Most Terrible Act Since the Conquest?

[sarah.jenice]

On 3/5/2016 at 1:41 PM, Maester of Valyria said:

Speaking as someone observing this Presidential debate debacle from the other side of the Atlantic, the fact that Trump is doing so well is a constantly bewildering fact to all of us. It seems us Europeans care more about the US electing a decent President (at this point I'd even take Cruz as the Republican nominee) than the US does.

 

Seriously, I would love it if Martin introduces a character called Drumpf, who's incredibly egotistical and depraved but thoroughly useless at everything, and then have him cast down and humiliated before finding himself in a room with Qyburn and Ramsay.

It's interesting to hear someone else's perspective on the election. It will be a dark day in our U.S. history if somehow he is elected. The whole thing just makes me feel sad and tired.

[John Doe]

9 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

 

I have to ask you mean that Ned was a dictator because he wasn't elected? 

It was a bit of an hyperbole, but if you accept that any character, given any time and situation, has to be judged by the same standards, and if those standards of government are democratic, then I hope you see my point. 

 

@ election: I don't see why you shouldn't make Sanders president already. 

[The Arthur Smith]

44 minutes ago, King of the maesters said:

I know they were horrible people. Vargo Hoat was chopping everybody's limbs off and Rorge, Shagwell, and Biter were raping and murdering every woman they found. I believe we are told that Biter rapes a septa and chews her breasts off. WTF

This is also basically the same shit Gregor Clegane and his men do to the villages they sack in Riverlands.

Except worse.

[The Arthur Smith]

44 minutes ago, King of the maesters said:

I know they were horrible people. Vargo Hoat was chopping everybody's limbs off and Rorge, Shagwell, and Biter were raping and murdering every woman they found. I believe we are told that Biter rapes a septa and chews her breasts off. WTF

This is also basically the same shit Gregor Clegane and his men do to the villages they sack in Riverlands.

Except worse.

[The Arthur Smith]

1 hour ago, King of the maesters said:

I know they were horrible people. Vargo Hoat was chopping everybody's limbs off and Rorge, Shagwell, and Biter were raping and murdering every woman they found. I believe we are told that Biter rapes a septa and chews her breasts off. WTF

This is also basically the same shit Gregor Clegane and his men do to the villages they sack in Riverlands.

Edit: Sorry for double post.

[TimJames]

3 hours ago, Ser Hyle said:

Do these words count if they're written by slave owners?

Just because someone doesn't follow their own rules doesn't in itself make those rules not worth following. 

It's like this: if a told you to stop smoking, but then you find out that he smokes a pack a day after work, does that make it suddenly healthy for you to smoke? 

And for what it's worth, the Declaration of Independence drew the vast majority of its inspiration from the ideas of John Locke. And according to most sources, John Locke was against slavery. 

[TimJames]

55 minutes ago, John Doe said:

It was a bit of an hyperbole, but if you accept that any character, given any time and situation, has to be judged by the same standards, and if those standards of government are democratic, then I hope you see my point. 

Actually, there are countries today that have Monarchs and Noblemen and are just fine with it. No beheading, no First Night, no human rights abuses or oppression. 

While Eddard Stark rules as an Autocrat, we don't have any evidence of him using his Absolute Rule to commit any Crimes Against Humanity. He allows his smallfolk freedom of religious worship regardless of whether they pray to The Seven or The Old Gods (even building a Sept in his castle for his wife) and the taxes he levies on The Northern Smallfolk don't appear to be too burdensome. 

And Eddard judges people fairly; both Roose Bolton and Jorah Mormont knew their Noble Blood wouldn't save them if Eddard discovered their crimes  (the former took measures to cover up his crime and the latter ran away), and when Eddard was serving as Hand of The King he acted justly when he could (sentencing Gregor Clegane to death for raiding in The Riverlands).

If the smallfolk arrived at Winterfell with a petition in response to some grievance, I am sure Eddard would look into it and come up with a fair conclusion (instead of just killing the petitioners, as Tywin would have). 

[Minsc]

On 3/5/2016 at 5:57 PM, Schwarze Sonne said:

By universal morality, Daenerys had committed crimes against humans too when she sack Astapor (asshole victims) and ordering the crucification of 163 slavers as retaliation for some of them crucifying 163 child slaves, those 163 she killed included the innocents. .

Can you name an innocent that was crucified under Dany's orders?

[John Doe]

Even if we accept this as fact for a moment, there were other innocent people she killed, like poor Mirri, who was burnt at the stake. 

27 minutes ago, TimJames said:

Actually, there are countries today that have Monarchs and Noblemen and are just fine with it. No beheading, no First Night, no human rights abuses or oppression. 

While Eddard Stark rules as an Autocrat, we don't have any evidence of him using his Absolute Rule to commit any Crimes Against Humanity. He allows his smallfolk freedom of religious worship regardless of whether they pray to The Seven or The Old Gods (even building a Sept in his castle for his wife) and the taxes he levies on The Northern Smallfolk don't appear to be too burdensome. 

And Eddard judges people fairly; both Roose Bolton and Jorah Mormont knew their Noble Blood wouldn't save them if Eddard discovered their crimes  (the former took measures to cover up his crime and the latter ran away), and when Eddard was serving as Hand of The King he acted justly when he could (sentencing Gregor Clegane to death for raiding in The Riverlands).

If the smallfolk arrived at Winterfell with a petition in response to some grievance, I am sure Eddard would look into it and come up with a fair conclusion (instead of just killing the petitioners, as Tywin would have). 

He doesn't give people a fair trial, there doesn't seem to be a codified law, he sends people to their deaths over a war to save his own life, he abuses Theon.. there's plenty of things to hate about him if moral universalism is to be applied. 

Also the countries you linked aren't comparable, they all have a codified law and other parts of government, not based on just birth. 

I doubt Tywin would have killed them, that sounds more like something Roose Bolton would do to me.

[Minsc]

Quote

Even if we accept this as fact for a moment, there were other innocent people she killed, like poor Mirri, who was burnt at the stake. 

The woman that took credit for the death of Dany's unborn child?  Yeah, sorry I wouldn't call her an innocent.  Mirri lit her own pyre.

[TimJames]

14 hours ago, John Doe said:

Even if we accept this as fact for a moment, there were other innocent people she killed, like poor Mirri, who was burnt at the stake. 

He doesn't give people a fair trial, there doesn't seem to be a codified law, he sends people to their deaths over a war to save his own life, he abuses Theon.. there's plenty of things to hate about him if moral universalism is to be applied. 

Also the countries you linked aren't comparable, they all have a codified law and other parts of government, not based on just birth. 

Mirri is a murderer. She killed Daenerys' child. Had she lived today, Mirri might have gotten the Electric Chair or the Lethal Injection or Life Without Parole.

How do you know that The North doesn't have codified laws? There seem to be standard laws in The North - oath-breaking, First Night, slave-trading, and the murder of POWs all appear to be illegal and punishable by death in The North.

But I'm not going to talk to you about this anymore, because the underlined parts showed me that you are just trying to antagonize instead of have an actual discussion.

First off, AERYS. WAS. A. MONSTER. Aerys burned innocent people alive, tortured for fun, massacred the innocent children and servents of Duskendale, and planned on mass-murdering the population of Kings Landing. Revolting was not just "to save his own life": it brought justice for the people Aerys slaughtered, it saved The Realm from a madman, it declared that even the King had to be subject to law, and that prevented Aerys from killing others.

Second, Eddard treated Theon well. Theon was allowed to sit at Eddard's table, drink Eddard's ale, eat Eddard's bread, sleep with Eddard's smallfolk, and spar in Eddard's courtyard with Eddard's children. Eddard Stark could have locked Theon in the dungeon or used Theon as a servant. Eddard could have neglected Theon and let the boy turn into a fat alcoholic. Instead he tried raising Theon to be a good person, and was a hellava better father than Balon was. While taking Winterfell was understandable in itself (brothers fight brothers all the time in wars), how he carried out the occupation is just monstrous: Theon murdered Eddard's Blacksmith for verbally criticizing Theon, murdered Eddard's Septon for having a different religion, allowed his soldiers to rape a peasant girl with only a slap on the wrists (Theon executed a soldier for drunkenness, but let the two rapist soldiers live), considered raping Meera Reed, fantasized about raping Sansa Stark, and tried to murder Rickon and Bran Stark so as to save face. Eddard didn't abuse Theon: Theon was just ungrateful. 

But as I said, I'm done talking to you about this. Reply, don't reply: I couldn't care less. Consider yourself on my ignore list.

[HexMachina]

12 hours ago, Ser Hyle said:

Troll much?

Not sure it's trolling so much as a different interpretation. These actions (arguably, though I think it's a simplification to say this) led to some truly horrendous wars, so I can see where the poster is coming from. Just a different approach to that which most others have taken.

[John Doe]

11 hours ago, TimJames said:

Mirri is a murderer. She killed Daenerys' child. Had she lived today, Mirri might have gotten the Electric Chair or the Lethal Injection or Life Without Parole.

How do you know that The North doesn't have codified laws? There seem to be standard laws in The North - oath-breaking, First Night, slave-trading, and the murder of POWs all appear to be illegal and punishable by death in The North.

But I'm not going to talk to you about this anymore, because the underlined parts showed me that you are just trying to antagonize instead of have an actual discussion.

Second, Eddard treated Theon well. 

But as I said, I'm done talking to you about this. Reply, don't reply: I couldn't care less. 

1. Wrong, Dany was carried into the tent despite of Mirri's warnings. If a doctor tells you not to open your eyes during an x-ray, and you don't heed this warning and become blind, should he be punished for blinding you? Plus many people in many countries today consider lethal punishment like your Electric Chair oder Injetions unethical; did you not think about that before you chose to defend moral universalism?

2. Easy, nothing we hear about them indicates it at all and the North just isn't the most civilized place even in Westeros, where all legal cases we have seen so far have been decided in a pretty autocratic fashion by the highest-ranking noble. They seem to follow some general costumary law, mixed with some despotism. The only kind of "checks and balances" that can be seen is lords threatening to rebel, or at least not  to pay their taxes or march their troops home. 

3. So you are confronted with the problems of your concept and then just choose not to talk about it anymore? But I elaborate a bit on the parts you underlined. First, the war. Aerys called for his head and Eddard called his banners, thereby igniting an uprising that took many more lives than just his and Roberts. Is this an ethical decision, from our modern point of view? It's compicated, to say the least. Wouldn't surrendering yourself to the king to spare many innocent lives be the ethically superior decision? Aerys being mad wasn't what made Eddard rebel, it was his own live being threatened. 

4. The part about Theon is pretty obvious. Not only took he the boy captive despite of him having nothing to with the war, he had him beaten several times, one time for a mere accident (most first world countries would consider that child abuse today, and I guess those are the places you're taking as moral point of reference in this discussion) and he made him a sword bearer for his executions, which is a pretty obvious threat if you recall that Theon was a hostage who was at risk of being beheaded if his father did something stupid. 

5. You lack arguments anyways. 

 

[Isobel Harper]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

4. The part about Theon is pretty obvious. Not only took he the boy captive despite of him having nothing to with the war, he had him beaten several times, one time for a mere accident (most first world countries would consider that child abuse today, and I guess those are the places you're taking as moral point of reference in this discussion) and he made him a sword bearer for his executions, which is a pretty obvious threat if you recall that Theon was a hostage who was at risk of being beheaded if his father did something stupid. 

I don't remember this at all.  When does this happen?

[John Doe]

1 minute ago, Isobel Harper said:

I don't remember this at all.  When does this happen?

Quote

. As a boy he would run up; descending, he would take the steps three at a time, leaping. Once he leapt right into Old Nan and knocked her to the floor. That earned him the worst thrashing he ever had at Winterfell

"Worst he ever had" indicates it was not his only one. 

[Gremory]

2 hours ago, John Doe said:

 

4. The part about Theon is pretty obvious. Not only took he the boy captive despite of him having nothing to with the war, he had him beaten several times, one time for a mere accident (most first world countries would consider that child abuse today, and I guess those are the places you're taking as moral point of reference in this discussion) and he made him a sword bearer for his executions, which is a pretty obvious threat if you recall that Theon was a hostage who was at risk of being beheaded if his father did something stupid. 

 

 

Quote

. As a boy he would run up; descending, he would take the steps three at a time, leaping. Once he leapt right into Old Nan and knocked her to the floor. That earned him the worst thrashing he ever had at Winterfell

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

"Worst he ever had" indicates it was not his only one. 

While you make points on 1-3 I think your reaching a little with this last one. Yes he was given a beating, for doing something dangerous and stupid that nearly caused grievous harm to a member of the household. Old Nan could easily have died if he had leapt into her and she had fallen down a full flight of stairs. While I realize not everyone agrees with the idea that sometimes hitting a child to make them understand the immediate consequences of right and wrong. I think we can all understand that this was not a "whim" or a "random bout of anger". There was a very specific reason he got a beating, to teach him a lesson. For this reason I can't truly see this as abusive behavior. Nor do I believe that Theon or anyone else in the castle saw it like that, or felt that way. While Eddard Stark may not have treated Theon as he would his own sons there is very little evidence on the whole of him being genuinely mistreated. As far as being the sword bearer goes, I'm not sure. You might be onto something there, but I've never seen Eddard Stark as being quite that subtle. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

16 hours ago, John Doe said:

It was a bit of an hyperbole, but if you accept that any character, given any time and situation, has to be judged by the same standards, and if those standards of government are democratic, then I hope you see my point. 

 

@ election: I don't see why you shouldn't make Sanders president already. 

I really can't. I am too tired can you explain that?

@ election part: Wut?

[Maester of Valyria]

17 hours ago, sarah.jenice said:

It's interesting to hear someone else's perspective on the election. It will be a dark day in our U.S. history if somehow he is elected. The whole thing just makes me feel sad and tired.

I have never met someone from England (or anyone at all, come to think of it) who supports Trump. Unfortuately, as our tabloid press loves a controversial figure, he's the only candidate we hear anything about. At this point I'm rooting for Hillary, not because I like her or agree with her policies, but because it's looking very likely that she'll be the only person between Trump and the White House.

16 hours ago, John Doe said:

It was a bit of an hyperbole, but if you accept that any character, given any time and situation, has to be judged by the same standards, and if those standards of government are democratic, then I hope you see my point. 

 

@ election: I don't see why you shouldn't make Sanders president already. 

Unfortuately, public knowledge of the other candidates' policies is lacking outside the US, due to the media's fixation with Trump and his 'plans'. Sanders seems like a decent man, and from what I know of his policies it sounds like he has some very good ideas. Also, as a Corbynite (look it up),

I have a certain sympathy for elderly left-wing politicians challenging the status-quo!

 

15 hours ago, TimJames said:

Actually, there are countries today that have Monarchs and Noblemen and are just fine with it. No beheading, no First Night, no human rights abuses or oppression.

You refer here to the British Royal Family. While it is true that the Queen remains monarch over the UK and much of the rest of the world, commanding immense respect and no small amount of influence, she has very little real political power (certainly not the amount necessary to be an absolute monarch). There is actually some contention over whether the monarchy will outlast Elizabeth's death. I cannot speak for your other examples, but I feel that your inclusion of my own country's royal family is at best misleading.

 

 

 

I would like to add my thoughts to the above debate on the death penalty and absolute morality. I have outlined my reasons for not subscribing to universal morality, and I hope that it is understandable and coherent:

While many countries around the world continue to utilise and advocate the death penalty for certain crimes, there is a growing consensus (especially in the developed world) that such punishment is immoral and makes the state just as guilty as the culprit.

That said, while I myself do not support capital punishment, I feel it is important to remember that medieval society was far less 'morally developed' (if I may use such a phrase) than our own is today. Thus, I believe it is necessary to judge people by the standards of their time and situation: is it so wrong for Ned Stark to carry out the punishments the law dictates? It is the law's fault, not Ned's (indeed, his insistence on carrying out the sentence himself points to a good understanding of what we would see as morality).

Upon examining the beliefs of many historical forward-thinkers, we see that many of their views are still, by today's standards, morally repugnant. For example Abraham Lincoln, the man who started a war to end slavery, was by our standards incredibly racist:

Quote

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races–that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter-marry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Thomas Huxley, who helped introduce the Theory of Evolution, is another example:

Quote

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal . . . of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed . . . he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.

Other examples abound.

 

My point is that we judge such people's views not by the standards of today, but by the standards of their time. Lincoln and Huxley were certainly great men, in that they did much to promote equality in the face of conservatism. Nonetheless, many of their words and actions come off to today's readers as plain wrong. My argument is that moral universalism is flawed: you should not judge someone by how they would appear today, but by how much they challenged the standards of their time. It is for this reason that I believe Ned Stark to be one of the fairest characters in the series.

Quick disclaimer: the use of certain offensive words in the above quotes is for historical accuracy, and is in the context of reported speech. I do not condone the use of such language otherwise.

 

I really hope that makes sense and that you can understand my point. I think I lost my train of thought about halfway through.

[John Doe]

1 hour ago, Gremory said:

While you make points on 1-3 I think your reaching a little with this last one. Yes he was given a beating, for doing something dangerous and stupid that nearly caused grievous harm to a member of the household. Old Nan could easily have died if he had leapt into her and she had fallen down a full flight of stairs. While I realize not everyone agrees with the idea that sometimes hitting a child to make them understand the immediate consequences of right and wrong. I think we can all understand that this was not a "whim" or a "random bout of anger". There was a very specific reason he got a beating, to teach him a lesson. For this reason I can't truly see this as abusive behavior. Nor do I believe that Theon or anyone else in the castle saw it like that, or felt that way. While Eddard Stark may not have treated Theon as he would his own sons there is very little evidence on the whole of him being genuinely mistreated. As far as being the sword bearer goes, I'm not sure. You might be onto something there, but I've never seen Eddard Stark as being quite that subtle. 

I agree that neither Theon nor the household or even Eddard would feel that way, because it was a different time, with different customs and circumstances. And as I am against the idea of moral universalism, I wouldn't critizise Ned for it. But I'm arguing against the believe that such characters should be judged by our modern standards here, and I believe most people today would agree that giving a child under your care a "trashing" (even more so more than one, as the quote indicates) or having him be present at a beheading (even more so if he holds the sword he might one day be killed with) is more of a sign of abusive behaviour than of decent parenting, as Theon had no intention of harming Old Nan, it was an accident of a energized kid running down the stairs. 

Concerning the part about being the sword bearer, I just can't see Eddard being so ignorant about the fact that Theon, who he knows he might have to execute one day, might be reminded of his chance of getting executed if he has to help Eddard with his executions.

50 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I really can't. I am too tired can you explain that?

@ election part: Wut?

I'm using Eddard, a character who most readers would put into the "morally good" department,  to try and show some of the flaws moral universalism has if it is applied consequently.

The part with the election was directed at another poster. 

[7-KG]

I agree on the Tywin Lannister bit. If I were to choose a specific evil act he commited, it'd be the gang-rape of Tysha. The Red Wedding was pretty brutal too.

On 04/03/2016 at 2:38 AM, Rob Storm said:

Just off the top of my head: Red Wedding, Castamere, Maegor the Cruel's various actions, Cheese(?) making the Queen choose which son dies, Brandon/Rickard's deaths, Frey Pies, Ramsey/Lady Hornwood, Sack of King's Landing, Stannis killing Renly ect.

I suppose you could argue on it being a terrible act, but putting it on the same level of the rapes and massacres? Really?