Ser Barristan Selmy- truly a "True Knight"?

[silverwolf22]

On 1/3/2020 at 5:37 PM, Finley McLeod said:

Well, he accepted Robert's pardon and all the while screwed his wife behind his back.  He is Kingsguard and he was betraying his king every night.  He boxed himself into a corner, got seen by a kid, and tried to murder that kid.  Worst of all, he swore to protect King Aerys and he murdered him.  

killing  aerys was the right thing to do it was the finest act I

 

 

[Lord Lannister]

On 1/5/2020 at 1:17 PM, frenin said:

What's the difference between the KG and  the Army?? Even today  corps  are usually guided by a set of rules and  vows and  not morals. What Jaime wants to impose, as sympathetic as it seems to us  and  as disgraceful as Aerys seven are, can only lead to a Praetorian Guard.

The difference between the Kingsguard and today's military? In most modern governments there's a check on the executive branch that wields military authority. The only checks and balances in an absolute monarchy are force of arms.

[silverwolf22]

On 12/29/2019 at 2:36 PM, Arthur Peres said:

Barristan ended up serving a mad man by bad luck, he swore himself to a king he admired in Jahearys II, he could,'t predict that he would end up serving a sadistic, lunatic, that was Aerys.

Jaime on the other hand choose by his own free will to serve Aerys for his own selfishs interests, knowing very well to what he was tying himself. Jaime is by no means a good person and not even himself would try to argue against it. He pushed Brandon from the tower, tried to kill Arya, stayed quiet while Tywin ordered the rape of his sister in law and then lied to his brother.

there is no evidence that jaime was there when tywin ordered the rape of tysha all we know is that tywin told jaime to tell tyrion  that tysha was  a whore there is nothing to suggest that he knew about  the rape or what was going to happen/ would happen the attempt to blame what happened to tysha on jaime is bs  you are just assuming jaime was there to demonize jaime .     and  I cant fault jaime for lying to tyrion for if tywin was able to force tyrion to participate he would be able to get jaime to lie. and there is nothing to prove  that jaime was going to kill arya (do not give me but jaime said he might have done it people all the time think to themselves that ina situation they would have or would do something but end up actually not doing it.

and pushing brandon off the tower I understand why he did it

1. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/game-of-thrones-season-3-characters_n_1854918?guccounter=1 :

"Obviously a lot of people, when Jaime throws Bran out the window, and we like Bran, we've seen his good points, tend to think that makes Jaime a bad guy. But then you understand, if you understand the situation, if Bran goes back and tells what the saw, and is believed, Jaime will be put to death, his sister will be put to death, and there's an excellent chance that his own children will be put to death.

So I said to my friend, what would you do if some other eight year old kid was in a position to say something and you knew that would mean the death of your own young daughter. And he said, that eight year old kid is dead! And this is what we would consider a moral man.

So how do you make that choice? The abstract of the morality vs. the lives of your own children. I mean, I don't know that I'm a prostelitizer who says this is the answer to that, but I have to question the painful, difficult question, the difficulty of the choice, that's what I think makes powerful fiction."

2. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-242487/ :

"At the same time, what Jaime did is interesting. I don’t have any kids myself, but I’ve talked with other people who have. Remember, Jaime isn’t just trying to kill Bran because he’s an annoying little kid. Bran has seen something that is basically a death sentence for Jaime, for Cersei, and their children – their three actual children. So I’ve asked people who do have children, “Well, what would you do in Jaime’s situation?” They say, “Well, I’m not a bad guy – I wouldn’t kill.” Are you sure? Never? If Bran tells King Robert he’s going to kill you and your sister-lover, and your three children. . . .

Then many of them hesitate. Probably more people than not would say, “Yeah, I would kill someone else’s child to save my own child, even if that other child was innocent.” These are the difficult decisions people make, and they’re worth examining."

Ned thought, If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon’s life, against the children of her body? He did not know. He prayed he never would. -AGOT Eddard XII

[frenin]

23 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

The difference between the Kingsguard and today's military? In most modern governments there's a check on the executive branch that wields military authority. The only checks and balances in an absolute monarchy are force of arms.

And in most modern governments the army are guided by a pack of rules that they can't break. Or it's treason. Those check on the executive branch that wields military  authourity are... A set of vows and  rules that the army is morally obliged to follow, just as in the case of the KG. 

 

24 minutes ago, silverwolf22 said:

killing  aerys was the right thing to do it was the finest act I

Well, i agree that it wasn't bad for him, Aerys had destroyed his life but it was purely revenge on an already dead guy.

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, frenin said:

And in most modern governments the army are guided by a pack of rules that they can't break. Or it's treason. Those check on the executive branch that wields military  authourity are... A set of vows and  rules that the army is morally obliged to follow, just as in the case of the KG. 

Well, there have been coups within military organisations, no? And say the top brass goes mental, there’s a chance the men serving under said top brass will rebel as well. So, basically same type of scenario. IMO.

 

[Lord Lannister]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, there have been coups within military organisations, no? And say the top brass go mental, there’s a chance the men serving under said top brass will rebel as well. So, basically same type of scenario. IMO.

 

Certainly. In the end any body of government is going to call failure to adhere to their authority treason. Also any form of government rules only by the consent of the governed. These oaths of honor and loyalty by the military, those who enforce the will of the government, are an attempt to stem that. 

[Roswell]

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

Well, there have been coups within military organisations, no? And say the top brass goes mental, there’s a chance the men serving under said top brass will rebel as well. So, basically same type of scenario. IMO.

 

That's what happened at the wall when the nutbag Jon Snow went mental and started a fight with the Boltons.  The crows had no other choice but to put down their rabid commander.  

[kissdbyfire]

31 minutes ago, The Transporter said:

That's what happened at the wall when the nutbag Jon Snow went mental and started a fight with the Boltons.  The crows had no other choice but to put down their rabid commander.  

Exactly! What was Jon thinking, really, writing to Ramsay and making all sorts of insane demands, including threatening to cut out Ramsay’s heart and eat it?  Mental. /s

[frenin]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, there have been coups within military organisations, no? And say the top brass goes mental, there’s a chance the men serving under said top brass will rebel as well. So, basically same type of scenario. IMO.

 

There have and there are either bad or extremely necessary evils, usually coups only lead more coups, It's not the same scenario since Aerys is not a soldier/General etc. A more accurate scenario is a part of the army of the US rebelling because they believe that Trump is going to lead war into WW3 or a part of the army rebelling because they don't like the outcome of the impeachment and think Trump is the legit President whatever the Congress may say.

Westerosi don't conceive a KG killing his King or acting against him as much as we can't conceive the military acting against the three branches  commands and in both cases we can't conceive that for the set of oaths both forces swear. As fucked up as it may be. In both cases this decision creates the problematic of the "I was just following orders" type,  in which Barri B and good bunch of his brothers fit. I still think that Dayne and Whent were at the end of their lives actively ignoring Aerys tho. Aerys' seven are complete scumbag and they completely abused a teen Jaime who looked up to them as heros... but at least they have a good reason to be like that. As Ned flat out says and Jaime realizes when looking at the faces of the Westermen.

 

Quote

 [...] “Why should I mistrust him? He has done everything I have ever asked of him. His sword helped win the throne I sit on.” His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but he did not permit the words to pass his lips. “He swore a vow to protect his king’s life with his own. Then he opened that king’s throat with a sword.” “Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!” Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. “If Jaime hadn’t done it, it would have been left for you or me.” “We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard,” Ned said.

[...] “You are not old enough to have known Aerys Targaryen …” She would not hear it. “Aerys was mad and cruel, no one has ever denied that. He was still king, crowned and anointed. And you had sworn to protect him.” “I know what I swore.” “And what you did.” She loomed above him, six feet of freckled, frowning, horse-toothed disapproval.

[...]Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father’s knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him … though perhaps that was fear. Lannister or no, he was one of Aerys’s seven.

 

 

 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Fair enough.  If we knew as little about Jaime as we know about Sandor, it might be possible to form reasonable theories speculating that Jaime is now repentant.

Maybe, if all we knew about Jaime's encounter with Lancel in the Sept, was that such an interview occurred, we could speculate all kinds of things.  We could speculate, for instance, that some kind of repentance and move for redemption took place.  And perhaps that would be a reasonable theory.

Unfortunately, we know a little too much about Jaime, and we know he is not repentant.  That's the difference.

Also, to make a long story short, the details differ, and I have a different sense of Jaime's arc.  I don't think GRRM is going to do the same thing twice.  

I disagree. There is much more evidence as to Jaime's redemption arc than Sandor's. No, I don't think George will do the same thing twice either. They will both turn out very different I think. I've already said why I feel this way so we will just have to agree to disagree. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

If I were to interpret the phrase "morally wrong" in the ordinary way, I would disagree with this statement.

adjective. morally wrong, or against accepted standards of behaviour, especially in a particular profession

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Morally:

a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior

c: conforming to a standard of right behavior

I don't know what you mean but I'm not using any un-ordinary use of the phrase morally wrong. 

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

For instance, one can imagine moral dilemmas where, where one has no choice but to kill an innocent child, and, since one literally cannot avoid it, there can be no moral blame.  "Ought implies can", as Kant is said to have said

Explain to me an instance in which someone would have no choice but to kill an innocent child. 

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

But, as your later words, indicate, you are not using "morally wrong" in what I would consider the ordinary way.  You have somehow disconnected the idea of "moral wrong" from what a person ought or ought not do in specific cases.  Which is weird to me.  If "moral right" and "moral wrong" are not about what one ought or ought not do, then what can it possibly be about?

How do my later words indicate any such thing? It isn't what they "ought" or "ought not" do, it's never an acceptable standard of behavior to kill a child IMO. 

People have different morals. What I think is morally wrong may differ to what you think is morally wrong. Both choices were morally wrong to me. I don't understand what is hard to get about that?

You understand that we aren't given one right choice & one wrong choice right? 

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well then, you obviously don't think his choice was "morally wrong" as I understand the phrase.  And obviously "temptation" is not the correct word, since for you, there was no sin.

First, the presence or lack of temptation has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is morally right or wrong. Maybe the issue is with your use of the word temptation

Temptation: the desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise

While Jaime did something wrong (I don't know how unwise it was) he had no desire to do it. He didn't wake up one morning & think "man, I really just want to push a kid out of a window" his desire was to continue banging his sister. 

Secondly, for you to gather that I believe he hasn't done anything wrong after I've repeatedly said it was wrong is an error on your part, not mine. 

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Applying ordinary semantics, I would count you among those who does not think Jaime needs to be "redeemed" (in the ordinary sense), because he did not do anything "morally wrong" (in the ordinary sense) in the first place

Again, you are mistaken & I believe purposefully so. What sense would it make for me to say over & over that Jaime is in a redemption arc if I don't believe he needs redeemed for anything? 

I honestly don't even know what you are on about. Why would you say I think he hasn't done anything morally wrong when I have stated the opposite, repeatedly?

2 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

And I disagree.  I think Jaime did indeed make the morally wrong choice, under the precise circumstances in question.  This is not a classic moral dilemma where there are only 2 options, both equally bad.  This particular moral dilemma has a right answer and a wrong answer, in my view.  You have led me in a circle, and we now are right back where we started.

You've led yourself in a circle by stating things you know aren't what I've said & arguing in bad faith. 

I disagree that there was a morally right & a morally wrong decision to be made here. Both options weren't equally bad, one fared worse for Jaime than the other, that's why he took the other. In his position I probably would have done the same but it's not something I would be proud of or something I would consider good & right. I would make that choice all the same to save my children & husband though. 

My stance really isn't that hard to comprehend, I'm hardly alone in taking it. 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

Exactly! What was Jon thinking, really, writing to Ramsay and making all sorts of insane demands, including threatening to cut out Ramsay’s heart and eat it?  Mental. /s

Ahh! You almost forgot about that part didn't ya? 

RamSaY GoOd, JoN StOopiD TrAiTOr.

It is known. 

[Platypus Rex]

13 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

adjective. morally wrong, or against accepted standards of behaviour, especially in a particular profession

Well, by that standard, Jaime's acts are clearly morally wrong.  His excuses would not fly in a court of law.

Quote

Explain to me an instance in which someone would have no choice but to kill an innocent child. 

Well, there is the classic driver's dilemma where a child runs out in front of you, and if you swerve you kill innocent child #1, and if you don't swerve you kill innocent child #2.  That's an excuse that would certainly fly in a court of law.   You would not have violated acceptable standards of conduct. 

Also, the classic justification of imminent defense of self or others does not necessarily require that the person slain be guilty in any moral sense.  It could be a (morally) innocent child.

Quote

People have different morals. What I think is morally wrong may differ to what you think is morally wrong.

Now you're just appealing to moral relativism/subjectivism/nihilism.  There would be no need for such an appeal if you really agreed with me that what Jaime did was morally wrong.

Quote

Both choices were morally wrong to me. I don't understand what is hard to get about that?

If both choices were equally bad, then you could not be blamed for choosing one over the other, as in the driver scenario.  Neither choice would be morally wrong.   I don't agree that the choices are equal, in Jaime's case.  Pushing Bran is the morally wrong choice, and not pushing Bran is the morally right choice.  If these options were truly equally bad (which they are not) then neither would be morally wrong.

Quote

You understand that we aren't given one right choice & one wrong choice right? 

In the driver's dilemma, neither of the two choices can be said to be more right or wrong than the other.  It is not a moral choice, even though in both cases you kill an innocent child.

In Jaime's case, the choice to push Bran out the window or not push Bran out the window is a moral choice.  One of those choices is right and good; the other is wrong and evil.

Quote

First, the presence or lack of temptation has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is morally right or wrong.

Never said it did.  All I tried to say is that temptation is not justification.  Which is pretty much in agreement with the above.

Quote

While Jaime did something wrong (I don't know how unwise it was) he had no desire to do it. He didn't wake up one morning & think "man, I really just want to push a kid out of a window" his desire was to continue banging his sister. 

Secondly, for you to gather that I believe he hasn't done anything wrong after I've repeatedly said it was wrong is an error on your part, not mine. 

Again, you are mistaken & I believe purposefully so. What sense would it make for me to say over & over that Jaime is in a redemption arc if I don't believe he needs redeemed for anything? 

Well, you are obviously trying to disagree with me about something.   If you agree with me that Jaime made the morally wrong choice, then you agree with me that he made the morally wrong choice.   I wonder what you disagree with me about.

Quote

I honestly don't even know what you are on about. Why would you say I think he hasn't done anything morally wrong when I have stated the opposite, repeatedly?

Because of the way you explained the phrase.  I am merely trying to explain to you that you and I seem to mean different things by the phrase "morally wrong" and this may be the source of our disagreement.  You don't seem to want to understand. 

Quote

You've led yourself in a circle by stating things you know aren't what I've said & arguing in bad faith. 

No bad faith.

Quote

I disagree that there was a morally right & a morally wrong decision to be made here.

And that's where we disagree.  This is not the driver's dilemma.  Nor is it a situation analogous to the driver's dilemma.  Pushing Bran is the morally wrong (evil) choice and not pushing Bran is the morally right (good) choice.

Quote

Both options weren't equally bad, one fared worse for Jaime than the other, that's why he took the other.

Whether it fares worse for Jaime is not the standard.  What about a drug dealer who murders a witness because he does not want to get caught by the Feds, and then still continues to deal drugs?  Perhaps he believes that his entire family will be taken out by a rival gang if he is locked up and not around to protect his family.  Do you think that excuse for murder would fly in a court of law.  

[Platypus Rex]

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I disagree. There is much more evidence as to Jaime's redemption arc than Sandor's.

Well then, we'll just have to wait and see who is right.  Maybe we'll know when The Winds of Winter comes out in 2022.

[Greywater-Watch]

9 hours ago, silverwolf22 said:

there is no evidence that jaime was there when tywin ordered the rape of tysha all we know is that tywin told jaime to tell tyrion  that tysha was  a whore there is nothing to suggest that he knew about  the rape or what was going to happen/ would happen the attempt to blame what happened to tysha on jaime is bs  you are just assuming jaime was there to demonize jaime .     and  I cant fault jaime for lying to tyrion for if tywin was able to force tyrion to participate he would be able to get jaime to lie. and there is nothing to prove  that jaime was going to kill arya (do not give me but jaime said he might have done it people all the time think to themselves that ina situation they would have or would do something but end up actually not doing it.

Ned thought, If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon’s life, against the children of her body? He did not know. He prayed he never would. -AGOT Eddard XII

As to the passage marked in bold: To me it sounded very much that Jaime would have killed Arya, had he found her first. That is what he said to Cersei, and I have no reason, considering Jaime's ruthlessness,, that he would have done so. I would turn around your argument: There is no proof that he wouldn't have killed Arya, it is however highly probable that he would have done it.

[silverwolf22]

12 hours ago, frenin said:

And in most modern governments the army are guided by a pack of rules that they can't break. Or it's treason. Those check on the executive branch that wields military  authourity are... A set of vows and  rules that the army is morally obliged to follow, just as in the case of the KG. 

 

Well, i agree that it wasn't bad for him, Aerys had destroyed his life but it was purely revenge on an already dead guy.

no it wasnt revenge jaime killed aerys to protect  kings landing from being burnt why is it that some people  are so willing to bend over backwards to ignore that and try to pretend jaime didnt kill aerys to protect kings landing

He’d already killed the nearest pyromancer, but there were still other pyromancers who were in on the plot. He killed Aerys to make sure he couldn’t go and order another pyromancer to ignite the wildfire. And then he tracked down and killed the other pyromancers over the following days to make sure there was no one who might like to start a little fire. It’s easy enough to say, looking at what’s happened since, that Aerys could’ve been kept alive for capture by the rebels, but Jaime couldn’t see the future. He saw the situation in front of him at that moment, and he dealt with it. 

[frenin]

14 minutes ago, silverwolf22 said:

no it wasnt revenge jaime killed aerys to protect  kings landing from being burnt why is it that some people  are so willing to bend over backwards to ignore that and try to pretend jaime didnt kill aerys to protect kings landing

He’d already killed the nearest pyromancer, but there were still other pyromancers who were in on the plot. He killed Aerys to make sure he couldn’t go and order another pyromancer to ignite the wildfire. And then he tracked down and killed the other pyromancers over the following days to make sure there was no one who might like to start a little fire. It’s easy enough to say, looking at what’s happened since, that Aerys could’ve been kept alive for capture by the rebels, but Jaime couldn’t see the future. He saw the situation in front of him at that moment, and he dealt with it. 

Maybe because he didn't. Jaime went there when the Lannisters were already inside the Castle and minutes away from storming the Throne room, the man had time to change his armour before visiting Aerys.

Aerys was well alone, the pyromancers were either dead or completely out his reach, Aerys wasn't a menace and  Jaime knew it, that's why he did what he did. His memories say more truths than the words he tells to Brienne, in which he's the sole victim  and  Robert and  Ned are the baddies.

 

Quote

[...]  The wench stalked off without saying a word. Jaime curled up beneath his cloak, hoping to dream of Cersei. But when he closed his eyes, it was Aerys Targaryen he saw, pacing alone in his throne room, picking at his scabbed and bleeding hands. The fool was always cutting himself on the blades and barbs of the Iron Throne. Jaime had slipped in through the king’s door, clad in his golden armor, sword in hand. The golden armor, not the white, but no one ever remembers that. Would that I had taken off that damned cloak as well. When Aerys saw the blood on his blade, he demanded to know if it was Lord Tywin’s. “I want him dead, the traitor. I want his head, you’ll bring me his head, or you’ll burn with all the rest. All the traitors. Rossart says they are inside the walls! He’s gone to make them a warm welcome. Whose blood? Whose?”  “Rossart’s,” answered Jaime. Those purple eyes grew huge then, and the royal mouth drooped open in shock. He lost control of his bowels, turned, and ran for the Iron Throne. Beneath the empty eyes of the skulls on the walls, Jaime hauled the last dragonking bodily off the steps, squealing like a pig and smelling like a privy. A single slash across his throat was all it took to end it. So easy, he remembered thinking. A king should die harder than this. Rossart at least had tried to make a fight of it, though if truth be told he fought like an alchemist. Queer that they never ask who killed Rossart … but of course, he was no one, lowborn, Hand for a fortnight, just another mad fancy of the Mad King. Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father’s knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him … though perhaps that was fear. Lannister or no, he was one of Aerys’s seven.

 

I can't honestly believe how can someone read Jaime's own memories and keep buying the hero tale. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, by that standard, Jaime's acts are clearly morally wrong.  His excuses would not fly in a court of law.

Yep. That's why I've said it over & over & over & over. 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, there is the classic driver's dilemma where a child runs out in front of you, and if you swerve you kill innocent child #1, and if you don't swerve you kill innocent child #2.  That's an excuse that would certainly fly in a court of law.   You would not have violated acceptable standards of conduct. 

I would say the right choice here would be to brake. If you have time to choose whether you want to swerve or not you have time to choose to brake. If you do have time to brake & don't then that excuse would absolutely not fly in a court of law. If you didn't have time to choose to swerve or brake then it wasn't a choice but an accident. 

This wouldn't happen irl anyway. 

 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Now you're just appealing to moral relativism/subjectivism/nihilism.  There would be no need for such an appeal if you really agreed with me that what Jaime did was morally wrong.

Clearly we don't agree about something but it isn't whether or not killing a child is morally wrong. I don't know how many different ways I can say that. I'm saying it is morally wrong to kill a child but you continue to say that I don't really agree that it is morally wrong. There isn't anything for you to base my feelings on, other than my words, which are pretty clear. 

 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Never said it did.  All I tried to say is that temptation is not justification.  Which is pretty much in agreement with the above.

No you didn't say that. You said "Well then, you obviously don't think his choice was "morally wrong" as I understand the phrase.  And obviously "temptation" is not the correct word, since for you, there was no sin." In response to me saying I wouldn't use the word temptation. Nor did I ever say or imply that temptation is justification. 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

If both choices were equally bad, then you could not be blamed for choosing one over the other, as in the driver scenario.  Neither choice would be morally wrong.

That's absurd. Of course they can both be morally wrong. What evidence do you have or what logic are you following that says if both choices are equally bad (your words not mine) then neither choice can be morally wrong? Wouldn't it make more sense that if both choices are equally bad that they are both morally wrong? What about the opposite? If, when both choices are equally bad, neither can be morally wrong doesn't it follow that when both choices are equally good, neither can be morally good? Doesn't make much sense. 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

In the driver's dilemma, neither of the two choices can be said to be more right or wrong than the other.  It is not a moral choice, even though in both cases you kill an innocent child.

If there is a choice then there is the moral choice of braking & not hitting either child or swerving away from both children. If someone doesn't have time to do that then it is not a choice at all but an accident. 

At any rate I never said this hypothetical situation of yours was a moral choice. I said give me an instance where someone would have no choice but to kill an innocent child. You haven't given me that. 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

In Jaime's case, the choice to push Bran out the window or not push Bran out the window is a moral choice.  One of those choices is right and good; the other is wrong and evil.

If you think allowing your lover & children to be killed is a morally good & right choice we clearly have a different set of morals. 

If you would choose to allow this to happen to your lover & children I feel bad for your lover & children. 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Well, you are obviously trying to disagree with me about something.

Clearly.

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

If you agree with me that Jaime made the morally wrong choice, then you agree with me that he made the morally wrong choice.   I wonder what you disagree with me about.

I don't agree with you that Jaime made THE morally wrong choice because that implies that the other choice was morally good & it wasn't. Jaime made A morally wrong choice when presented with two options, both of which were wrong. 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Because of the way you explained the phrase.  I am merely trying to explain to you that you and I seem to mean different things by the phrase "morally wrong" and this may be the source of our disagreement.  You don't seem to want to understand

Oh, believe me I do want to understand, otherwise I would not continue to conversate with you. I'm only aware of one meaning to the phrase "morally wrong" & I posted the definition. That is what I mean by morally wrong. If you mean something else when you say it, maybe you should tell me what it is exactly you mean when you say it & then maybe I'll understand. 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

And that's where we disagree.  This is not the driver's dilemma.  Nor is it a situation analogous to the driver's dilemma.  Pushing Bran is the morally wrong (evil) choice and not pushing Bran is the morally right (good) choice.

Just because we disagree that one choice was good & one choice was bad does not mean that I don't understand the phrase "morally wrong" or that I'm using some strange meaning when I say it. You can say there was a morally good choice & a morally bad choice & I can say there were no morally good choices but that has no bearing on my use of the phrase morally wrong. Something being morally wrong, again, does not mean that there has to be another option that is morally right. 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Whether it fares worse for Jaime is not the standard.

I didn't say it was, I said that's why he took that choice. When presented with two bad choices, I'm under the assumption that most people (myself included) would weigh the options & take the path of least resistance, the lesser of two evils, the one that fares better for me &/or the people I love. That is what is standard. 

14 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

What about a drug dealer who murders a witness because he does not want to get caught by the Feds, and then still continues to deal drugs?  Perhaps he believes that his entire family will be taken out by a rival gang if he is locked up and not around to protect his family.  Do you think that excuse for murder would fly in a court of law.

Whether or not Jaime would be considered guilty in a court of law is not what we have been discussing here. He pushed a child out of a window, with the intent on killing him. Of course he would be found guilty in a court of law. My moral ground is not built upon what the law says. I try to do what is right regardless of what I am told, not do what I'm told regardless of what is right. Yes, as  you well know, the drug dealer would be found guilty in a court of law also but this has absolutely nothing to do with morally right & morally wrong. Sometimes, I would like to think more often than not, the morally right choice is upheld by a court of law but that is certainly not always the case. So while a court of law & a "court" of morals do overlap sometimes they are not one & the same. 

 

[Dofs]

22 hours ago, frenin said:

Well, i agree that it wasn't bad for him, Aerys had destroyed his life but it was purely revenge on an already dead guy.

Jaime was organising defence of Aerys before he ordered Jaime to kill Tywin and Rossart to blow up the city. Only then did Jaime finally turn against him.

10 hours ago, frenin said:

Maybe because he didn't. Jaime went there when the Lannisters were already inside the Castle and minutes away from storming the Throne room, the man had time to change his armour before visiting Aerys.

Jaime had no idea how quickly would the castle fall, which is why he was caught by Lannister forces in the first place. He did not want to be seen killing Aerys and neither he was in a hurry of doing it. Hence he clearly misjudged where the Lannister forces were.

He changed his armour because he didn't want to kill Aerys as a Kingsguard, but the fact that he took his time to do it also obviously implies that Jaime didn't believe he had little time left to kill Aerys and leave unseen.

[Platypus Rex]

4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would say the right choice here would be to brake. If you have time to choose whether you want to swerve or not you have time to choose to brake. If you do have time to brake & don't then that excuse would absolutely not fly in a court of law. If you didn't have time to choose to swerve or brake then it wasn't a choice but an accident. 

This wouldn't happen irl anyway. 

It's a hypothetical illustration intended to illustrate an abstract concept.  If you don't accept the terms of the hypothetical, we can't discuss the abstract concept.  Under the terms of the hypothetical, your choice is to swerve or not to swerve, and there is no other way to avoid the accident.  If you do not swerve, child #1 dies; if you do swerve, child #2 dies.

Whether the example is realistic is rather beside the point.  Nonetheless, your ideas about driving are incredibly ignorant.  At highway speeds, it is much easier to swerve a couple of feet in one direction or another, than it is to bring your car to a stop from a speed of 55 mph.  If you can't accept this, then just imagine that someone has sabotaged your brakes.  I don't care.

Quote

 

Clearly we don't agree about something but it isn't whether or not killing a child is morally wrong. I don't know how many different ways I can say that. I'm saying it is morally wrong to kill a child but you continue to say that I don't really agree that it is morally wrong. There isn't anything for you to base my feelings on, other than my words, which are pretty clear. 

I understand what you are saying perfectly.  It is you who are refusing to understand what I am saying.  

You remember your a distinction between a morally wrong act, and THE morally wrong choice?  Well, when I say something is morally wrong, my meaning is closer to the latter.  And (unlike you) I DO think Jaime made "THE" morally wrong choice.  

Quote

If you think allowing your lover & children to be killed is a morally good & right choice we clearly have a different set of morals. 

If you would choose to allow this to happen to your lover & children I feel bad for your lover & children. 

LOL!  I love how SELF-RIGHTEOUS you are being about Jaime's crime.  Well, at least you cannot reasonably pretend to understand what I meant when I said that Jaime is unrepentant.  I merely meant he has the same attitude toward his crime as you would have if you were in his place.

And yes, we do have a different set of morals.