The Trolley Problem and A Song of Ice and Fire

[Lady Rhodes]

I am rereading ADWD, along with reading various essays surrounding it (Particularly The Meereenese Blot).  Many of these essay purport that Daenerys will be darker, as evidenced by her forgetting Hazzea's name at the end of Dance, Tyrion will be darker, as evidenced by his manipulation of Aegon, and Jon will be darker, as evidenced by Beric and Lady Stoneheart and that their resurrection changes them.  George himself has said that it is going to be darker (I believe the quote, paraphrased, is that I've been telling you for years that Winter is Coming and Winter is when things get dark and people die).  Showing these characters go through a darker time gives emotional grow and resonance to them.  However, I don't think his end goal is to leave them in a dark place. 

While reading something unrelated to ASOIAF, I was reminded of the Trolley Problem that I first heard about in college during a philosophy class.  For those of you who are unfamiliar, the problem goes like this:

There is a train barreling down the tracks that is going to kill five people.  You have it in your power to divert this train onto another track, where it will kill one person.  Do you do it?

The problem boils down to letting people die or actively making a decision that causes people to die.  More pointedly, he comes down to two divergent philosophical concepts: Consequentialism and Deontological Ethics.  ( I included the links to a discussion of the two types of ethics from Stanford, in case anyone would like further reading or exploration.) I am by no means a philosopher, so I gathered from the links the I have copied below to provide a brief snippet of each.

Consequentialism: Act consequentialism is the claim that an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes the good, that is, if and only if the total amount of good for all minus the total amount of bad for all is greater than this net amount for any incompatible act available to the agent on that occasion.
-an act is right if and only if it causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”

A Key Weakness:  On the other hand, consequentialism is also criticized for what it seemingly permits. It seemingly demands (and thus, of course, permits) that in certain circumstances innocents be killed, beaten, lied to, or deprived of material goods to produce greater benefits for others. Consequences—and only consequences—can conceivably justify any kind of act, for it does not matter how harmful it is to some so long as it is more beneficial to others.

There also seems to be no space for the consequentialist in which to show partiality to one's own projects or to one's family, friends, and countrymen, leading some critics of consequentialism to deem it a profoundly alienating .

Deontological Ethics - This one is very hard to summarize, so I have included excerpts and highlights regions that I found of particular note

For as we shall now explore, the strengths of deontological approaches lie: (1) in their categorical prohibition of actions like the killing of innocents, even when good consequences are in the offing; and (2) in their permission to each of us to pursue our own projects free of any constant demand that we shape those projects so as to make everyone else well off.

deontological theories judge the morality of choices by criteria different from the states of affairs those choices bring about. The most familiar forms of deontology, and also the forms presenting the greatest contrast to consequentialism, hold that some choices cannot be justified by their effects—that no matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden.

Analogously, deontologists typically supplement non-consequentialist obligations with non-consequentialist permissions (Scheffler 1982). That is, certain actions can be right even though not maximizing of good consequences, for the rightness of such actions consists in their instantiating certain norms (here, of permission and not of obligation).

 The idea is that morality is intensely personal, in the sense that we are each enjoined to keep our own moral house in order. Our categorical obligations are not to focus on how our actions cause or enable other agents to do evil; the focus of our categorical obligations is to keep our own agency free of moral taint.

it is most commonly asserted that it is our intended ends and intended means that most crucially define our agency. Such intentions mark out what it is we set out to achieve through our actions. If we intend something bad as an end, or even as a means to some more beneficent end, we are said to have “set ourselves at evil,” something we are categorically forbidden to do

Key Weaknesses: On the other hand, deontological theories have their own weak spots. The most glaring one is the seeming irrationality of our having duties or permissions to make the world morally worse.
and
Second, it is crucial for deontologists to deal with the conflicts that seem to exist between certain duties, and between certain rights

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

As I mentioned, I am not fully versed in these two concepts, and my college philosophy class is almost a decade behind me, nor do I profess to understand everything in those links.  That said, I want to bring forth a discussion from these points.  It seems to me that the arcs of many characters: Daenerys, Jon, Stannis, Tyrion, deal with conflicts between the these types of ethical and morality systems.  

Anyone care to discuss?

[Lluewhyn]

From what I've read in the stories and pondered previously, individual actors should follow deontological ethics whereas Leaders should follow Consequentialist/Utilitarian principles.

[Lady Rhodes]

3 minutes ago, Lluewhyn said:

From what I've read in the stories and pondered previously, individual actors should follow deontological ethics whereas Leaders should follow Consequentialist/Utilitarian principles.

Thank you for replying! The more I think about it, the more I am wondering if the whole underbelly story is about these philosophical/ethical choices.

I come at things from a literary analysis perspective (my degree is in English) and I tend to look at literature from levels.

1) We have the general story. We can enjoy the story.
2) We have an underbelly of what the author may be trying to get us to think about beyond the plot of the story. 

Here, I think Martin is trying to get us to think about the choices made by leaders.  Dany is clearly in conflict with Consequentialist perspective and Denotological perspective throughout a Dance with Dragons.  She is making sacrifices for the good of her people, yet she feels defeated. She rejects the killing of innocents, yet the harpy continues killing in the streets.

Jon seems to be struggling with the moral and ethical constraints placed on him by the Night's Watch, particularly in reference to his family.

Stannis, too, seems to have issues - burning people alive because he thinks it will promote the greater good. 

 

[Three-Fingered Pete]

Good topic. A relevant real world parallel would be Winston Churchill's decision at Coventry (I won't detail it here for the unaware, but it is easily looked up).

As far as the Trolley Problem, ASoIaF adds another layer to it by asking if the person making the choice knows those who are in danger or not, thereby possibly making the choice harder. Also, one has to consider the scenario "Am I a bystander or am I one of the five or am I the one?" (I guess we could label that "The Wrath of Khan" problem ). Philosophy by nature tries to stay objective, but subjectiveness is one of the hearts of ASoIaF, right down to the author purposely using "unreliable narrators". We also have characters like Cersei who turn the whole thing on its head and would be willing to burn the whole world just to save the one(s) she wishes to and would have no more consideration into it than she would picking a dress to wear. Cersei doesn't seem to care about "moral taint".

[Lady Rhodes]

37 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

Good topic. A relevant real world parallel would be Winston Churchill's decision at Coventry (I won't detail it here for the unaware, but it is easily looked up).

As far as the Trolley Problem, ASoIaF adds another layer to it by asking if the person making the choice knows those who are in danger or not, thereby possibly making the choice harder. Also, one has to consider the scenario "Am I a bystander or am I one of the five or am I the one?" (I guess we could label that "The Wrath of Khan" problem ). Philosophy by nature tries to stay objective, but subjectiveness is one of the hearts of ASoIaF, right down to the author purposely using "unreliable narrators". We also have characters like Cersei who turn the whole thing on its head and would be willing to burn the whole world just to save the one(s) she wishes to and would have no more consideration into it than she would picking a dress to wear. Cersei doesn't seem to care about "moral taint".

Great note about Ceresi.  I almost said in an earlier post on here that she didn't seem to follow a moral philosophy, but that isn't exactly true.  She will do whatever she needs to do for her and her children. Her love for her children trumps all else. As a mother myself, I can see the allure in that, though in her it has certainly been corrupted.

[wia]

2 hours ago, Lady Rhodes said:

Daenerys, Jon, Stannis, Tyrion, deal with conflicts between the these types of ethical and morality systems.  

I think that between these four, only Jon cares about benefits for others and consequences of his actions. While he certainly wants to do things for the greater good, he can't fight his nature an abandon the causes that are right before him even if they're hopeless  and he knows it (not killing the old man, the mission to Haardhome, etc.) thus failing the challenge of consequentialism. He doesn't really win at deontological ethics either. So good intentions, questionable outcome.

Dany does things she want to do because she wants to do and she doesn't even know what that is really.
Stannis just does what he thinks will him who he wants to be and get him what he wants.
Tyrion can do small acts of kindness to strangers, but when he got the power, most of it was spent on fighting Littlefinger and Cersei that he has a personal vendetta against and defending Joffrey's claim that he knows is false and is not beneficial to most people in Westeros because those things served him, not others.

Really none of these three consider the benefits of the majority. Let alone avoid killing people which is what they do without a second thought.

[Moiraine Sedai]

2 hours ago, Lluewhyn said:

From what I've read in the stories and pondered previously, individual actors should follow deontological ethics whereas Leaders should follow Consequentialist/Utilitarian principles.

The correct choice can depend on who you are.  A leader has a responsibility to the led.  That responsibility is more important than his responsibility to his family. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

9 minutes ago, wia said:

I think that between these four, only Jon cares about benefits for others and consequences of his actions. While he certainly wants to do things for the greater good, he can't fight his nature an abandon the causes that are right before him even if they're hopeless  and he knows it (not killing the old man, the mission to Haardhome, etc.) thus failing the challenge of consequentialism. He doesn't really win at deontological ethics either. So good intentions, questionable outcome.

Dany does things she want to do because she wants to do and she doesn't even know what that is really.
Stannis just does what he thinks will him who he wants to be and get him what he wants.
Tyrion can do small acts of kindness to strangers, but when he got the power, most of it was spent on fighting Littlefinger and Cersei that he has a personal vendetta against and defending Joffrey's claim that he knows is false and is not beneficial to most people in Westeros because those things served him, not others.

Really none of these three consider the benefits of the majority. Let alone avoid killing people which is what they do without a second thought.

I don't see Jon and those three the way you do.  I will even say to you that Daenerys has consistently been the less selfish in her behavior compared to the others mentioned.  She is willing to set aside her life's ambition to help a people, in this case the slaves, whom she owed nothing to.  She was willing to marry a man she doesn't love for the good of those people.  Which is a hell of a lot better than Robb.

Jon wants to help people but only as long as it doesn't conflict with Stark interests.  He wants to help the Wildlings because he lived with them and share their love of personal freedom.  The expedition to Hardhome is driven by his partiality to the free folk because he is sending capable men on a risky mission that will more than likely get them wightified.  Men who he owed.  Of course there is the immorality of how he handled Slynt, Rayder, and the Arya rescue.  Which we have discussed already.  Jon was willing to put the safety of the kingdom he swore to protect for the sake of Arya.  It was selfish.

Stannis wants the throne and there is nothing wrong with that.  His overly harsh methods and the wishy washy way he handles legal matters is the issue.

Tyrion supports his family whether right or wrong.  That is a fault shared by just about everybody in Westeros

[wia]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

She is willing to set aside her life's ambition to help a people, in this case the slaves, whom she owed nothing to.

Based on what happened after she helped them, many of the slaves think that slavery is good enough for them as long as they are the masters or they are willing to sell themselves as long as their life is comfortable (or at least more comfortable than under Dany's rule).

There's no doubt that slavery is bad, absolutely none. But not by some book characters standards. Some slaves in the book disagree: "Slaves like you, sweepings out of Astapor and Yunkai, you whine about being free, but I wouldn't give the dragon queen my collar if she offered to suck my cock for it. Man has the right master, that's better" and "The life of most slaves was not all that different from the life of a serving man at Casterly Rock". They weren't asking for her help.
Did anyone infact ask for her help? - It seems to me that she initially just decided to do it on her own 'cause she wanted to, no other reason. Afterwards she did receive assistance for the people she was saving, which is good, but some of them apparently wanted the things to be back as there were. I may be totally forgetting something though. If I do, please do remind me.

Sure, her intentions were good, and she's willing to do stuff to achieve good results like marrying a guy she doesn't want to marry for peace in Mereen. But she also wants peace in Mereen to be a good ruler of Mereen to be a good ruler of Westeros... which suggest the her plan is to drop Mereen (like she dropped the other cities she conquered) and go wage war in Westeros to rule people that didn't ask her to rule them. Is that really for the greater good or is that for Dany's good?

In a way the mission to Hardhome is similar - nobody there has really asked Jon to save them (and it's stupid in Jon's case). The difference is that Jon is that Jon isn't really winning anything by saving them (well except for maybe feeling good about himself) while Dany does.

37 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

She was willing to marry a man she doesn't love for the good of those people. 

She didn't have a choice.

37 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Which is a hell of a lot better than Robb.

Yea, that was dumb of him.

38 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jon wants to help people but only as long as it doesn't conflict with Stark interests. 

The choice to not kill the man at the Queenscrown is bad for Jon, for the Watch and for Starks. He just lucked out in terms of consequences. 

40 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jon was willing to put the safety of the kingdom he swore to protect for the sake of Arya.  It was selfish.

That was me admitting that with "He doesn't really win at deontological ethics either". That was selfish.

41 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Stannis wants the throne and there is nothing wrong with that.  His overly harsh methods and the wishy washy way he handles legal matters is the issue.

Well, yes, that's what I said. He wants the throne for himself, not for the greater good, thus consequentialism is out. He wants the throne and does not have a problem with waging war and killing people thus deontological ethics is out as well.

Nothing wrong with wanting the throne for himself. I'm just saying that the greater good or avoiding killing people on your way to your goal are not on his mind at all.

44 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Tyrion supports his family whether right or wrong.  That is a fault shared by just about everybody in Westeros

Tyrion certainly did not support Cersei, his family member, by plotting against her for most of his term as the hand. Again, all that I'm saying is that he doing what is good for himself and it's normal. The greater good or avoiding killing people on your way to your goal are not on his mind either which is just him being a normal person in that world.

Perhaps I sounded approving of Jon and disapproving of the others, but that is not the case. What I'm saying is that the topic of this thread is a theme that Jon as a character is meant to explore in the books by struggling with these two concepts a lot and this theme isn't really strong in the other character storylines.

[Lluewhyn]

3 hours ago, Lady Rhodes said:

Thank you for replying! The more I think about it, the more I am wondering if the whole underbelly story is about these philosophical/ethical choices.

 

 

There may be some of that in here, but I think GRRM's thesis on ruling is simpler than what you've proposed. He previously criticized Tolkien's line "Aragorn ruled wisely" as being too simplistic, and not addressing what "wisely" meant. See "What was Aragorn's Tax Policy?"

Rather, I think his thesis is that ruling his hard, and there is no perfect way to do it. So, it's not that people were being too Deontological or Consequentialist, but that they were going to have a hard time ruling *period*.

Individually, I think there's a strong indicator for always acting the right course regardless of the consequences, especially when you look at Dunk or Brienne's storylines.

[Lady Rhodes]

54 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

I will even say to you that Daenerys has consistently been the less selfish in her behavior compared to the others mentioned.  She is willing to set aside her life's ambition to help a people, in this case the slaves, whom she owed nothing to.  She was willing to marry a man she doesn't love for the good of those people.  Which is a hell of a lot better than Robb.

I agree with you here.  Not that I disagreed with @wia's assessment of Jon, but I feel Dany does attempt to be selfless as well, for some of the points that you have mentioned above. 

However, I disagree with you in your assessment of Jon.  He is trying to save people-men, women, children - from horrible fates.  I will grant you that he is partial to the Starks and to the free folk, but I think we see time and time again that his moral dilemma is his duty to the Night's Watch versus protecting people.  He wants to protect people from monsters - his sister, the free folk, and the realm of men.  Was his choice selfish? Perhaps.  Technically, no Night's Watch people are involved in the actual plot.  Should Mance and Melisandre have done it without consulting with Jon?

 

[wia]

4 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

but I feel Dany does attempt to be selfless as well

She does sometimes.

[Lady Rhodes]

12 minutes ago, wia said:

She didn't have a choice.

She most certainly did.  She view it as not having a choice, to be sure. But she did not have to marry him.

 

13 minutes ago, wia said:

The choice to not kill the man at the Queenscrown is bad for Jon, for the Watch and for Starks.

I agree here.

 

14 minutes ago, wia said:

this theme isn't really strong in the other character storylines.

Here I disagree.  The whole point of Daenarys's arc is to show her sacrificing her desires (chaining the dragons, opening the pits, allowing slavery outside the walls of Meereen).  This can really be seen in her last chapter, on the Dothraki Sea, where she is hallucinating her conversations with Jorah and Viserys.  She has sacrificed so much and now she has decided to change her outlook to a distinctly darker outlook, embracing the dragon.

To be clear, I do not like the darker outlook.  I think some of her sacrifices (chaining the dragons, marrying someone she does not love) are noble, albeit not particularly effective. 

18 minutes ago, wia said:

he doing what is good for himself and it's normal.

I would argue that he is more pragmatic.  He can't do everything, and he recognizes this.

 

I think Martin is trying to get us to think about these ethical models.  I think Jon and Dany have very similar problems in Dance and I did not recognize it until this reread.  The Hardhome situation is almost the same as Dany in Meereen - he is thinking of the men, women and children that are going to die or be turned into wights.  Dany is thinking of the men, women and children meereen who are going to die or become sons of the harpy.  I think Martin is going to have them go from one pendulum to another, only to find a middle ground by the end of the series, and I actually think Tyrion is the middle ground.

In Clash, Tyrion is pragmatic. He realizes that he cannot do it all, so he does not attempt it.  But he tries to do the best he can with the resources and abilities that he has.  It isn't always consequentialism nor is it always deontological.  I think where Tyrion goes astray (and I am hoping that he comes back and is the one who brings Jon and Dany back to the center) is that he is bitter and vengeful for how he was treated.  He has the right of it - if he was not a dwarf and looked the his brother or sister - a tall, blonde Lannister of Casterly Rock - he would have been seen as the next Tywin commeth - an exceptional Hand, the savior of King's Landing.  Genna Lannister says as much to Jaime in the Riverlands. Of course, if he had been like his brother and his sister, he would not BE Tyrion. 

[wia]

10 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

She most certainly did.  She view it as not having a choice, to be sure. But she did not have to marry him.

Unless she ran away from Illyrio's home which is, I imagine, well protected and is not easy to run away from, she really didn't. Her consent was not part of this marriage. She'd  be handed over to Drogo whether she wanted or not.

 

12 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

The whole point of Daenarys's arc is to show her sacrificing her desires (chaining the dragons, opening the pits, allowing slavery outside the walls of Meereen). 

While I see your point. Subjectively, I think that she is doing that because she thinks that's what a good queen would do. And why she wants to be a queen? - Again, she just decided to. Nobody asked her to. That's not who she is and not what she wants, it's just something she decided to be. Now she's in Dothraki sea and she might reevaluate what a good queen is.

[Lady Rhodes]

25 minutes ago, wia said:

Unless she ran away from Illyrio's home which is, I imagine, well protected and is not easy to run away from, she really didn't. Her consent was not part of this marriage. She'd  be handed over to Drogo whether she wanted or not.

I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to Hizdahr.

 

1 hour ago, Lluewhyn said:

Rather, I think his thesis is that ruling his hard, and there is no perfect way to do it. So, it's not that people were being too Deontological or Consequentialist, but that they were going to have a hard time ruling *period*.

Oh, I 100% think you are right.  I think his point is that it isn't easy.  That said, as he has purported many times, the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself.  Philosophical moral dilemmas that consequentialism and deontological try to determine ARE the issue that he is talking about, and to talk about it effectively, I think he is showing that steadfast belief in either direction won't work. 

I am still working on my overall theory, but I am leaning towards Jon and Dany (in particular) as attempting to embody Deontolgical thinking during Dance, and I think they are going to swing the other way in Winds, to Consequentialism.  Dany will be the embodiment of Fire and Blood. Jon...still trying to figure out.

However, I think they are going to eventually be brought back to the middle.

I think the people who choose to NOT realize the weak points in their philosophical thinking (Stannis in particular) will ultimately lead to their own downfall.

25 minutes ago, wia said:

she is doing that because she thinks that's what a good queen would do. And why she wants to be a queen? - Again, she just decided to. Nobody asked her to. That's not who she is and not what she wants

I am not sure that I am following you here, but I want to understand your view.  Are you saying that because she wants to be queen, and no one asked her to be queen, any acts that she does as a queen, even with the best of intentions, are inherently selfish?

[wia]

Just now, Lady Rhodes said:

I am not sure that I am following you here, but I want to understand your view.  Are you saying that because she wants to be queen, and no one asked her to be queen, any acts that she does as a queen, even with the best of intentions, are inherently selfish?

Not really.

1. I want to be a queen, and a good queen does good for her subjects.
2. I want to do good and therefore I need to become a queen to be able to do that.

These two goals are different. And they are different in their primary objective. The way I see it, Dany is 1. Which means that if she reevaluated what a good queen is at some point, she will still be doing what she wants (being a queen) and not doing the good. On the other hand 2 suggests that if one who possesses that goal reevaluates what is requited to do good and continues to do good in another capacity in order to still be doing what they want.

Dany is, of course, not a bad person by nature, she has empathy and she has compassion and if she can help someone without too much loss for herself (as in, she wouldn't die for Mereen, etc.), she probably will. Same for Tyrion and Stannis. But that's just not their primary motivation. 

 

[Lady Rhodes]

@wia, thank you for clarifying.  She has the capacity to be good without being a queen, yet she has conflated those concepts. Jon, on the other hand, had leadership thrust upon him and now is doing the best that he can.  Am I following correctly?

 

[wia]

2 minutes ago, Lady Rhodes said:

@wia, thank you for clarifying.  She has the capacity to be good without being a queen, yet she has conflated those concepts. Jon, on the other hand, had leadership thrust upon him and now is doing the best that he can.  Am I following correctly?

 

Yes. 

Jon had leadership thrust upon him and now is "killing the boy" who refused to kill the man at Queenscrown and failing at it.

[Lady Rhodes]

Just now, wia said:

Yes. 

Jon had leadership thrust upon him and now is "killing the boy" who refused to kill the man at Queenscrown and failing at it.

Ah, glad to fully understand your view. 

I would argue that Dany feels being queen of Westeros as thrust upon her after Viserys death and the duty to rule Meereen after hearing of the atrocities in Astapor, but we can differ in our opinion

[Morte]

Interesting topic indeed; I'm with @Lluewhyn here and strongly recommend Max Weber's essay "Politics as a Vocation" on the topic of "Gesinnungsethik" (Ultimate end) vs. "Verantwortungsethik" (ethic of responsibility), as I, too, think, that GRRM is trying to highlight the struggle between this two (with both Jon's and Dany's "Gesinnungsethik" failing miserably at this moment, while Dany is also not comfortable with what little "Verantwortungsethik" she did).

If he indeed does this (as his statement about Aragon implies), then the characters will have to realise, that good things they intended can and did indeed turn out wrong or even causing great harm, while they have to do thing they find wrong or even abhor to get a good/better result. Struggling with this and having to realise, that one can't always follow one of the two ways, but have to balance them, while always having to face the consequences of your actions, ruling with the head, not heart or soul.

For Weber, the ability to work like this, makes the difference between a truly good politician and most people in politics (no matter which political system).