ASoIaF and modern moral standards.

[Annara Snow]

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.

:agree:

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.

:agree:

Legality =/= morality. There are things that are illegal but most people don't really care because they don't find them immoral (most people I know feel that way about illegal downloading, and many feel that way about smoking weed), while other things may not be illegal but people find them deeply immoral; for instance, torturing animals or killing them for no reason has only becomes a criminal offense in my country and punishable by law since a few years ago; before that, you could have tortured dogs and cats how much you wanted and the law would not take an interest since it was not illegal, but most people would consider you a disgusting creep.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

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.

I don't think the problem is to say they are medieval. The problem is when people expect every other character to put that fact aside in order to act as we expect them to be. The fact that some characters, as mormont pointed out above, are able to challenge their society doesn't mean all of those are the same. For example, Ned allowing Arya to train with Syrio is due to him suddenly having a change of heart about equality or because he knows out of experience with Lyanna that is better not discuss these kind of things and better being supportive? In this specific case, it goes beyond Ned simply "challenging roles" but acting after a context we are also given to understand. He still believes Arya should marry and have children one day.

A lot of characters have realised that many of their rules are wrong and fucked up. Yet, some others haven't. That doesn't make them "bad people". Some others know they are wrong and they don't care.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

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.

It's not that simple, IMO.

Is every single adult male Dothraki inherently "evil"? Are they somehow differently 'constructed', lacking empathy? Or is it that certain living conditions leaded to the developement of a very cruel culture? If we take a binary stance in answering such questions, we 'll most likely end up to conclusions that are inconsistent within our own morality frame. I suppose that it's one of ASOIAF themes and an intention of the author, to have the reader ponder on such.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Is every single adult male Dothraki inherently "evil"? Are they somehow differently 'constructed', lacking empathy? Or is it that certain living conditions leaded to the developement of a very cruel culture? If we take a binary stance in answering such questions, we 'll most likely end up to conclusions that are inconsistent within our own morality frame. I suppose that it's one of ASOIAF themes and an intention of the author, to have the reader ponder on such.

The problem with the example of the Dothraki is that, while many -not completely wrong- label them immediately as barbaric, GRRM seems to have a soft spot for them. Dany didn't leave them to their luck and those she took with her seem to be actually changing and adapting to their new customs. Or at least, they simply fight to her side in abolishing slavery.

This is not the case with the slavers of SB, who seemed to have been portrayed as the 'villains' of her arc.

[Annara Snow]

It's not that simple, IMO.

Is every single adult male Dothraki inherently "evil"? Are they somehow differently 'constructed', lacking empathy? Or is it that certain living conditions leaded to the developement of a very cruel culture? If we take a binary stance in answering such questions, we 'll most likely end up to conclusions that are inconsistent within our own morality frame. I suppose that it's one of ASOIAF themes and an intention of the author, to have the reader ponder on such.

There's a difference between seeing someone's upbringing, culture or circumstances as mitigating factors and arguing that they are not irredeemable or should be judged less harshly; and arguing that the acts themselves - including rape, abuse, torture, slavery - are not bad in itself, or that someone trying to stop this from happening is wrong because "it's just how it's in their world", which is an argument I often see from moral relativists. One of the popular arguments is "it's not rape because it's not considered rape under their law/in their culture", as if that makes it any better for the victims.

We should be able to at least agree that certain acts are bad and wrong - rape is bad, torture is bad, murdering children and innocent non-combatants is wrong... Even though people who commit these acts may have extenuating circumstances and may not be evil/irredeemable. That's something that often gets forgotten in these fandom debates on morality: people who are not evil may do terrible things sometimes, just like terrible people may occasionally do something good.

[Mithras]

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).

Dany could hear her handmaids arguing behind her, debating who was going to win the day’s final match. Jhiqui favored the gigantic Goghor, who looked more bull than man, even to the bronze ring in his nose. Irri insisted that Belaquo Bonebreaker’s flail would prove the giant’s undoing. My handmaids are Dothraki, she told herself. Death rides with every khalasar.

“Belaquo will win,” Irri declared. “It is known.”

“It is not known,” Jhiqui said. “Belaquo will die.”

BTW, these two have been with Dany since the beginning, so one expects that they must be among the most “enlightened” crew of Dany.

[Annara Snow]

The problem with the example of the Dothraki is that, while many -not completely wrong- label them immediately as barbaric, GRRM seems to have a soft spot for them. Dany didn't leave them to their luck and those she took with her seem to be actually changing and adapting to their new customs. Or at least, they simply fight to her side in abolishing slavery.

This is not the case with the slavers of SB, who seemed to have been portrayed as the 'villains' of her arc.

Some of the Dothraki are sympathetic, but some are portrayed as villainous (Jhago, Mago...). We'll see how things go in TWOW when Dany meets up with them.

[Monctonvike]

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 time (even though its fictional)

At best we should try to imagine how people growing up under these circumstances would react.

[Mithras]

The problem with the example of the Dothraki is that, while many -not completely wrong- label them immediately as barbaric, GRRM seems to have a soft spot for them. Dany didn't leave them to their luck and those she took with her seem to be actually changing and adapting to their new customs. Or at least, they simply fight to her side in abolishing slavery.

This is not the case with the slavers of SB, who seemed to have been portrayed as the 'villains' of her arc.

“Who is that weeping?”

“Your slave Missandei.” Jhiqui had a taper in her hand.

“My servant. I have no slaves.”

In addition to my post above, we have another slip like this. I would not call this changing.

[OldGimletEye]

There's a difference between seeing someone's upbringing, culture or circumstances as mitigating factors and arguing that they are not irredeemable or should be judged less harshly; and arguing that the acts themselves - including rape, abuse, torture, slavery - are not bad in itself, or that someone trying to stop this from happening is wrong because "it's just how it's in their world", which is an argument I often see from moral relativists. One of the popular arguments is "it's not rape because it's not considered rape under their law/in their culture", as if that makes it any better for the victims.

We should be able to at least agree that certain acts are bad and wrong - rape is bad, torture is bad, murdering children and innocent non-combatants is wrong... Even though people who commit these acts may have extenuating circumstances and may not be evil/irredeemable. That's something that often gets forgotten in these fandom debates on morality: people who are not evil may do terrible things sometimes, just like terrible people may occasionally do something good.

I agree with this line of reasoning. Let's take the Mereenese freeman non-slave master that likes to go to the gladiatorial games on a Sunday afternoon, much like his real world modern counterpart might like to watch a football or a basketball game, as an example. His enjoyment of that blood sport is objectively bad. It's objectively unethical to enjoy watching people trying to kill each other, particularly when neither combatant had a choice to fight.

Does that necessarily make the freeman a bad person? Well, perhaps not really. Not when the society that he lives in tells him that his enjoyment of gladiatorial sport is appropriate. Whether we like it or not, most people do take their cues on how to behave from what they observe from others in their society.

But, let's make no mistake that enjoying watching two people trying to kill each other, when neither had a choice in the matter, is objectively bad, despite what popular opinion might be.

[ChillyPolly]

What is meant by "modern" moral standards? An underlying assumption is that the arbitrary dictates of modern culture are the sole philosophical basis of morality; that modern political correctness (which has existed as a semi-sanctioned State ideology since roughly the mid 1970s) is the sole basis for morality (because any philosophical or religious bases should be automatically be regarded as inferior to the dictates of State Power), and that anarchy existed in all previous eras, or, if not anarchy, something vastly inferior to modern political correctness.

I don't accept these assumptions. I don't worship the good old days, but neither to I worship modern times. Power corrupts, and the powerful rape and torture and murder with relative impunity, even today. Indeed, it may be true that the defining aspect of modern times, relative to earlier stages of our history, is the extent of our moral nihilism.

[Mithras]

“Your Radiance has seven gods, so perhaps she will look upon my seventh plea with favor. Today I do not come alone. Will you hear my friends? There are seven of them as well.” He brought them forth one by one. “Here is Khrazz. Here Barsena Blackhair, ever valiant. Here Camarron of the Count and Goghor the Giant. This is the Spotted Cat, this Fearless Ithoke. Last, Belaquo Bonebreaker. They have come to add their voices to mine own, and ask Your Grace to let our fighting pits reopen.”

Dany knew his seven, by name if not by sight. All had been amongst the most famed of Meereen’s fighting slaves … and it had been the fighting slaves, freed from their shackles by her sewer rats, who led the uprising that won the city for her. She owed them a blood debt. “I will hear you,” she allowed.

One by one, each of them asked her to let the fighting pits reopen. “Why?” she demanded, when Ithoke had finished. “You are no longer slaves, doomed to die at a master’s whim. I freed you. Why should you wish to end your lives upon the scarlet sands?”

“I train since three,” said Goghor the Giant. “I kill since six. Mother of Dragons says I am free. Why not free to fight?”

“If it is fighting you want, fight for me. Swear your sword to the Mother’s Men or the Free Brothers or the Stalwart Shields. Teach my other freedmen how to fight.”

Goghor shook his head. “Before, I fight for master. You say, fight for you. I say, fight for me.” The huge man thumped his chest with a fist as big as a ham. “For gold. For glory.”

“Goghor speaks for us all.” The Spotted Cat wore a leopard skin across one shoulder. “The last time I was sold, the price was three hundred thousand honors. When I was a slave, I slept on furs and ate red meat off the bone. Now that I’m free, I sleep on straw and eat salt fish, when I can get it.”

“Hizdahr swears that the winners shall share half of all the coin collected at the gates,” said Khrazz. “Half, he swears it, and Hizdahr is an honorable man.”

No, a cunning man. Daenerys felt trapped. “And the losers? What shall they receive?”

“Their names shall be graven on the Gates of Fate amongst the other valiant fallen,” declared Barsena. For eight years she had slain every other woman sent against her, it was said. “All men must die, and women too … but not all will be remembered.”

Dany had no answer for that. If this is truly what my people wish, do I have the right to deny it to them? It was their city before it was mine, and it is their own lives they wish to squander.

There is a relevant scene from The Dark Knight.

The Joker: It's simple. We, uh, kill the Batman. [The mobsters laugh]

Salvatore Maroni: If it's so simple, why haven't you done it already?

The Joker: If you're good at something, never do it for free.

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

What is meant by "modern" moral standards? An underlying assumption is that the arbitrary dictates of modern culture are the sole philosophical basis of morality; that modern political correctness (which has existed as a semi-sanctioned State ideology since roughly the mid 1970s) is the sole basis for morality (because philosophy and religion should be automatically be regarded as inferior to the dictates of State Power), and that anarchy existed in all previous eras, or, if not anarchy, something vastly inferior to modern political correctness.

I don't accept these assumptions. I don't worship the good old days, but neither to I worship modern times. Power corrupts, and the powerful rape and torture and murder with relative impunity, even today. Indeed, it may be true that the defining aspect of modern times, relative to earlier stages of our history, is the extent of our moral nihilism.

Its also wrong to compare the morals of more advanced countries with other less advanced countries. Stoned to death women, gang raped women in some cultures even today don`t seem to raise much of an eyebrow in some areas of the modern world

[Mithras]

It looked as though a thousand people had come to see if he would live or die. They lined the castle wallwalks and elbowed one another on the steps of keeps and towers. They watched from the stable doors, from windows and bridges, from balconies and roofs. And the yard was packed with them, so many that the gold cloaks and the knights of the Kingsguard had to shove them back to make enough room for the fight. Some had dragged out chairs to watch more comfortably, while others perched on barrels. We should have done this in the Dragonpit, Tyrion thought sourly. We could have charged a penny a head and paid for Joffrey’s wedding and funeral both. Some of the onlookers even had small children sitting on their shoulders, to get a better view. They shouted and pointed at the sight of Tyrion.

Surely, those “civilized” Westerosi didn’t come for blood but to see the justice being served.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

The problem with the example of the Dothraki is that, while many -not completely wrong- label them immediately as barbaric, GRRM seems to have a soft spot for them. Dany didn't leave them to their luck and those she took with her seem to be actually changing and adapting to their new customs. Or at least, they simply fight to her side in abolishing slavery.

This is not the case with the slavers of SB, who seemed to have been portrayed as the 'villains' of her arc.

I agree, but I believe that theirs is a much more realistic portrayal than the SB cultures (the criticism of catroonish, one dimentional characterization is not completely deprived of basis).

The Dothraki are barbaric as a culture but from the begining they are portrayed (on an individual level) as human beings, which they certainly are. The assumption that perhaps they (or some other people) might not be just that is really bothering.

There's a difference between seeing someone's upbringing, culture or circumstances as mitigating factors and arguing that they are not irredeemable or should be judged less harshly; and arguing that the acts themselves - including rape, abuse, torture, slavery - are not bad in itself, or that someone trying to stop this from happening is wrong because "it's just how it's in their world", which is an argument I often see from moral relativists. One of the popular arguments is "it's not rape because it's not considered rape under their law/in their culture", as if that makes it any better for the victims.

We should be able to at least agree that certain acts are bad and wrong - rape is bad, torture is bad, murdering children and innocent non-combatants is wrong... Even though people who commit these acts may have extenuating circumstances and may not be evil/irredeemable. That's something that often gets forgotten in these fandom debates on morality: people who are not evil may do terrible things sometimes, just like terrible people may occasionally do something good.

One could say that all those acts that you mention are the most primitive (but inevitable) consequence of the (generic) notion that exploitation of other people is accepted (this notion is still alive and well and very much active in our societies, too).

Of course I agree that it is a hell of positive difference that societies have developed enough so that some of the worst aspects are considered immoral and I do agree that social (and moral) critique is supposed to be part of the reading experience but I believe it is different to judge a society than its individual members. For examble, I see why one would include slavery in the inherently bad systems but I don't see why the societal system functioning in Westeros and its consequent set of values, viewed "externally", is so much better than slavery as to not be included too, unless we are led to think comparatively or, more likely, we take into account that we view this world from the specific POVs, mainly from westerosi aristocracy, we are in their heads and thus we are made to see their perspective, that just like us they are people with various (and nuannced) morality "grades", only operating on a much harsher and crueller world than ours (hopefully).

(In short, I imagine that Aggo and Rakharo have killed, raped and pillaged much more than, say, Randyll Tarly, but given what we know about their respective societies' values I see the later as a significantly less moral individual).

[Mithras]

One could say that all those acts that you mention are the most primitive (but inevitable) consequence of the (generic) notion that exploitation of other people is accepted (this notion is still alive and well and very much active in our societies, too).

Of course I agree that it is a hell of positive difference that societies have developed enough so that some of the worst aspects are considered immoral and I do agree that social (and moral) critique is supposed to be part of the reading experience but I believe it is different to judge a society than its individual members. For examble, I see why one would include slavery in the inherently bad systems but I don't see why the societal system functioning in Westeros and its consequent set of values, viewed "externally", is so much better than slavery as to not be included too, unless we are led to think comparatively or, more likely, we take into account that we view this world from the specific POVs, mainly from westerosi aristocracy, we are in their heads and thus we are made to see their perspective, that just like us they are people with various (and nuannced) morality "grades", only operating on a much harsher and crueller world than ours (hopefully).

That is why I love Chett and Pate POVs. I also hate Jaqen for killing Pate.

[ChillyPolly]

Its also wrong to compare the morals of more advanced countries with other less advanced countries. Stoned to death women, gang raped women in some cultures even today don`t seem to raise much of an eyebrow in some areas of the modern world

Like I said, it has nothing to do with "modernity". The fact that such things happen today only proves it.

Do you really think that the idea that one should not stone women to death for adultery was invented in the last century? Was there no ancient ethical teacher who ever taught otherwise? You really think this idea was invented by an "advanced country"?

[ElizabethB.]

Was there no ancient ethical teacher who ever taught otherwise? .

Well, was there?

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

Do you really think that the idea that one should not stone women to death for adultery was invented in the last century? Was there no ancient ethical teacher who ever taught otherwise?

Well i was informed by some book it was happening around 2,000 years ago

[ChillyPolly]

Well i was informed by some book it was happening around 2,000 years ago

And 2000 years before that, I'm sure. It's still happening today.