A Consistent Standard to Judge Characters' Morality and Reasonableness By

[Craving Peaches]

With the various combinations of objective/subjective and in-world/real world there are five options:

1. Subjective In-World (purely subjective) - Judge a character by their own standards of morality or reasonableness.
2. Subjective/Objective In-World - Judge a character by the morality/reasonableness of a 'reasonable man' in-world with their characteristics in their circumstances.
3. Objective In-World (purely objective from an in-world perspective) - Judge a character by the morality/reasonableness of an average 'reasonable man' in-world.
4. Subjective/Objective Real World - Judge a character by the morality of an average 'reasonable man' from our world with their characteristics in their circumstances.
5. Objective Real World (purely objective from a real life perspective) - Judge a character by the morality of a 'reasonable man' from our world.

Now I believe option 2 to be the best standard to judge by as it allows for a decent standard of morality needing to be met while taking into account the character's features. The danger of getting too subjective in my view, is that if someone, e.g. Cersei, already has low moral standards, then any seemingly immoral acts they commit are really just par-for-the-course. I think you have to have some sort of concession to the generally accepted moral standard. But I do think it is important that we acknowledge the In-World moral standard. Because it is unfair in my view to judge characters by our own moral standards when they have absolutely no idea what they are, they don't exist in universe, and they aren't aware of them, so how can they choose to act within or without them? Now this approach is not without its issues. For example we may find it hard to establish one consistent standard as it could vary from place to place. Should the character be held to the standards of their society specifically? Or should we try and form one overarching objective standard amalgamating the average views from across the world to judge them by? Or should we judge them by just Westerosi standards?

None of the above are perfect and they all have their own advantages and disadvantages. But the most important point I think, is to apply a consistent and uniform standard to all characters equally. It is silly to judge one character more leniently by holding them only to In-World standards, while criticising others for failing to conform to real world modern morality. More certainty and consistency with regards to judging characters morality and reasonableness would be of a great benefit to many a discussion on this forum.

 

[kissdbyfire]

Agree. Now let’s wait for the usual suspects to come tell us how reasonable and moral Ramsay, Walder, Tywin, Janos are and why. 

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Agree. Now let’s wait for the usual suspects to come tell us how reasonable and moral Ramsay, Walder, Tywin, Janos are and why. 

That would be hard as they don't even seem to possess subjective moral standards. For example Vic has some sort of 'code of honour' thing going on despite being a brute and not a nice person, whereas Ramsay seems to have no standard whatsoever. Tywin seems to think any means justify the end. Walder also shows no consistency in his morality. Same with Janos.

[Ser Arthurs Dawn]

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

Agree. Now let’s wait for the usual suspects to come tell us how reasonable and moral Ramsay, Walder, Tywin, Janos are and why. 

The best part is that those men are considered black sheep even in the world of Westeros and readers still defend them. It's freaky.

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, Ser Arthurs Dawn said:

The best part is that those men are considered black sheep even in the world of Westeros and readers still defend them. It's freaky.

It's like when you read about someone who was considered bad not just now but bad by medieval standards. Good God what did they do!?

[kissdbyfire]

9 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

That would be hard as they don't even seem to possess subjective moral standards. For example Vic has some sort of 'code of honour' thing going on despite being a brute and not a nice person, whereas Ramsay seems to have no standard whatsoever. Tywin seems to think any means justify the end. Walder also shows no consistency in his morality. Same with Janos.

Sure, but we both know these pesky little details really don’t matter for some. 

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

See this is common sense for rational people. Anyone who defends Ramsay, Janos, Walder Frey, and Tywin on a moral basis isn’t rational

[LongRider]

22 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Agree. Now let’s wait for the usual suspects to come tell us how reasonable and moral Ramsay, Walder, Tywin, Janos are and why. 

Why are you leaving Tryion out?  Seems shady.   

edt; the worst one for me is Littlefinger, the more the story progresses, the more he creeps me out.

[SeanF]

One has to assume that pretty much every protagonist believes:-

1.  There are two bases for government.  Right of bloodline and right of conquest.

2.  War is a legitimate means of resolving political disputes.

3.  Women are inferior to men.

4.  Noble lives are more valuable than those of the smallfolk.

5.  Pillage and arson, directed against the smallfolk of the enemy are legitimate methods of waging war.  More enlightened commanders set that as their boundary.  More cruel ones add rape and murder as well, as terror tactics.

6. A city whose commander refuses quarter, can fairly be put to the sack.

7.  Guest right, and oaths of fealty and charge, are sacred.  Kinslaying is one of the most heinous acts.

8.  Capital punishment, for murder, treason, mutiny, child rape, is fair.  So is mutilation for theft, and gelding for adult rape.  In general, punishment is eye for eye.

9.  Prisoners who have simply thrown down their arms can be summarily executed.  But, if they have surrendered on terms, those terms must be honoured.

10.  Torture is an effective means of establishing the truth.

Within those parameters, some people are more enlightened than the norms of their world, others less so.  Some, much less so.

[Corvo the Crow]

25 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Agree. Now let’s wait for the usual suspects to come tell us how reasonable and moral Ramsay, Walder, Tywin, Janos are and why. 

Let's look at Donella Manderly: It is war time, your husband is dead and you know your neighbour, a handsome young fellow with the fullest lips, is massing his troops right next door to you and you only travel with half a dozen old, tired man-at-arms? It's literally inviting him to a marriage while trying not to be too enthusiastic about it. Lord Ramsay loved his wife so much, out of jealousy he confined his new bride in a tower  while he was away. His only real fault here is forgetting to leave a staff to attend to her, but we can't really consider him a criminal knowing he wasn't brought up in a castle and know how things work and honestly, he is a bit slow in the upper compartments. I'm sure he cried tears of blood when he learned what befell his dear loving wife. 

Poor Wamsay, I feel for him 

[Curled Finger]

I dunno, Peaches.  I was over in the TWOW subforum writing a long bit about Jamie yesterday and thinking about our reasons for the things we think.   Given your clinical ideas above which look great on paper and idealistically it would be a wonderful world if our minds could work that way.  We are mental and emotional creatures.  Part of our literary experience is to be moved to feel and learn through character and story.  In truth we cannot truly understand what a person even 50 years ago held true or moral or commonplace.  Remember, segregation was still in full swing then.  Do you really understand what that felt like on either side?  How can we really understand the bedding ceremony for a 12 year old girl as a woman grown or a 14 year old boy carrying a spike off to war as a man grown of say 500 years previous?  These are minute things compared to colonization and expansionism of any period.  

Back to Jamie.  This is a long topic, some 9 pages or so long.  Haters, lovers and interesting takes.  I am one of those people who simply love the unraveling of this character.  He was written to make me loathe him for 2 books then the hammer falls and he is dissembled, taken out of his comfort zones and humbled.  This is a beautiful thing to read over the course of ASOS.  For the next 2 books I get to witness Jamie try to redeem himself to himself.  I don't have to have killed a bad king or saved a city or lost my hand to understand or sympathize with any of this.  The writing is sufficient and the character is perfectly flawed.  That is my take because that is how my mind works when the writing is that good.  It's still funny and a little sad to read the posts who are stuck still hating Jamie.  It's like all the words after ACOK were wasted.  

It is impossible to align views and responses.  It would be boring besides.  We are from all around the world here.  We don't all have the same values or think the same way.  That is what makes this place interesting.   What was it Renly said about peaches?  Take a big bite, my friend, and enjoy all the flavors.

 

[Craving Peaches]

3 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

It is impossible to align views and responses.  It would be boring besides.  We are from all around the world here.  We don't all have the same values or think the same way.  That is what makes this place interesting.   What was it Renly said about peaches?  Take a big bite, my friend, and enjoy all the flavors.

You don't have to share my standard at all, the only thing I ask is that people apply whatever their own standard is evenly, for the cause of better discussion.

[Willam Stark]

41 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

You don't have to share my standard at all, the only thing I ask is that people apply whatever their own standard is evenly, for the cause of better discussion.

The thing is, some people won't like the standard of others because it may go against their own standard, which will turn the topic into a political mess and take us away from a good discussion. You might be okay with it, but it's not the case for everyone sadly, we should stick to standard in-universe.

[H Wadsworth Longfellow]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

Subjective/Objective In-World - Judge a character by the morality/reasonableness of a 'reasonable man' in-world with their characteristics in their circumstances.

Does this have anything to do with the posted topic "Arya, the Darkheart?"  Arya's morality fails even by this overly generous standard. 

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, H Wadsworth Longfellow said:

Does this have anything to do with the posted topic "Arya, the Darkheart?"  Arya's morality fails even by this overly generous standard. 

No, and why would you come to that conclusion when no mention at all is made of Arya? And why do you think it is an overly-generous standard?

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, H Wadsworth Longfellow said:

Does this have anything to do with the posted topic "Arya, the Darkheart?"  Arya's morality fails even by this overly generous standard. 

That’s simply a load of toss.

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

That’s simply a load of toss.

I don't even know why they brought it up unless they were trying to derail the discussion. At no point in my OP were Arya, the Starks or the Targaryens mentioned.

[The Wolves]

2 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

 

Back to Jamie.  This is a long topic, some 9 pages or so long.  Haters, lovers and interesting takes.  I am one of those people who simply love the unraveling of this character.  He was written to make me loathe him for 2 books then the hammer falls and he is dissembled, taken out of his comfort zones and humbled.  This is a beautiful thing to read over the course of ASOS.  For the next 2 books I get to witness Jamie try to redeem himself to himself.  I don't have to have killed a bad king or saved a city or lost my hand to understand or sympathize with any of this.  The writing is sufficient and the character is perfectly flawed.  That is my take because that is how my mind works when the writing is that good.  It's still funny and a little sad to read the posts who are stuck still hating Jamie.  It's like all the words after ACOK were wasted.  

 

This is interesting, because I don’t understand how someone even after five books could even like Jaime. 

[Alester Florent]

3 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

With the various combinations of objective/subjective and in-world/real world there are five options:

1. Subjective In-World (purely subjective) - Judge a character by their own standards of morality or reasonableness.
2. Subjective/Objective In-World - Judge a character by the morality/reasonableness of a 'reasonable man' in-world with their characteristics in their circumstances.
3. Objective In-World (purely objective from an in-world perspective) - Judge a character by the morality/reasonableness of an average 'reasonable man' in-world.
4. Subjective/Objective Real World - Judge a character by the morality of an average 'reasonable man' from our world with their characteristics in their circumstances.
5. Objective Real World (purely objective from a real life perspective) - Judge a character by the morality of a 'reasonable man' from our world.

Now I believe option 2 to be the best standard to judge by as it allows for a decent standard of morality needing to be met while taking into account the character's features. The danger of getting too subjective in my view, is that if someone, e.g. Cersei, already has low moral standards, then any seemingly immoral acts they commit are really just par-for-the-course. I think you have to have some sort of concession to the generally accepted moral standard. But I do think it is important that we acknowledge the In-World moral standard. Because it is unfair in my view to judge characters by our own moral standards when they have absolutely no idea what they are, they don't exist in universe, and they aren't aware of them, so how can they choose to act within or without them? Now this approach is not without its issues. For example we may find it hard to establish one consistent standard as it could vary from place to place. Should the character be held to the standards of their society specifically? Or should we try and form one overarching objective standard amalgamating the average views from across the world to judge them by? Or should we judge them by just Westerosi standards?

None of the above are perfect and they all have their own advantages and disadvantages. But the most important point I think, is to apply a consistent and uniform standard to all characters equally. It is silly to judge one character more leniently by holding them only to In-World standards, while criticising others for failing to conform to real world modern morality. More certainty and consistency with regards to judging characters morality and reasonableness would be of a great benefit to many a discussion on this forum.

 

I agree. I'm not wholly averse to judging people by standards 3/4/5 either, to be honest (1 is pushing it in most contexts, although sometimes justified) but the point is to do so consistently. Too many takes on character morality/motivation skip around between them and that's just worthless as a conversation point. I should note that this is hardly unique to ASoIaF fandom, however; one sees it all over the place.

[Alester Florent]

Double post