as she fails to consider the downsides of freeing slaves or to fore-plan for they well being, she 'luckily' fails to consider the extent of the consequences that this act will bring onto her. Some have argued - in this thread - that she could have gotten away with it (by not taking Yunkai/Meeren) without any other slaver city moving war on her. I disagree on this point - I think they would only have let her momentarily go to strike later on - but it still falls into the speculation domain, and she should have thought at the 'worst' possible consequences in advance for her own good.

Only by accepting that she is just a normal flawed teenager, that she is along a 'maturation path' with confused identity and goals, bold but with wrong assumptions on the way the world works and is supposed to work, with naive understanding and naive reasoning... ..only through this perspective the entire core of the discussion falls apart. Should we judge her for what she was in reality, or rather for the role we expected her to adhere that she fails to fit in?

If we want to evaluate her choice on pure moral view-ground, then the answer should be the same with dis-respect of their outcome, but not of the intentions.

If we want to evaluate how much her plan was a good plan, then the answer should be entirely based on the outcome - and whether or not she met 'baseline requirements' for 'good planning' according to best practices/knowledge available in her time/space domain.

If we want to evaluate her choice on a pure military view-ground, then the answer should be entirely grounded on how she employs her soldiers (and looses them) and/or acquires new fighters. Also, on the alliances she acquires, the enemies she creates, the wealth she dissipates and the one she acquires.

If we ...

The list can go on. Under all perspectives you can find her be short of something, and in mistake.

That's because it's easy with an 'ex-post' rationality to grow on a biased perspective: at the same time we learn of some facts, we learn 'from those facts', and the answer to 'can we do better?' it's always yes, for the very naive observation that 'better' has a very subjective and elastic meaning and as humans we are never satisfied: the very concept of 'good enough' does not fit our greedy tastes, it's reserved for loosers and pessimists. That is so much true, that you've never seen any thread arguing whether her actions were 'good enough' or not - only.

If, on the other hand, you want to judge Dany merely as a conqueror, and the destruction of Astapor as a military tactic, that's fine, though I don't think that was on her mind, unless she's lying to herself in her own POV chapters. Basically, you can buy into the wanna-be emancipator persona, or not, but in either case Astapor was a humanitarian disaster and the person directly responsible deserves criticism for it. Good intentions or not.

Might be you are right in it, or that's it's debatable. I confess I just finished ADWD, and can't remember what's exactly portrayed in her own PoV. So, if you're sure of your own statement I'll trust you with no need for further proof. :-)

Lots to think about in this post. The World War analogy is a really good one. The same can be said of the War of the Five Kings. I wonder though, are all the factors eventually dependent on another...is the conclusion eventually dependent on all the premises? For example, say Kraznys does not tell Dany how the Unsullied are made, say she does not take a walk along the Walk of Punishment, is she still awoken by the the same epiphany as before. Does Dracarys still happen?

Well, in my humble opinion, the conclusion always depends all the premises, and these premises are all entangled one another. The boasts of Kraznys are directly related to his own perspective, both in the reason why he boasts and on the content of his words. The attitude he exhibits with Daenerys can't be stripped from the societal disparity in which he lives, the cultural background he absorbed and the person he is. All these things glue together in self-reinforcing cycles, all these things would not exist without the corresponding part. Randomness is really just a cover-up for lack of understanding of the complex dynamics of this world. (obviously, all of this only IMHO)

[MandrakeWench]

Folks wiser than me have posted some very good thoughts and intellectual explorations here. Yet I find myself no closer to a satisfying answer than I was before.

Regarding the slaves Dany freed, who expressed their desire to remain in servitude:

If someone is forced to end their state of slavery against their will, is that truly freedom? Can it qualify as freedom if it is not the choice of the individual involved? If the person returns to slavery of his/her free will, is it slavery still?

Or can the desire to remain a slave indicate that one is mentally incompetent to make such a life decision? We can certainly argue that long term slaves may have been so badly traumatized or brainwashed that they do not understand he concept and benefits of freedom.

OR - does such a conclusion indicate hubris on the part of the one making the decision, ie the hypothetical freer of the slave? Is it presumptuous of me to believe that I know what's best for another person? Yet how could one morally allow slavery to continue? I personally could not, even if the resulting freedom meant trials and tribulations.

Sometimes any decision, even the morally upright one, will cause great pain and suffering. And perhaps this is one of grrm's lessons, if you will, in his stories. That even if we do "the right thing", this doesn't guarantee a happy ending.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Regarding the slaves Dany freed, who expressed their desire to remain in servitude:

If someone is forced to end their state of slavery against their will, is that truly freedom? Can it qualify as freedom if it is not the choice of the individual involved? If the person returns to slavery of his/her free will, is it slavery still?

In our world, you can't contract to become a slave. We don't even allow free, unregulated contracting for paid labor. That's because it is far too easy for the strong to manipulate and dominate the weak.

Absolute freedom in a society of many members is an impossibility. If there is not a government, the strongest will restrict the freedom of the weak; governments are the produce of collective social contracts where the people choose to give away some freedoms in exchange for security, peace, wealth and the like.

Any absolutist definition of "freedom," such as one that insists that people aren't "truly free" unless they're "free to be slaves" imposes an unrealistic standard. Individual freedom is an important value, but it has to be weighed against other values. In that weighing, our society has chosen (rightly) to absolutely forbid slavery. I, personally, feel free enough even though I've been robbed of my right to be a slave.

Or can the desire to remain a slave indicate that one is mentally incompetent to make such a life decision? We can certainly argue that long term slaves may have been so badly traumatized or brainwashed that they do not understand he concept and benefits of freedom.

Yes, they can, but I don't think this is the main reason we don't allow people to choose slavery in our society (or to choose to send their 8-year-olds to work in the mines). It's more a matter of coercion, deception and manipulation by those who have the means to influence or control the public discourse and who have various forms of power and influence over individuals. If the information that you have access to is controlled it can become logical to opt for slavery; the right threats can accomplish the same thing.

OR - does such a conclusion indicate hubris on the part of the one making the decision, ie the hypothetical freer of the slave? Is it presumptuous of me to believe that I know what's best for another person? Yet how could one morally allow slavery to continue? I personally could not, even if the resulting freedom meant trials and tribulations.

There's a flaw in these questions that manifests itself in the words chosen: "the one making the decision," "presumptuous of me," "I know," "how could one allow," "I could not." This isn't an individual decision unless you have the individual power to enforce your individual will. It's a social decision. And if you're part of a democracy - or alternatively, if you're a monarch speaking for all of a society, or if you're a person that has some kind of power that allows you to control society in this way - it's not a matter of "hubris" or "presumption" to address these questions, because you can't avoid them. The society - or the powerful individual - must choose: is slavery allowed or is it not? There's no presumption involved in making a choice when a choice is forced on you.

The same is true for Dany. When she realized she had the power to end slavery in Astapor, "don't decide" wasn't an option. The options were to end slavery or allow slavery to continue. Inaction would have been a decision just as much as the decision she took was a decision.

Sometimes any decision, even the morally upright one, will cause great pain and suffering. And perhaps this is one of grrm's lessons, if you will, in his stories. That even if we do "the right thing", this doesn't guarantee a happy ending.

Its premature to draw conclusions with another 2000 pages of fiction or more still to come. I suspect that the ultimate lesson will be a bit more nuanced, i.e., there's no guarantee that making the morally correct decision will bring a happy ending, but it can increase the odds of one; put another way, it can create the conditions that make a happy ending possible.

I think that is what Dany has done. A happy ending is possible in Slaver's Bay now; it wasn't possible before she showed up.*

*I don't totally buy into I'm the Party Pooper's "instrumentality" idea. Maybe it's true here, maybe it isn't. But sometimes individuals profoundly change the world in ways that wouldn't have happened if those individuals didn't live. Hitler is a prime example for evil, Gandhi for good. I happen to believe that if JFK hadn't been assassinated, the U.S. would be a very different place now.

[Kyoshi]

If I understand you correctly, it's a "bread and circuses" situation. We willingly give up some of our freedoms. I willingly give up the freedom without a second thought

[No Song so Sweet]

All good things pushed to an extreme become bad. Extreme freedom or extreme limitations to freedom are both tyranny and slavery. But where the line is and what is truly right or what you have the right to do is a deep discussion on ethics, and there really is no answer that is 100% true. Like PartyPooper said, what gives Daenerys the right to abolish slavery when this means destroying a lot of people's lives? Can this ever be answered?

I think to judge the ethics of that we must solely base out criticism/praise to her motives and the effort/ thoughtfulness she put on them, regardless of the results.

[mormont]

All good things pushed to an extreme become bad. Extreme freedom or extreme limitations to freedom are both tyranny and slavery. But where the line is and what is truly right or what you have the right to do is a deep discussion on ethics, and there really is no answer that is 100% true. Like PartyPooper said, what gives Daenerys the right to abolish slavery when this means destroying a lot of people's lives? Can this ever be answered?

I think to judge the ethics of that we must solely base out criticism/praise to her motives and the effort/ thoughtfulness she put on them, regardless of the results.

I, on the other hand, think we need to examine the question from a different angle.

Dany has the awareness that slavery is a moral wrong, and the ability to change that situation. (Put aside how she comes by these, for a second - though I do think it's worth noting that the main thing that actually allows her to change the situation is a willingness to roll the dice, at considerable risk to her own life.)

Does she have a responsibility to do something about it?

What would we think of her if she walked away? Considerably less, I'd suggest. In this event, the argument that she shouldn't do anything because she didn't have an alternative economic plan would be (rightly) regarded as pretty weak.

Ethical questions of this type are more about responsibilities than they are rights, IMHO anyway. If you have an ethical responsibility to act, you have more than a right. You have a duty. Rights become secondary to that.

Dany accepts responsibility for a situation where countless others have simply walked away or taken advantage of it for their own ends. This, I think, makes her act ethical, whether or not it has some negative consequences.

[Hodor's Dragon]

* * *

What would we think of her if she walked away? Considerably less, I'd suggest. In this event, the argument that she shouldn't do anything because she didn't have an alternative economic plan would be (rightly) regarded as pretty weak.

Ethical questions of this type are more about responsibilities than they are rights, IMHO anyway. If you have an ethical responsibility to act, you have more than a right. You have a duty. Rights become secondary to that.

Dany accepts responsibility for a situation where countless others have simply walked away or taken advantage of it for their own ends. This, I think, makes her act ethical, whether or not it has some negative consequences.

I agree.

What she did was the right thing to do, even knowing what we know now about the consequences.

There was almost nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Even now, after many bad results have transpired, I wouldn't use my magic wishing stone to wish it all undone. At least now Slaver's Bay is in a state of possibility: good things can happen. This is better than the prior evil system that was frozen in place with little chance of change.

[Mikkel]

I agree.

What she did was the right thing to do, even knowing what we know now about the consequences.

There was almost nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Even now, after many bad results have transpired, I wouldn't use my magic wishing stone to wish it all undone. At least now Slaver's Bay is in a state of possibility: good things can happen. This is better than the prior evil system that was frozen in place with little chance of change.

That's a fairly cavalier way to explain away thousands (tens of thousands?) of deaths, though: now good things can (as in might, potentially) happen - even if all evidence so far points to things getting worse.

But it's a fair point that just walking away wouldn't have looked good on Dany either - but then I suppose that sort of dilemma is part of the package when you decide to get yourself an army of slave soldiers from a group of seriously messed up slavers (yeah, I know she technically frees them afterwards, but it's a pretty empty thing to do... the Unsullied have no concept of freedom and no other trade than to be warriors).

[Hodor's Dragon]

That's a fairly cavalier way to explain away thousands (tens of thousands?) of deaths, though: now good things can (as in might, potentially) happen - even if all evidence so far points to things getting worse.

But it's a fair point that just walking away wouldn't have looked good on Dany either - but then I suppose that sort of dilemma is part of the package when you decide to get yourself an army of slave soldiers from a group of seriously messed up slavers (yeah, I know she technically frees them afterwards, but it's a pretty empty thing to do... the Unsullied have no concept of freedom and no other trade than to be warriors).

Things could scarcely be worse than they are when Dany arrives. This is a horrible system, and it's frozen in place with no prospect of change.

Pain is more powerful than pleasure, fear than hope. Sure, some people in Slaver's Bay, even some slaves, have decent lives before Dany arrives. But most of the people there are slaves, and large numbers of the slaves live lives of utter degradation, often of physical misery, backbreaking labor and foul and unnourishing food with dirty water, without even a place to eliminate wastes other than in the bedroom you share with a crowd of other people doing the same thing.

The way I run the math, that collective pain swamps collective pleasure, meaning that the net human happiness of Slaver's Bay upon Dany's arrival is negative. Even if the revolution changes the average happiness from -20 to -25, now there's a chance it can become positive. Given that the status quo ante had no net positive value at all, I don't think anyone should be overly concerned because it got shattered, even if the immediate outcome ain't so great for everybody.

As I've said before, yes, it would be just super to have a 20-year plan to gradually train and emancipate the slaves and to integrate both slaves and slavers into a society of equal opportunity. But that's a pipe dream. The reality is that there are two alternatives:

1. Allow things to continue as they are, or

Burn that MF down.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[RoamingRonin]

The Unsullied can think for themselves. They might have a different way of thinking considering their training but they can form their own opinions and act on their own. Stalwart Shield visiting the brothel is just one example. They worship their own goddess and even though Dany is in command of them, Grey Worm refuses to share the name of the goddess when she inquires.

So... Yeah. They do have a concept of freedom. I doubt they'd be allowed to visit brothels under the direction of the masters in Astapor. In fact, their seller considered their full castrstion a bonus because it would prevent them from doing so.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Well just look at the fate of Astapor. How many hundreds of thousands of people died or suffered greatly due to Daenerys actions there?

That is a very exaggerated number, the slaver class of Astapor would only be in the hundreds, definitely not hundreds of thousands of dead slavers in Astapor.

Personally, I blame Dany, not her fans, for committing collective punishment in a vengeful way and practicing torture.

Practicing torture? IIRC correctly she gave the ok to Skahaz one time to question the wineseller, you can hardly call that 'practicing'. Especially since Dany herself was not even in the room at the time, nor was the 'questioning' her idea or suggestion, that falls on Skahaz. Skahaz practices torture, Dany ordered it once after 9 of men had just been slaughtered, there is a big difference.

By many, yes. But there are many more who go much further and argue that emancipation was not morally righteous, in fact was morally wrong, on the basis that Dany did it without first coming up with a complete and foolproof economic/cultural/political plan to redevelop Slaver's Bay from the ground up. Any problems that arise as a result of emancipation are used as a stick to beat the character with and say that she was wrong to act at all. Now, that's clearly a bit of a silly argument, but it's one that keeps on coming up just the same.

Yes well said, that is the point of this thread. To blame/beat Dany personally for anything and everything that has gone wrong in SB. We see from many slaves that they are happier now, that they follow her willingly, this should be evidence enough of her success, even if the success comes at great cost. She is the first and only person to do what she is doing, there was no manual. Blaming her is becoming an obsession.

I think....I know that if it were another character freeing slaves and taking names in SB these discussions would not be happening. Fans would be happy to have that character fighting against slavery. Dont let the desire to bash Dany completely take away all sense and reason from a fruitful forum.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Practicing torture? IIRC correctly she gave the ok to Skahaz one time to question the wineseller, you can hardly call that 'practicing'. Especially since Dany herself was not even in the room at the time. Skahaz practices torture, Dany ordered it once after 9 of men had just been slaughtered, there is a big difference.

I would say that this is pretty clearly an analogy to Guantanamo Bay, and it's very clear that we're supposed to differentiate between Shavepate (routine torturer) and Dany (one-time/occasional torturer for extra-special reasons).

Personally, I'm anti-Guantanamo and anti-winesellers' daughters torture, but I don't put those actions in the same boat as people who have special torture chambers and routinely torture people to solve crimes or just to learn something they want to know. Sometimes Dany's errors seem to be on the side of harshness, consistent with being from a line of conquerors who practice fire and blood; as a fan, I hope she's learned some lessons about that, and there are reasons in the text both to think that she has and that she hasn't.

But you could also put it more generously and say that Dany is more likely to err by action than inaction. That's a hallmark of great leaders throughout history, especially great military leaders. It leads to mistakes, but it also leads to accomplishments that couldn't happen without a bold and decisive leader out in front.

[Cas Stark]

Things could scarcely be worse than they are when Dany arrives. This is a horrible system, and it's frozen in place with no prospect of change.

Pain is more powerful than pleasure, fear than hope. Sure, some people in Slaver's Bay, even some slaves, have decent lives before Dany arrives. But most of the people there are slaves, and large numbers of the slaves live lives of utter degradation, often of physical misery, backbreaking labor and foul and unnourishing food with dirty water, without even a place to eliminate wastes other than in the bedroom you share with a crowd of other people doing the same thing.

The way I run the math, that collective pain swamps collective pleasure, meaning that the net human happiness of Slaver's Bay upon Dany's arrival is negative. Even if the revolution changes the average happiness from -20 to -25, now there's a chance it can become positive. Given that the status quo ante had no net positive value at all, I don't think anyone should be overly concerned because it got shattered, even if the immediate outcome ain't so great for everybody.

As I've said before, yes, it would be just super to have a 20-year plan to gradually train and emancipate the slaves and to integrate both slaves and slavers into a society of equal opportunity. But that's a pipe dream. The reality is that there are two alternatives:

1. Allow things to continue as they are, or

Burn that MF down.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Historically, slavery was overwhelmingly abolished by legislation, not by force of arms. The U.S. civil war is the exception, not the rule.

[Ser Creighton]

I agree.

What she did was the right thing to do, even knowing what we know now about the consequences.

There was almost nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Even now, after many bad results have transpired, I wouldn't use my magic wishing stone to wish it all undone. At least now Slaver's Bay is in a state of possibility: good things can happen. This is better than the prior evil system that was frozen in place with little chance of change.

The argument also seems to focus more on the slavers, economic impact to their lives, social impact to their culture. But what about what slavery perpetuates?

Slavery increases total human unhappiness

The slave-owner treats the slaves as the means to achieve the slave-owner's ends, not as an end in themselves

Slavery exploits and degrades human beings

Slavery uses force or the threat of force on other human beings

Slavery leaves a legacy of discrimination and disadvantage

Slavery is both the result and the fuel of racism, in that many cultures show clear racism in their choice of people to enslave

Slavery is both the result and the fuel of gender discrimination

Slavery perpetuates the abuse of children

Where do the Dothraki get their slaves? Where do the corsairs get their slaves. The most common answer is conquest big or small. The Dothraki kill the Lambs men, the corsairs raid villages. Have the Lambs men been impacted by slavery? Any place you go where slaves are taken you have an impact on that culture and that society as well. Slavery encourages this justification by rewarding those who do it. It rewards subjugation, it rewards rape, murder, kidnapping, war, abuse, racism, sexism, child abuse, etc... But what does it promote as a society that is beneficial? It benefits the slavers but the slavers are ethnocentric and many people are taking the ethnocentric view of the slavers but ignoring the world as a whole. Why are the slavers more important? How have they benefitted the world? Are they a beneficial society or a parasitic one? They are parasitic, they benefit from others but do nothing as a whole. Do the rights of the slavers out way those of the rest of the world?

Slave raiding disrupts production and social life in general. Where slave raiding occurs frequently ethnic boundaries and the ability to distinguish insider from outsider will generally proliferate the risk of being caught. An increase in the profitability tends to induce elites into more frequent raiding rather than building powerful states. The reliance exacerbating the destabilizing effects of the trade. Rather than building a strong diverse economy the economy focuses on one form of income. But when the trade is slowed or stopped the effects are devastating as there exists no support system.

The devastating effects on other cultures from raiding can be the total destruction of a population. Even if only 10 percent of a population is taken into slavery the raid itself may destroy another 20 or 30 percent of that population. For one woman a raider may kill of an entire family. The social death of the slave is only one aspect but the physical death of the raids is another to consider often doubling or tripling the social death. But for the slaver the more demand for slaves equals equals a greater economic return. Greater returns thus equal increased deaths and more frequent raiding.

In the books how many lives did it take to make an Unsullied? It was 3 or 4 right? And the Unsullied offer no return on population.

The slave trade does not encourage the building of a strong state, but rather death and reliance on others. It discourages state building and rewards slave trading. It may benefit the the slave society in ways but it has devastating effects on the cultures the slaves come from.

Slave societies promote a predatory nature in a society both social and political. Everyone becomes an enemy or target of subjugation. To adapt societies often develop a severe ethnocentric view which encourages racism. Social stratification generally spirals out of control into extreme oligarchies, which becomes a challenge for within that given society.

Slave societies tend to stunt social, political and economic growth of the societies they prey on. At the same time the slave society is often limiting itself in these areas do to a over reliance on slaves. They breed racism, sexism, predatory politics, ethnocentrism, murder, kidnapping, war, conquest, greed which creates long term broad spectrum social damage to their own society and the societies they prey on. Population damage is unavoidable, life expectancy is usually shortened for both the slave who in are world had a life expectancy of about 30 years, and the life expectancy of the slave owner who becomes more and more sedentary. Long term slavery has a detrimental effect across the board.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Historically, slavery was overwhelmingly abolished by legislation, not by force of arms. The U.S. civil war is the exception, not the rule.

This is not pertinent to Slaver's Bay, is it?