ASoIaF and modern moral standards.

[Salafi Stannis]

Should we judge ASoIaF characters and their actions by our own modern moral standards, and if so, to what extent? If not, why not?

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

Should we judge ASoIaF characters and their actions by our own modern moral standards, and if so, to what extent? If not, why not?

No. Different world, different time. What right have we to judge another culture on our own morals. And at the end of the day we only have those morals through centuries of society moulding them

[JonCon's Red Beard]

No.

We can use our perspectives to discuss, but we have to judge them by their own morals.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

In terms of morality, IMO it's how they operate within their context that matters (and whether they are indeed honest about their believes).

However, I tend to like/appreciate more those who are closer to my mindset.

[Mladen]

In terms of morality, IMO it's how they operate within their context that matters (and whether they are indeed honest about their believes).

However, I tend to like/appreciate more those who are closer to my mindset.

Basically this...

I mean, have we actually seen something in ASOIAF that is OK (written as OK) that isn't OK in our world? ASOIAF is a contemporary piece of work meant for contemporary audience. People think too much about this, but it is a very simple thing. We don't live in medieval fantasy world, we live on 21st century Earth. We don't have the morals of medieval fantasy world, so it would be weird to have the morals of such world. That said, we should understand the context of surroundings the characters are in. For example, marital rape is a bad thing for us. Does it happen in our world? Certainly. Does it happen in Westeros? Certainly. But, ultimately how author intended us to see the marital rape scenes is what counts. And unequivocally the message is it is a bad thing.

[ThePosterThatWasPromised]

Moral relativists, I see...

We should get the idea of their character in themselves by comparing them to others around them. IE, Ned is a morally superior person, than, say, Ramsay... but that doesn't mean I think the idea of, for example, shipping ones daughter off with a dowry like a piece of meat to further one's own political status is even relatively acceptable, even if we're judging them by the morals of their time and culture.

We don't tell the seventeenth century church that their status on the universe being geocentric is "acceptable by the science of the day". Their status on that was ignorant, but was the mainstream belief in their time. For lack of a better term, the lords of Westeros could be thought of as "the seventeenth century catholic church" of daughter-selling. Their status on the morality of that practice is ignorant.

Socrates would be turning over in his grave if he saw replies like some of these.

Also, they're all fictional characters in a fictional universe with fictional morality. So it doesn't matter.

[Lion of the West]

They should be judged according to the morales of their own world.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

The funny thing about Asoiaf is that it seems to attract strong moral relativists, and even nihilists - yet GRRM himself is by no means either - hes' a humanist and a romantic.

The fact that perspectives are subjective should not be confused with the idea that universal morality doesn't exist.

[OldGimletEye]

To some extent yes and to some extent no. I think the issue is complicated and it's one of the things that makes ASOIAF interesting, at least for me.

I think quite a few people are quick to reach for the analytical frame work of moral relativism when thinking about these issues. The problem with a moral relativism is that you can't really argue for change in the status quo. You have no argument or basis to change things until at least general opinion changes within a society. For instance, if you are using moral relativism then Dany's anti-Slavery campaign is immoral. Her laws there banning slavery would be immoral. You could also argue that Queen Alsyanne's attempts to ban the right of the first night were immoral as well.

I am certainly willing to say that some cultures in ASOIAF are down right awful, even compared to Westeros. Compared even to Westeros I find the culture of SB and the Dothraki to be awful cultures. I am able to do this precisely because at the outset I reject moral relativism as a starting point.

However, this certainly should not mean that we ought not be mindful of the fact that people do take their cues on how to behave from the society in which they live. Accordingly, I would find a mass extermination of the Dothraki to inappropriate. I can both condemn their culture for engaging in slavery and rape, yet understand to some extent that they believe those things to be ok because that is what they have been taught by their culture.

For me, the analysis would usually begin with what people ought to know. I expect all people to be on notice that killing another person brings them harm. I would expect people to know that raping another person brings them harm. The law might tell Bobby B that raping Cersei is permissible, but I'd certainly expect Bobby B. to know that raping Cersei caused her pain and made her suffer. Accordingly, I can't help but to dislike Bobby B for raping Cersei (even though I dislike her), even though the the morals of Westeros says his marital rape is permissible.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Socrates would be turning over in his grave if he saw replies like some of these.

You mean Plato - all we know of Socrtes' philosophy comes from Plato's work, infusing his own ideas in the process.

Plato who thought that ideas are pre-existing and eternal (therefore, same ith ideas on morality) and he was a slave owner and, in general, not exactly a supporter of equal rights for all (women and lower classes in particular).

Of course he should be judged by his own context ideas, but that makes me a moral relativist (not that I see anything inherently bad in it, only that it's too vague and used to discribe so many stances, making it practically useless as a term).

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Basically this...

I mean, have we actually seen something in ASOIAF that is OK (written as OK) that isn't OK in our world? ASOIAF is a contemporary piece of work meant for contemporary audience. People think too much about this, but it is a very simple thing. We don't live in medieval fantasy world, we live on 21st century Earth. We don't have the morals of medieval fantasy world, so it would be weird to have the morals of such world. That said, we should understand the context of surroundings the characters are in. For example, marital rape is a bad thing for us. Does it happen in our world? Certainly. Does it happen in Westeros? Certainly. But, ultimately how author intended us to see the marital rape scenes is what counts. And unequivocally the message is it is a bad thing.

I didn't want to bring that specific subject, but marital rape -and rape in general- is wrong in Westeros too, so, that has zero excuse. Even Drogo, a "savage" by their definition, understand the need to not force his wife into sex (at least not that first time). Other men are smart enough to realise the same, I'm sure, because it's actually a smart move towards the person you're going to be with the rest of your life ("happy wife happy life"). We shouldn't forget either that sex for both parts is an obligation for them. Was Ned excited to marry and sex his brother's formed wife-to-be? Cat seemed to have noticed he wasn't very much into it, and I'm sure he was not the only one. Yet, the deed had to be done because children are needed. Assuming that any man would be glad to have sex with any woman because "we're men!" it's very sexist too. For instance, we have men like Quentyn, who is terrified of the mere thought of sex.

The main problem with Robert and Cersei was that she already hated him from the start and Robert was oblivious to the fact his wife was also a sentient human being and not just a deposit for his seed. Do you actually imagine men like Ned, Rhaegar or gosh, even, dunno, Stannis, insisting on have sex despite their wives had said 'no', for whatever reason? Doubtful. Rather than being marital rape the problem (which was too), Robert was the MAIN problem there.

Rape is punished in Westeros too, and not only by pious men. Randyll is strict about it to the point of exaggeration (he also punishes women...) and we also have Jaime who immediately beheaded that one guy who tried to rape Pia, even though he claimed to have had sex with her hundreds of times before. They DO know rape is wrong: men like the Mountain do it not because it's not seen as wrong but because they know they can get away with anything and go unpunished.

[Skinner]

You mean Plato - all we know of Socrtes' philosophy comes from Plato's work, infusing his own ideas in the process.

Plato who thought that ideas are pre-existing and eternal (therefore, same ith ideas on morality) and he was a slave owner and, in general, not exactly a supporter of equal rights for all (women and lower classes in particular).

Of course he should be judged by his own context ideas, but that makes me a moral relativist (not that I see anything inherently bad in it, only that it's too vague and used to discribe so many stances, making it practically useless as a term).

And Socrates had a lot of pedastry.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

However, this certainly should not mean that we ought not be mindful of the fact that people do take their cues on how to behave from the society in which they live.

...

For me, the analysis would usually begin with what people ought to know.

I think this is a reasonable way of putting it. I think that people differ in what extent they believe that people "ought" to know something.

For example, I think it is abundantly obvious to anyone born human that what was going on the plaza of punishment, or the kids being fed to bears in Astapor, was cruel and wrong. Yes, people can become jaded to such sights if seen often enough, and they may rationalize them away, and they may even take pleasure in them if they are psychopaths - but people IMO will all (with the exception of the psychopaths) experience a moral twinge due to basic empathy when they see people in such suffering.

There is something universal in that - humans have a general sense that the suffering of others is wrong. That's why, for example, Robert only rapes/abuses Cersei when he's drunk - because he does feel moral qualms about what he's doing, even if the law is on his side. The existence of a law or custom does not overwrite people's moral sensibilities the way a lot of people talk about it.

[Mithras]

Also, they're all fictional characters in a fictional universe with fictional morality. So it doesn't matter.

When some people try to justify mass crucifixion and collective punishment without trial by producing half assed analogies between a certain khaleesi and Abraham Lincoln, and at the same time singing songs of genocide for the “roaches” of SB, then I think it does matter. It makes me wonder whether this comes from fanboyism or it is the projection of an inherent real world ideology which is sick.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I think this is a reasonable way of putting it. I think that people differ in what extent they believe that people "ought" to know something.

For example, I think it is abundantly obvious to anyone born human that what was going on the plaza of punishment, or the kids being fed to bears in Astapor, was cruel and wrong. Yes, people can become jaded to such sights if seen often enough, and they may rationalize them away, and they may even take pleasure in them if they are psychopaths - but people IMO will all (with the exception of the psychopaths) experience a moral twinge due to basic empathy when they see people in such suffering.

There is something universal in that - humans have a general sense that the suffering of others is wrong. That's why, for example, Robert only rapes/abuses Cersei when he's drunk - because he does feel moral qualms about what he's doing, even if the law is on his side. The existence of a law or custom does not overwrite people's moral sensibilities the way a lot of people talk about it.

That's true, but with a certain exception: when people are reduced to mob.

The Colosseum operated the way it did for so long time because it was viable and useful - and in the same time it woud be wrong to assume that Romans, on an individual level, were by large, immoral and "evil" people. But when downgraded to masses, the human ability to empathy seems to work somehow "backwards" with the opposite results, bringing out the darker side of human psyche, "the monster" that Jorah invokes.

[A spoon of knife and fork]

That's true, but with a certain exception: when people are reduced to mob.

The Colosseum operated the way it did for so long time because it was viable and useful - and in the same time it woud be wrong to assume that Romans, on an individual level, were by large, immoral and "evil" people. But when downgraded to masses, the human ability to empathy seems to work somehow "backwards" with the opposite results, bringing out the darker side of human psyche, "the monster" that Jorah invokes.

I don't really think it works quite that way.

I think that people (e.g. the Romans, or the Mereenese) would still realize this sort of thing is wrong, they would have that tugging, insistent feeling in their belly that something was off. The thing is they would also have other feelings layered on top of it. For example, the mob mentality you point out - "if they (my neighbors) are doing it / enjoying it, I guess it must be OK". It's still rationalization piled on top of basic empathy.

While empathy is quite powerful, the desire to fit in socially is probably even stronger for many humans. There are an interplay of forces.

Yet you will find many people in Roman times (and many Mereenese) who would forego such things - because for them the moal sense is not overridden sufficiently for them to enjoy activities which cause suffering to others. Many of these people might forego owning slaves, as well, I would imagine. I'm not trying to suggest that everyone who goes to the Colosseum, or even everyone that owns slaves is an "evil moster". But, I do think that those who choose not to go to the Colosseum are stronger morally, more empathetic, what have you. Someone like Robert, likewise, is not as morally strong as someone who does not participate in marital rape (e.g. Tyrion with Sansa).

[LordStoneheart]

When people say things like "it's Medieval!" or "it's Westeros!" it really looks like they're willing to compromise their own morals to pump up or excuse their favorite characters.

[mormont]

'Moral relativism' is often presented as a binary thing - either all morality is relative and we can't criticise anything on our own moral understanding, or modern morality is the sole standard. But I think the issue is a bit more complicated than that.

I think it's reasonable to take context into account in our moral judgments to a degree. Some morally praiseworthy stances in modern terms simply aren't practical in Westeros, for various reasons. Westerosi society simply lacks the right conditions to make them possible. Democracy would be a great example: modern democracy relies to a great extent on widespread literacy and reliable media. You could not expect a Westerosi to be in favour of elections on a larger scale than, say, what we see in the Night's Watch or on a very local level. The conditions just don't exist to make it practical or desirable to elect the person who'll sit the Iron Throne by mass suffrage.

(I'm saying 'Westerosi' here, but the same can be taken as true for Essosi and other societies.)

On top of that, there are some beliefs and attitudes that characters are raised with, and it's also reasonable to take those into account, although maybe in a slightly different way. It's not impossible to challenge those beliefs, as we see characters do this within the story, but it is certainly somewhat harder to do in a culture where, maesters aside, most people are not exposed to alternative ideologies and philosophies. I would be less inclined to excuse a character for these sort of reasons than for practical limitations, but it should help us to understand how a 'good' character might hold views we find a bit dubious.

But in the end, these are stories written by a modern author for a modern audience. To suggest that we should refrain from any moral judgment in modern terms is therefore pretty absurd. What on earth do we think the author is doing, if he means us to simply park our morality at the front cover? What sort of bizarre exercise would that make the books? These books aren't history, and they're not written for a medieval audience. They're unavoidably part of a moral conversation between the author, the reader, and modern moral questions. They're not a lecture: often, the author is more interested in raising difficult moral questions than in answering them. And one of the things he's interested in raising is exactly this question: how much of certain moral issues is contextual, and how much is universal.

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

When people say things like "it's Medieval!" or "it's Westeros!" it really looks like they're willing to compromise their own morals to pump up or excuse their favorite characters. No integrity.

Is it not cos it`s fiction? I`m the type you speak of, but easily get disgusted at sick things REAL people do when i`m reading and watching the news. And my own personal opinion is if people are offended when reading adult fiction books then maybe they aren`t psychologically fit enough to be reading them in the first place

[LordStoneheart]

Is it not cos it`s fiction? I`m the type you speak of, but easily get disgusted at sick things REAL people do when i`m reading and watching the news. And my own personal opinion is if people are offended when reading adult fiction books then maybe they aren`t psychologically fit enough to be reading them in the first place

I am speaking of the people who will brush away slavery and slaughter of smallfolk or marital rape because "that's their culture and time!" Do they truly not care about that seemingly innocent people are dying just because it makes characters less able to be critiqued if they think that way? But that's often too limited to specific cases so it's useless going on.