ASoIaF and modern moral standards.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The faith is a pagan religion. It is a pantheon ,an archetypal Jungian one based on the Greek/ roman gods. Mars is the warrior, Aphrodite the maiden, etc.

The notion of chivalry predates medieval Christianity in concept, the idea of a warrior lord who protects the people. The faith makes no mention of Jesus

specific teaching as far as I can tell.

There is some similarity between the Faith and the practices of the Catholic Church. Celibate orders of religious adherents, some of whom live in their own communes, the multiple facets of one deity, the pageantry mixed with the populism, the idea that the monarch required the blessing of the religious authority in order to have legitimacy. Even Maegor's battle with the Faith sort of resembles Henry VIII's conflict during the Reformation.

I agree that there isn't any Jesus-specific or messianic stuff going on with the Faith, but the day-to-day workings of it are very familiar.

[Max of the Magic Friends]

I don't know what you want me to say. A lot of fans make no secret of their deep dislike of the Faith of the Seven. I suspect these are the same people who ignore the Faith of the Seven when they claim that nothing resembling "modern" morality exists in Westeros.

But the Faith of the Seven is where we see so-called "modern" morality vaguely replicated. It inspired Baelor to try to teach the the high to treat the lowly as equals. It inspired Lancel to accept common folk as his "friends". It opposes the murder of the crippled and deformed. It is the inspiration for the one non-castrated military force on the planet that is not widely known for raping women. It is the source and inspiration for the vows of knighthood, that hold that the strong should defend the weak, and hence that might does not make right.

The Faith of the Seven is not identical to Christianity. It is a cross between medieval Christianity and new-age hippy humanism and feminism, complete with the "Maiden, Mother and Crone" of neo-pagan goddess worship. It is probably George's ideal fantasy religion (with a few warts for realism's sake). It is loosely based on medieval Christianity, but it is, if anything, even more "modern".

Now this I can agree with. I get the feeling that a lot of people on this forum have some very serious resentment of religion, because they seem very willing to disregard the very good things that the Faith brings to Westeros just because it's the fantasy equivalent of Catholicism. People seem to really despise Baelor and Lancel, despite the fact that the the two of them are very concerned with doing what is right and helping others, just because they're pious as well.

Regarding the topic at hand, I'm personally a believer in objective morality, so I have no problem with judging characters based on their good or bad actions. Talking about "modern morality" is nonsense, so far as I'm concerned. People fall into the trap of believing that the most recent time in history is the most moral and correct, but in reality we're every bit as flawed and frail as people from ten years ago or ten thousand years ago. At any rate, I think moral relativism is a largely self-defeating concept.

[DraculaAD1972]

There is some similarity between the Faith and the practices of the Catholic Church. Celibate orders of religious adherents, some of whom live in their own communes, the multiple facets of one deity, the pageantry mixed with the populism, the idea that the monarch required the blessing of the religious authority in order to have legitimacy. Even Maegor's battle with the Faith sort of resembles Henry VIII's conflict during the Reformation.

I agree that there isn't any Jesus-specific or messianic stuff going on with the Faith, but the day-to-day workings of it are very familiar.

Certainly you are right, also the notion of goodness held by the faith, is more similar to Christian morals than to the pagan Greeks and Romans, excepting perhaps the Stoics, who seemed to have quite similar moral outlook to the Christians.

[Lee-Sensei]

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.

Ned's better than most and Stannis is a puritan. Marital rape is allowed in universe. It's morally reprehensible, but not considered a crime.

[Guest]

We can't really judge them by today's standards. It would be unfair and arrogant. People who constantly fight just to survive don't spend alot of time on deep moral quandries as they simply don't have the time to devote to it. In fact, given how bad things are and have been, especially given the length of winters and the hardship that entails, as well as how little technological advancement they have had, it's amazing that they have as many moral standards as they do have.

[King of Vaes Tolorro]

Morality is a human concept, immaterial. The immaterial is immaterial.

[Axell Redhand]

I think it's a dangerous conversation topic because people tend to be incapable of stepping outside of themselves to consider how being somewhere else, and someone else, might alter their view of what is 'moral.' The simple fact that there is no such thing as objective morality for our entire planet is the clearest statement of all; If our species can't even agree on what is or is not moral, how exactly do we choose our own version and then apply it to fictional people in a fictional world. Morality IS subjective, no matter how badly some people want it not to be.

Saying 'YOUR morality is not fact' is like saying 'YOUR religion is not fact.' It's not an argument that ever goes well. So no, of course we shouldn't judge fictional characters by whatever current morality you adhere to. But most people will anyway because we're all human and we view everything, even pure fiction, through the lens of our own experiences and beliefs. A more interesting question is who ultimately gets more enjoyment from a series like this; people with a rather loose moral code, or people with a stricter one for whom less characters truly 'measure up' to an ideal of 'good person.'

[Celtic Cross]

As someone said earlier, I judge them loosely by my own moral views, however I'm more understanding of certain things they do. That being said I take no qualms with distinguishing characters like Ned, Davos, Jon, Brienne, etc as "good" and characters like Gregor, Tywin, and Roose as the opposite.

[Lord Sapna]

The problem is that people pick and choose which moral standards they apply. Personally I found Tywin getting Tyrion to rape Tysha a really shocking form of abuse, both against Tysha and the 13 year old Tyrion. Yet a lot of people just call Tyrion a rapist for it. Because 'different times 13 was older then"

Then the same people call drogo a paedo because of Danys age. Still this is a legal issue as well as a moral one. Age of consent varies largely country by country. I know a lot of Americans think 16 is too young as 18s the law. Not the same in Europe and the moral views of it change accordingly.

Marital rape is wrong and they know it's wrong as it's causing wives a lot of distress, but there isn't divorce in westeros either. Highborn ladies (and indeed men) go into these marriages knowing that they are expected to produce heirs. Good parents give children a choice in the matter, bad ones do not. It's not like they can avoid being highborn either. It's difficult to hold westeros to modern morality standards when they don't have modern morality options.

[TheAssassin]

One must understand the difference between legality and morality, the former being a construct of the human intellect; the latter being an unquestionable standard.

Some people try to rationalize their actions in an attempt to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing. For instance, is stealing wrong? Today, stealing is illegal in most societies. There are laws against stealing. Yet the fact that there are laws against an action does not make that action morally wrong. The fact that that action is morally wrong is most likely the reason for the law. So we know that stealing is illegal. And most would say that stealing is morally wrong as well.

A moral relativist would say that the morality of the theft would depend on the circumstance. A morally objective person would say that stealing is morally wrong. The former requires a rationalization of his/her actions so as to absolve themselves of any wrongdoing. The objectivist accepts that he/she has committed a morally wrong action and (ideally) would take the steps to rectify that action.

This raises the age-old question, would you steal a loaf of bread for your starving family? As a moral objectivist, I would. I would accept that what I am doing is wrong and by doing so, can take the necessary steps to rectify my wrong (such as repayment two-fold). As a moral relativist, I would view what I did as right and would have little incentive to repay my debts.

This of course, is an oversimplified scenario. Do the ends justify the means? Is my life, or the life of my starving family, more important than the life of the starving family from whom I stole? Is not stealing the bread morally wrong if I then subject my family to pain and suffering?

In the end, we cannot measure a society (fictitious, ancient, future, real, or hypothetical) if we accept moral relativism. It would be akin to measuring the number of meters long something is with a yardstick. Our present day morals (if relative) cannot be forced upon other societies.

If, however, we apply moral objectivism, we can say that, yes, slavery is morally wrong here (in time and place) and there (in time and place). Thus, the Dothraki commit moral wrongs. The Slavers commit moral wrongs. Jorah committed moral wrongs. The question is not whether these people have committed moral wrongs (they did) it's whether these people are inherently evil people.

[Forever May]

I personally can't see why people keep talking about modern morals. There is right and wrong, then there is the consequences of doing right and wrong. In the modern world, we judge what we think is right and wrong, then we judge the consequences of doing what we want or if we would feel comfortable with doing what we want, then we act. How is this any different in Westeros? It really isn't.

For example, just because Tywin said you can go rape peasants, that doesn't mean Westerosi people do not know that this thing is wrong to do. Some will do it anyway and they are bad people. Others will do what is right. There's simply no difference here than in our world. You can get away with rape and murder nowadays too, but that doesn't mean we all leap to do it the first chance we get.

People have choices to make. And that is all. There's no such thing modern morals, there are only people.

So yes, I do judge the books based on my contemporary perceptions.

[shadow282]

Morality is a human concept, immaterial. The immaterial is immaterial.

Everything is a human concept. Words are a human concept. Your thoughts are a human conceps. If human concepts are immaterial, and everything you say and think is a human concept, does that not make you immaterial?

[mormont]

On my end, all I really ask for is consistency. If you're arguing moral absolutes, apply that standard to everyone. If you're arguing moral relativism, apply that standard to everyone. What irks me is when people pick and choose based on how sympathetic they are or aren't to the character(s) in question.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ;)

As I've said, the notion that you have to pick either only moral absolutes or total moral relativism and stick to one is a false dilemma. This isn't an either/or. It's a spectrum.

[SeanF]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ;)

As I've said, the notion that you have to pick either only moral absolutes or total moral relativism and stick to one is a false dilemma. This isn't an either/or. It's a spectrum.

Out of interest, where do you draw the line?

It seems perfectly reasonable to cut a lot of slack to people who don't live in affluent Western societies. We never have to worry about where the next meal is coming from, or fear returning home to find that our families have been slaughtered. Decent people who do live in such a society are inevitably going to behave in ways that would appear ruthless to people living in more prosperous and ordered societies.

And in even in our affluent society, we'd accept that ethical standards in wartime are different to ethical standards in peacetime. Westeros (and much of Essos) are societies in which warfare is endemic.

There probably are things that we can condemn as wrong for all people in all societies, such as:-

i) Rape (but different societies will have different ideas about what constitutes rape

ii) Torture for the purpose of recreation

iii) Enslaving free people

iv) Wanton murder (albeit people will debate whether something is wanton murder or an act of war).

Areas that are more debateable (at least in a medieval world where magic is a reality) include human sacrifice, slavery as an institution, serfdom, shadow-binding, torture as punishment or as a means of gaining information, and arranged marriages.

[Chaircat Meow]

SNIP

Use of children as hostages is another big disconnect.

[Red Typer of Dorne]

People tend to judge the actions of others by their own standards, and that;s fine you are expressing an opinion based on your knowledge and beliefs which is a fundamental human right. However, morality stems from education and should be judged on whether a character is aware that their actions are wrong.

So to over simplify. Actions can be judged by the standards of the audience, but morality is a personal thing and as much as we don't want to except it, is time and culturally sensitive. In the last 100 or so years we have seen modern liberal cultures go from separating black and white people to having their first black heads of state. There are people alive who have seen this change and may not have been involved in the push for change but have have excepted it and evolved their own morality.

[ElizabethB.]

The religion of Rh'llor is a dualistic religion, analogous to the Manichaean and Zoroastrian religions, except that in real life these religions were not associated with human sacrifice, as far as I know.

There is no contradiction between Christianity and fun and frolic.

Jesus would be anyone but Azor Ahai. Jesus is associated with self-sacrifice. Azor Ahai and the religion of Rh'llor are about the sacrifice of other people.

I meant the reborn AA . We don't know how that's going to play out.

Now I don't think there has to be a contradiction between christianity and fun & frolic. But I do think that Christ is the core of it and without anything that would even remotely resemble him/events in Golgotha, I just don't see the parallel.

[Axell Redhand]

One must understand the difference between legality and morality, the former being a construct of the human intellect; the latter being an unquestionable standard.

There is no such thing as an unqestionable moral standard. There simply isn't. Any assertion otherwise is attempting to take the things you believe and apply them as universal truths to everyone else. And that's simply not okay.

I personally can't see why people keep talking about modern morals. There is right and wrong, then there is the consequences of doing right and wrong.

Found your problem for you. There is no such thing as a universally true "right and wrong." That's why everyone keeps talking about modern morals. The morality we're speaking of and applying is, in at least some ways, a modern construct based on modern concepts of freedom, basic human rights, etc.

I actually find it very disconcerting how many people seem to think there is some magical set of moral rules that apply to everyone of all cultures and all time periods. It seems like a very.. insular. . way of thinking.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ;)

How chivalrous of you. I'd rather you just insulted me and had it out.

As I've said, the notion that you have to pick either only moral absolutes or total moral relativism and stick to one is a false dilemma. This isn't an either/or. It's a spectrum.

The issue is that people pick and choose where to land on the spectrum based on how they feel about a particular character. "Moral absolutism for people I don't like, moral relativism for the people I do." You see it again and again on here. It isn't about moral nuance or complexity, it's about character bias.

[mormont]

How chivalrous of you. I'd rather you just insulted me and had it out.

There are acres of difference between an insult and a critique of a position such as an insistence on consistency. 'Consistency' is a much over-praised quality, IMO: or, I should say, the (perceived) lack of it is often an easy way to criticise a position you dislike.

The issue is that people pick and choose where to land on the spectrum based on how they feel about a particular character. "Moral absolutism for people I don't like, moral relativism for the people I do." You see it again and again on here. It isn't about moral nuance or complexity, it's about character bias.

But again, you often see on here people criticised for 'character bias' when in fact what is happening is that the situations compared are simply different. Context matters. And, as I say, there is a lot of middle ground between 'moral relativism' and 'moral absolutism'. People don't like to acknowledge it, sometimes, but there is.