All bias aside, who do you think is the best overall human being in the story?

[INCBlackbird]

 

And they would choose their own life because they are already immorally inclined, don't regard another person's life as worthwhile, and score high on psychopathic and machiavelan scales. Basically, they're either criminals or immoral people.

Some might but the people I'm talking about, the people I still consider good who would do that, would do it because they're scared of death.

[SeanF]

If you want all the trappings of wealth and power that come with being part of the high nobility of Westeros, then you have to accept the restraints on your own personal behaviour that ensue.  So, having an affair with a married sibling isn't really an option.  To think that you really can have it all is the essence of entitlement and narcissism

[INCBlackbird]

If you want all the trappings of wealth and power that come with being part of the high nobility of Westeros, then you have to accept the restraints on your own personal behaviour that ensue.  So, having an affair with a married sibling isn't really an option.  To think that you really can have it all is the essence of entitlement and narcissism

of course they're entitled, they were born rich. and yeah, the lannister twins are quite narcissistic too...

[SeanF]

On that, we can agree.

[sweetsunray]

I read the first part of the article you provided, will read the rest later because my boyfriend is gonna be here in 15 minutes and I’m a slow reader and I still wanna reply, but as far as I have read now: First of all, they’re talking about killing someone to save others. Second, they’re talking about being comfortable with doing that. Then there’s also this “a variety of researchers have shown that individuals with higher working memory capacity and those who are more deliberative thinkers are, indeed, more likely to approve of utilitarian solutions” It says in this article that psychopathy is just another possibility. And that’s logical because yes, psychopaths don’t value other human beings. I value other human beings, and as I said if I had to make the choice between my life and someone else life, I am honest in saying that I would chose my life, not because I think I am more valuable than the other person, I think we are both equally valuable, but I am scared of death, I’m not that brave and I would never claim to be and therefor I don’t expect others to be, how could I?

And for the record, I probably wouldn’t sacrifice a life for several others because I value people as individuals. Not to mention that I couldn’t do that. But that is a very different issue from it being my life versus someone else’ life.

 

Read the whole article. They're first introducing what research has been done, but then explain what type of research hasn't been done, and that they aim to see whether there's a correlation that people who value the life of others less, more callous and manipulative and the type of answers on these type of moral dilemmas. And no, they did not just have psychopaths answer. They had 3 groups answer - psychopaths, machiavelists and neither of those. But even when people were clinically neither of those, and answered utilitarian, they still scored high on both scales. The conclusion is far more enlightening, and they actually argue that philosophically claiming that the "utilitarian choice" is the better moral choice is basically saying that the more immorally inclined people make more morally sound decisions; that criminals make higher moral choices than non-criminals. And that of course is complete horseshit. 

[ftheking]

Ok, he didn't kill them when he could, and when he thinks he is no kinslayer to himself, he is thinking about Bran and Rickon as kin. Isn't that cute?

Oh, that's adorable and I'm rooting for Theon like no one else in the series, but he hasn't exactly shown himself to be the BEST human being so far. However some people choose Meribald and isn't he the priest who admitted to have been an awful outlaw including rape and what not in his former life? I guess someone could be the best human being from a certain point (redemption) on, but neither Theon or Jamie are close yet, and if we are judging the series overall they are out of luck anyway.

 

A good human being wouldn't get himself into a situation where he's cuckolding the king with his wife and his own sister.

I don't know. I think that's more about him being messed up psychologically plus kinda dumb. (He can make witty observation, but he also can be kinda dumb) He clearly really loves Cersei and feels like he needs her emotionally. That's rather sympathetic in my book.

Attempted murder of a child to cover up your own crimes... it's as dark as you can go.

Agreed with that though. No excuse!

[OldGimletEye]

Because that's how humans work, we want to survive, all of us are scared of death, who would I be to judge someone else when I'd have done the same in that situation?

I don't think it's just a question though of what many people would do. But, rather a question, of what people ought to do ideally.

 

Also, the problem with applying some kind of utilitarian defense to Jaime's actions with regard to Bran is that Jaime is a bit culpable in creating the situation. That just rubs many people the wrong way and I think rightly so.

 

I'm by no means a Jaime hater, but still I just don't think he should get a free pass for what he did to Bran.

[direpoodle]

 

Read the whole article. They're first introducing what research has been done, but then explain what type of research hasn't been done, and that they aim to see whether there's a correlation that people who value the life of others less, more callous and manipulative and the type of answers on these type of moral dilemmas. And no, they did not just have psychopaths answer. They had 3 groups answer - psychopaths, machiavelists and neither of those. But even when people were clinically neither of those, and answered utilitarian, they still scored high on both scales. The conclusion is far more enlightening, and they actually argue that philosophically claiming that the "utilitarian choice" is the better moral choice is basically saying that the more immorally inclined people make more morally sound decisions; that criminals make higher moral choices than non-criminals. And that of course is complete horseshit. 

I know I'm butting in on the discussion, but I agree with INCBlackbird that most people would not sacrifice their own life for the life of an innocent. What people say they would do (especially in discussion with other people) and what they actually do can be quite different. One need only look at history to see that people will choose their own life over another's. In WWII, it was only a few brave outliers who actually risked their own lives to save the lives of innocents about to be murdered. When the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, people celebrated it (and continue to applaud it) as the end to the war and the end of a risk to themselves. Today, there are plenty of people who need help escaping from horrible circumstances, yet none of us put ourselves at risk to help them. Believing you would sacrifice yourself for someone else is a noble ideal, and most people want to be that kind of person, but actions speak louder than words.

[sweetsunray]

I know I'm butting in on the discussion, but I agree with INCBlackbird that most people would not sacrifice their own life for the life of an innocent. What people say they would do (especially in discussion with other people) and what they actually do can be quite different. One need only look at history to see that people will choose their own life over another's. In WWII, it was only a few brave outliers who actually risked their own lives to save the lives of innocents about to be murdered. When the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, people celebrated it (and continue to applaud it) as the end to the war and the end of a risk to themselves. Today, there are plenty of people who need help escaping from horrible circumstances, yet none of us put ourselves at risk to help them. Believing you would sacrifice yourself for someone else is a noble ideal, and most people want to be that kind of person, but actions speak louder than words.

 

Actually, while Belgium has a large number of collaborators than the Netherlands for example, Belgians also rescued a great number of Jews. The Netherlands had a fiercer resistance, but the fewer collaborators were also way more follower of the anti-semitic stance. I have family who were executed for being in the resistance in WWII. Resistance can be done in many ways; aid and help can be given in many ways - and it doesn't have to be volunteering for the army. Medical aid, teaching, all types of careers out there that require humanitarian calling. In fact, a faction of the "collaborators" also helped the "resistance" at the same time.

 

I always use the fictional example of a metal factory being empounded by the Nazis, who then order the CEO to turn it into a munition factory. The first Dutch CEO would bravely say, "No", then put against the wall and shot. Same thing for the second. The third will say "Yes", and do it. If it were a Belgian factory the CEO would say, "Yes", but then regularly report delays and issues, that even before it could be turned into a munition factory, Belgium's already liberated. 2000 years of foreign forces taught us how to still help others in a covert manner. Since Belgium was marched on by foreign armies since Julius Caesar, we're the type of people who say "Yes, sir," to the foreign boss, but do the opposite behind his back. Kindof what the RL lords do during the Lannister-Frey siege of RR in aDwD.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

not really, because I don't consider them to be doing wrong stuff, I don't accept a forced marriage as anything binding, I don't think Jaime and Cersei have any moral obligation to not do with their own bodies what they want.

 

Sure they do, but when they resort to attempted murder to cover it up rather than accepting the negative consequences of their freely-chosen act, then they're hardly being moral. That's moral cowardice.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

I'm not speaking for you I don't know you,  I'm speaking for the majority of the people and honestly, the majority of the people would do much worse than what i'm suggesting. ever heard about the Milgram experiment?

 

But you don't know them either.

[The Santa of House Claus]

Davos, Ned, Elder Brother, Septon Meribald, Aemon, Luwin, Sam.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

I know I'm butting in on the discussion, but I agree with INCBlackbird that most people would not sacrifice their own life for the life of an innocent. What people say they would do (especially in discussion with other people) and what they actually do can be quite different. One need only look at history to see that people will choose their own life over another's. In WWII, it was only a few brave outliers who actually risked their own lives to save the lives of innocents about to be murdered. When the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, people celebrated it (and continue to applaud it) as the end to the war and the end of a risk to themselves. Today, there are plenty of people who need help escaping from horrible circumstances, yet none of us put ourselves at risk to help them. Believing you would sacrifice yourself for someone else is a noble ideal, and most people want to be that kind of person, but actions speak louder than words.

 

However, it seems that INCBlackbird is representing the belief that "most people would not sacrifice their own life for the life of an innocent" as somehow highly moral. It isn't.

[pettes]

Edmure

[sweetsunray]

I'm not speaking for you I don't know you,  I'm speaking for the majority of the people and honestly, the majority of the people would do much worse than what i'm suggesting. ever heard about the Milgram experiment?

 

Yes, I know the Milgram experiment. Do you know the full Milgram experiment?

 

For those who don't know the experiment:

Person A is taking a quiz in a separate room, seemingly tied to a device with electrical wires. Person A is actually an actor.

Person B wears a medical garb, looking knowledgeable and authoritive. Also an actor.

Person C believes Person A is the test person, that they are to assist Person B by pushing buttons of a control device connected to person A, but are the actual test person.

 

When person A gives a wrong answer, person B tells person C to administer an electric shock to person A of some magnitude. The tests showed that a majority of people followed the order without question, even with electric shock levels as high they'd be lethal  Person A is not some supposed terrorist. They're supposed to be some student doing a quiz. It proved how so many people were able to participate in awful war crimes as occurred in WWII.

 

The rest of the research and tests of the Milgram experiment is often not mentioned. And it's the following:

Person D was a 3rd actor pretending to be a previous Person C. And they would refuse to perform the given order.

 

So, person C would be waiting for their turn to be the assistant of person B, but witness person D protesting against giving person A electrical shocks. Person D would be sent out, and it would be person C's turn to assist. And what happened? The majority of people would follow person D's example and also refuse.

 

What this mostly reveals is how we can morally influence each other. If a certain amount of people say "no" to something for moral reasons then it can get a following. Less than 10% of a population is enough to question certain moral views to all of the rest of the population. The Milgram experiment doesn't show that the majority of people have a low morality to save their own ass. It shows that it can be influenced in both directions - if people feel they are powerless and stand alone, they lack courage; if people know they are not alone, they've got courage enough. Not only does it show how people ended up following Nazi orders to execute people. It shows how morality changes occur - against slavery, suffragette movement, ecological and environment movement, anti abuse of animals movement. The fact that our views on slavery, equal rights, ecological care, shelters and animal care, education have altered for the better of humanity in just the past 220-230 years so radically shows that, despite some dark events like the camps during WWII, all the "humans by majority are selfish" is complete hogwash.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

I would like to interject a few things in here, and give a few of my own opinions if I may.

 

First, I don't think that people who would sacrifice an innocent, including a child or children, to save their own lives are necessarily utilitarian.  They are more than likely motivated by fear of death rather than a specific moral system.  But if you were to classify such a system, it would not be utilitarian.  It would more than likely be deontological, with the survival of self at the top of the pyramid.  Hence, "my own survival" becomes the highest good, the categorical imperative.  Hence, one's own life becomes more valuable than anyone else's. Attached to this is the idea that certain groups rank higher up on the value scale than others.  One may generally value their own children, spouse, family, community members, nationality, or race, as being more important than others when faced with an all other things being equal transaction. This is not utilitarian at all, but rather a system of hierarchies.  Just as similar as it would be to interject other factors not related to relationship or kinship with the other, such as innocence.  Hence, to say that one innocent life is more valuable than a non-innocent would not be utilitarian. 

 

In this manner, I cannot say that Jaime Lannister is utilitarian in his thought process when he throws an innocent boy out of a window.  Jaime of course doesn't see him as innocent, first of all.  I'm uncertain as to the level of narcissism and psychopathy exhibited by Jaime.  Narcissism may indeed be a good bet, as well as meaningless, but not sure about psychopathy or Machiavellianism, and certainly not utilitarianism.  Tywin Lannister on the other hand is extremely Machiavellian, and appears to be a utilitarian, but in my opinion really only uses utilitarian arguments to defend himself.  In reality, Tywin's "greatest good" is himself and his legacy.  He'll kill millions if he believed he himself would grow more powerful in so doing. 

 

This is not to say that I believe that shoving innocent kids out of windows in order to save your self and your children is moral.  I think I've made my case against that view in other threads.  But that doing so is not utilitarian, and I'm not sure if it is psychopathic or machiavellian.  I am more of the opinion that it is simply a lack of courage.  This would be a more "virtue ethics" way of looking at things.  And while I do believe that such actions are immoral, I'm not sure if that view, and that action, taken in duress, would be limited to people who are clinically psychopathic.  I think that the reality of moral decision making is actually far more complex than many of these tests would have us assume, and how many of these moral systems would like us to behave. 

 

Let's look at some different scenarios to illustrate the complexity of the situation, and my own views and decisions, which may be very different than your own so be patient, I'm only being honest.  Let's use the trolly and train track scenario. 

 

1.  If the trolly is coming down the line, and is about to hit 5 innocent children, and I can save them by flipping a switch, but then the trolly will hit and kill my wife and children......  I'm not going to flip the switch.   This is decidedly a non-utilitarian approach. 

 

2.  If the trolly is coming down the line, and is about to hit my wife and kids, and I can save them by flipping a switch, but then the trolly will hit and kill 5 innocent children............this is a much more difficult situation.  In the initial situation, I was not actually responsible for the trolly hitting the innocent children.  In this case, I would be.  But in this case, having to make a split second decision, I may very well decide to save my wife and kids and sacrifice the 5 children.  This is a horrible choice, and I don't consider it a good one, and I don't think I'd be happy with my choice.  At some point, the tables would most likely turn in favor of the innocent children.  When, I don't know.  When it becomes 10, 20, 100, 1000?  I think I'm going to have to let my wife and kids die by the time I get to 20, and that's a horrible thing.  But what if they are not innocent children?  What if they are adult criminals incarcerated for murder?  Rape?  Jaywalking?  The level of complexity can become overbearing.  I don't consider myself utilitarian, but at some point, the value of lives do compound. 

 

3.  Let's make the decision easier.  Let's say that the trolly is coming to hit my wife and kids, but there is only one innocent kid on the other line.  Well, the fact is that to me, because I'm not utilitarian in my ethics, that it really doesn't help me.  One death of an innocent that I caused is just as horrible as 5.  But the decision is easier to make. 

 

Hence, I admit there are decisions I would make, in duress, that I may not myself think as entirely moral.  From my own point of view, I can certainly say that the life of my kids are not more valuable than the lives of someone elses's kids. 

[KingStoneheart]

Davos, Ned, Maester Aemon and Luwin

[Raving Stark the Mad]

The best overall human being?  Probably someone like Arthur Dayne.  Maybe Ned if we're talking about characters in the timeline of ASOIAF.  Maybe Jon if we're talking about possibly alive POV characters.  Davos and Brienne and Bran are up there. 

[sweetsunray]

Raving Stark the Mad, let me point out, that I'm not arguing that Jaime is either a narcissist, psychopath, machiavelist or utilitarian. I don't think he is. To me he seems at foundation a guy with noble intentions when he's young. He is partly corrupted by his twin sister. I don't fault him for his Kingslaying. Nor do I fault Ned for being aghast about it, when not knowing why Jaime did so. Jaime becomes a cynic. In all the years after, he acts out of cynicism, and deciding that his sole loyalty is to Cersei. His cynicism is what erodes his emotions regarding the value for life. When he tosses Bran out of the window his once famous sentence is dripping with cynicism. I don't believe he did it to protect the lives of his 3 children. He doesn't really care for them either, when he performs the act, because Cersei never allowed him to bond with them. He doesn't do it to protect his own life either. He's always looking for fights and confrontation, imo seeking deliverance through possible death from his cynical outlook. He throws Bran out of the window for Cersei. Not even Jaime acts for the reasons that INCBlackbird uses to justify it.

 

When he realizes how Cersei used him, and doesn't blink of using others like him for her own ends, and doesn't love him as he loves her, that's when he seems to reconnect with himself again.

 

I only used the utilitarian arguments, not in reflection of Jaime, but of the arguments made that a - the majority of people would do this b - it's a higher moral choice. Neither is true.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

 

 

I only used the utilitarian arguments, not in reflection of Jaime, but of the arguments made that a - the majority of people would do this b - it's a higher moral choice. Neither is true.

I agree wholy with b, but that's my opinion.  I'm unsure of a.  I would like to say that the majority of people would not do such a thing, but I believe that the majority of people probably do value their own lives, and the lives of their family, over other lives, in a pinch. Doubt they would do it for the same exact reasons as Jaime that you pointed out.  Either way, I'm not sure what utilitarianism has to do with either thing.  Did someone make the argument that killing one little boy was preferable to having 3 children and 2 adults executed?  If that is the case, then you are completely right to bring in utilitarianism, but in this case it is an argument of a poster, rather than the reasoning behind Jaime, and you are right in pointing out that this is not the manner in which the majority of people morally reason.