What is evil?

[littlespider]

My POV has nothing to do with any religion at all it is my personal opinion. A family should be something you can always count on and they can always count on you and trust you, i will go as far as to say, trust you BLINDLY. Nothing should matter to you more thn your family and specially not your own selfish desires and Sansa desires made her betray her family and this is the deed i see as an evil deed.

So, then, Craster's family should be treated the same way? And Gilly was evil for hating Craster? Or do you make an exception here? If so, why?

I think the poster hates Red Heads.

It is indeed a fact that gingers have no souls.

[Fearsome Fred]

My POV has nothing to do with any religion at all it is my personal opinion. A family should be something you can always count on and they can always count on you and trust you, i will go as far as to say, trust you BLINDLY. Nothing should matter to you more thn your family and specially not your own selfish desires and Sansa desires made her betray her family and this is the deed i see as an evil deed.

I understand. You are saying that Sandor should be loyal to Gregor, and not to any higher ideals. You are saying that Jaime was right to push Bran out the window, because the lives of his sister and children were at stake. You are saying that Cersei was right to murder Robert's bastards, whose existence threatened her own children. Etc., etc., etc.

I just disagree.

[Grail King]

In the end no matter what Eddards fate was sealed because:

1. He took the position of Hand, no way was Cersei , LF or Varys going to allow their plans to be derailed meaning they were in process BEFORE Robert came North.

2. Once Bran was pushed out the window no way would Eddard or Catelin let that drop to the wayside.

Once Sansa got called before the King she made the best possible choice available, and I believe in the book she told her father what happened and as Ned told Arya as the Prince bethroe she has to take his side right or wrong, here she took none.

And where did she learn the ways of a proper future wife? from the septa and her mother in charge of teaching her proper young lady training per Westerous customs.

Just too many more people far and away more evil just for breathing in this world than Sansa,

[brashcandy]

Just too many more people far and away more evil just for breathing in this world than Sansa,

Well, when you consider the fact that Sansa is really Qyburn in drag, can you blame people for feeling as they do?

[Woman of War]

Woman of War, on 03 January 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Ahem, I am no Lawyer, but: if someone has been condemned to death, and will be executed any moment - is trying to escape and on that way killing those who intend to catch you and lead you to your execution murder or self defense?

Murder.

Quote

Tyrion would have been killed if caught, which would have been murder in itself ( I am against death penalty anyway) but Tyrion was innocent. So - do you have a right to defend yourself against law enforcement people who definitely intend to kill you?

No. Those sentenced to death, even wrongfully, don't have any right kill cops and guards in order to avoid execution.

Quote

Would the only moral solution be to surrender to your execution?

Yes, if the alternative is killing someone.

Quote

Is self defense never allowed?

Not under these circumstances. "Self Defense" is a narrow doctrine. It is not a blank check to treat the lives of others as expendable in pursuit of your selfish desire to live as long as possible at their expense. Nor (for instance) do you have the right to murder a bystander to prevent her from screaming for the police.

Quote

Don't you have the right to turn the executioner's sword against the executioner who is only doing his job? This is not a rhetorical question, it is a question.

Again, the answer is "no".

Quote

So with the guards you may have chosen a bad example.

Not so. In any event, the "self defense" doctrine is not available to those who provoke a confrontation they could and should have avoided. For instance, a burglar breaks into a house, only meaning to steal; he meets the owner of the house, who reaches for a gun; the burglar is thereby placed in reasonable fear of his life, and therefore pulls a gun and shoots. Under these circumstance the burglar may not claim "self defense". He is a murderer.

Same goes for Tyrion. He anticipated a confrontation with the guards. He knew he would kill if he met them. He could have avoided that confrontation, and STILL preserved his life. He could have fled the premises. He chose not to. This decision may not have resulted in the death of a guard, but it still resulted in the death of his father (which was intentional anyway, even if the intent was formed on the spur of the moment).

Edited by Fearsome Fred, Today, 06:01 PM.

You have a very narrow definition of self defense. Actually I have trouble seeing in which case the reason self defense would be applicable to you. While I as well find it debatable if you are allowed to kill simple guards who are leading you to an execution in order to save yourself you are definitely entitled to harm and in extremis kill the executioner who is attempting to kill you - he is going to commit murder after all and certainly so if you are innocent. You cannot be expected to sacrifice your life to save the life of a killer and succumb to your own execution because this might be a killing sanctioned by whatever law.

This right to self defense CERTAINLY does not expand to investigating police officers or witnesses.

Or what about the woman who has to harm and therefore risks to kill a potential rapist? Someone threatens your kids?

I only can respect it if you tell me that your religion forbids you to take any human being's life no matter what the circumstances are. This would be very definite and courageous if you ever had to go through with it. And so, what hopefully and certainly never will happen, if you end up condemned to death you would not resist violently to your executioners. But a legal system that includes death penalty must therefore be inherently wrong to you.

For me an executioner is someone who is attempting murder because in my worldview there is no such thing as lawful legitimized killing.

So Tyrion had as much right to shoot the guards as the guards had to shoot him: none in my interpretation, in Westeros both sides would maybe have shot without compunction, the guards would have defended themselves as well.

But this is hypothetical since no one shot.

We had the debate about Tywin's and Shae's murder already.

[Alexia]

Well, when you consider the fact that Sansa is really Qyburn in drag, can you blame people for feeling as they do?

Oho! That explains everything! But we always knew that she is the worst person in Westeros and her crimes are black beyond human comprehension.

[Silmarien]

You have a very narrow definition of self defense. Actually I have trouble seeing in which case the reason self defense would be applicable to you. While I as well find it debatable if you are allowed to kill simple guards who are leading you to an execution in order to save yourself you are definitely entitled to harm and in extremis kill the executioner who is attempting to kill you - he is going to commit murder after all and certainly so if you are innocent. You cannot be expected to sacrifice your life to save the life of a killer and succumb to your own execution because this might be a killing sanctioned by whatever law.

This right to self defense CERTAINLY does not expand to investigating police officers or witnesses.

Or what about the woman who has to harm and therefore risks to kill a potential rapist? Someone threatens your kids?

I only can respect it if you tell me that your religion forbids you to take any human being's life no matter what the circumstances are. This would be very definite and courageous if you ever had to go through with it. And so, what hopefully and certainly never will happen, if you end up condemned to death you would not resist violently to your executioners. But a legal system that includes death penalty must therefore be inherently wrong to you.

For me an executioner is someone who is attempting murder because in my worldview there is no such thing as lawful legitimized killing.

So Tyrion had as much right to shoot the guards as the guards had to shoot him: none in my interpretation, in Westeros both sides would maybe have shot without compunction, the guards would have defended themselves as well.

But this is hypothetical since no one shot.

We had the debate about Tywin's and Shae's murder already.

I think Fred is talking about the (US?) legal definition of self-defense, which is only legally acceptable when there is a clear and present danger to yourself or another person of death or great bodily harm (this includes rape and assault).

Absent that, even if a person sends you death threats every day and you KNOW that person will kill you eventually, you can't just shoot him if you see him walking down the street, because the danger isn't imminent. Hope that made sense.

Not saying I agree that legal definitions should be applied to Westeros, or fictional characters, or whether these legal definitions make a difference as to whether a character is evil or not. I don't think they do, actually.

[Fearsome Fred]

You have a very narrow definition of self defense.

Sorry. It's the legal definition. It IS possible to kill a policeman in self-defense, but not in the circumstances at issue here.

While I as well find it debatable if you are allowed to kill simple guards who are leading you to an execution in order to save yourself you are definitely entitled to harm and in extremis kill the executioner who is attempting to kill you - he is going to commit murder after all and certainly so if you are innocent.

Please note that your EXTREMIS example of a condemned man defending himself from the actual executioner does not apply. Tyrion's planned actions are analogous to a burglar killing persons defending a household, or a policemen lawfully attempting to do his duty.

You cannot be expected to sacrifice your life to save the life of a killer and succumb to your own execution because this might be a killing sanctioned by whatever law.

Why not? The executioner believes you are guilty, and is only doing his duty. Why is your life more valuable than his? But again, this is a sidetrack. Tyrion does not face such a situation.

I only can respect it if you tell me that your religion forbids you to take any human being's life no matter what the circumstances are.

Not at all. I think moral duty is often greater than legal duty, but do not necessarily oppose killings that are (for instance) justified under the legal doctrines of self-defense of defense of others.

So Tyrion had as much right to shoot the guards as the guards had to shoot him: none in my interpretation, in Westeros both sides would maybe have shot without compunction, the guards would have defended themselves as well.

This does not follow. Tyrion is a home invader. The guards have a right to draw weapons and, at the very least, threaten and subdue him. Tyrion planned to shoot them to prevent them from STOPPING him.

Do you think you can assault someone with a knife, and then, when the other person draws a knife to defend himself, claim self defense? Well its the same principle. You cannot walk around someone else's home with a gun in your hand, and claim self defense when the homeowner draws a gun on you. Tyrion provoked the conflict by his own wrongdoing. He should not have been there.

But this is hypothetical since no one shot.

Tyrion shot Tywin. In retrospect (in ADWD) he justifies this to himself by telling himself his father was about to take him into custody.

[Woman of War]

I think Fred is talking about the (US?) legal definition of self-defense, which is only legally acceptable when there is a clear and present danger to yourself or another person of death or great bodily harm (this includes rape and assault).

Absent that, even if a person sends you death threats every day and you KNOW that person will kill you eventually, you can't just shoot him if you see him walking down the street, because the danger isn't imminent. Hope that made sense.

Not saying I agree that legal definitions should be applied to Westeros, or fictional characters, or whether these legal definitions make a difference as to whether a character is evil or not. I don't think they do, actually.

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood Fearsome Fred, sorry. And your argument about the death threats is of course right, certainly you can't go around and kill people who make threats. And fortunately most threats made only verbally are no more than the expression of extreme rage and never intended to be realized.

But if Fearsome Fred had, according to his religion, the position that killing a human being is always wrong I could only have the deepest respect for it.

Actually I liked this thread better before Sansa entered into it.

Sansa is a child, as is Arya. And so it is not possible to expect the same moral insight and the same ability to reason about right and wrong which you would expect from an adult. Arya is an abused child like an African child soldier in one of those horrible civil wars, brainwashed but hopefully not yet broken and in need of help.

Sansa in AGOT was selfish, vain, clueless and arrogant - a spoiled little girl who had no idea what she was doing. She certainly was not evil, only a not very interesting little brat, not different from many others. If she is contrasted with Daeneris, her resilience and courage, the comparison ends unfortunate for Sansa. But Daeneris is not described as average girl.

And there is a very heated debate in these forums if Daeneris is evil, or, if she, as I would prefer to phrase it, does evil deeds. Sansa, being so far very passive, does not do any deeds at all, apart from that little girlish mistake of sneaking on her daddy and the more grave mistake of betraying her sister by lying consciously. No way you could call that evil in a child!

And I can only hope that Arya finds a way back, a lot of therapy is needed in RL for those child soldiers.

[Woman of War]

Sorry, fearsome Fred, at the moment editing does not work for me and I saw your post only after posting myself. I will stop arguing now because we are getting law and personal morality totally mixed up.

But Tyrion had every right to "be there". It is no "wrongdoing" to confront someone with a horrible crime this person has committed. Tyrion entered his former, now his fathers's bedroom, with the intention to confront his father about Tysha, so far talking was intended, nothing wrong with it, even if he could foresee an ugly talk. This has so far nothing to do with the murder of Shae, this was murder. If killing Tywin is murder of first degree or not - let's leave that open.

[Fearsome Fred]

But Tyrion had every right to "be there". It is no "wrongdoing" to confront someone with a horrible crime this person has committed.

There is if Tyrion anticipates that his "being there" will result in someone getting killed. And he does so anticipate. He plans to shoot any guard who tries to stop him. Is his "right to be there" really worth somebody's life?

Sure, his being there might not be so bad if he planned to merely run away from guards, and allow himself to be taken into custody if that strategy fails. But he doesn't. He plans to shoot and kill.

Tyrion entered his former, now his fathers's bedroom, with the intention to confront his father about Tysha, so far talking was intended, nothing wrong with it, even if he could foresee an ugly talk.

He could also foresee shooting guards. He could also foresee his father attempting to take him into custody. Has he no obligation to avoid such eventuality?

This has so far nothing to do with the murder of Shae, this was murder.

I am glad you agree that what he did to Shae was murder. But this murder also effects his right to be there. He has just committed a horrible murder on the premises. After that, has he really the right to stick around, with the intention of shooting and stabbing anyone who (predictably) tries to stop him or subdue him?

If you've just strangled your girlfriend to death, do you have the right to wait around til her dad gets home, with the intention of "defending yourself" (lethally) if the dad gets violent with you?

[ServantOnIce]

Evil depends on your spiritual beliefs and your view of life.

A co worker of mine used to work in a Men's State Prison. If you want to know what evil is, go to your local State Prison and talk to the folks who work there and some of the inmates.

Pure monsters . .the lot of them . ..

[ServantOnIce]

Now as for ASOIAF, there is evil and then evil with power. There are many scumbags in our prisons and in our communities but they don't have true political power. Hitler, Stalin, etc . . were evil with absolute power making them the worst human beings in history. So here is my list of "Evil" folks in ASOIAF

1. Joffrey Baratheon I, absolute power and absolutely corrupt. Him butchering a pregnant cat to see the kittens and then bringing them to his dad to show him, shows how inhuman and out of touch he really is.

2. Roose Bolton. Roose raped a woman while her husband hung above her, then gave some foul idiot to her to raise a son when he was going too bad. He uses Ramsay as a pit bull and doesn't care about the consequences of it because he will be dead. He knows Ramsay murdered his true born son that he "loved" and didn't do anything about it. Roose is a monster as Theon Reek said, "There is more cruelty in Roose' s finger than those Freys entire bodies."

3. Ser Gregor Clegane. Raping women, beating kids to death, the pure savagery, and then to be "zombiefied" when it is clear it is him, was just too much for me. I want this guy roased by Drogon.

4. Queen Regent Cersei I, murdered her husband, murdered Ned Stark, put that monster Joffrey on the throne, killed her childhood friend, adultery, incest with Jaime and Lancel, tried to kill Ser Bronn, tried to kill Jon Snow, and tried to pervert Sansa into her wicked disciple, had Maester Qyburn butcher folks, the farce with the Tyrells, having Ser Osney Kettleblack kill the High Septon (akin to the Pope), arming the Faith . . yeshh so many errors, so little time. and deserving of Maggy the Frog's curse.

5. Melisandre a modern day "Moloch" worshipper burning folks for her red demon. Totally led Stannis to get crushed at King's Landing. She's evil . . but good looking TWG.

6. The Green Grace aka The Harpy. Has subdued Dany's Kingdom, killed innocent folks, worked with the Yunkai, New Ghis and other "slavers" to continue wrongful oppression and violence all the time seeing so sincere to Dany and Ser Barriston the Bold.

7. Varys, Maester Illyrio and Littlefinger. Cold blooded killers, creators of turmoil and death and all three worthy of dragon food.

8. Catelyn Stark Tully. Selfish, mean, hard headed, wrong, got her family crushed and became Stoneheart who just slaughters Freys and Boltons not protecting villagers.

9. Viserys: Would have been a terrible King. Totally self consumed.

10. Euron Crow's Eye. Pure Evil, killed his brother, has sold his soul to dark sorcery and has an evil plan he's trying to work that is going to harm the Iron Born in the long run.

[zalim]

There are different types of betrayal. I am not even sure that applies to what Sansa did in those cases you mention. The first time she lied because she was caught between her birth family and the family she was about to be married into. The second she disobeyed her father, but had no idea at all what the real situation was, that Cersei was a mortal enemy of the Starks. Besides, she didn't revealed any crucial information to Cersei - Ned was doomed already at this point of time thanks to his own blunders and LF's betrayal.

I don't see how disobeying your father once and trying to get the help of an outsider is worse than multiple murders. Arya's murders include people like the guard at Harrenhal, who hasn't done anything to her and for all we know might've been a great guy, not to mention at the time the Boltons were on the Starks side from what she knew, yet she killed him and never felt guilty at all. Then there's the insurance guy in Braavos, he was supposedly a crook, but that's hardly a justification for a murder.

she was about to married into but she wasnt married yet. What LF did to Ned, he did because he was stranger and i dont care if Sansas betrayel did anymore more harm then it was already done, the fact is, she betrayed him and thats all i care about and for me this deed is evil and out of all those deeds done by Arya, where did she betray her family :S i think we are discussing sansa and her betrayal.

So, then, Craster's family should be treated the same way? And Gilly was evil for hating Craster? Or do you make an exception here? If so, why?

only if you consider it to be a family ;-) and if you do, thats pretty messed up my friend and specially if you want to compare Craster with Starks lol.

I understand. You are saying that Sandor should be loyal to Gregor, and not to any higher ideals. You are saying that Jaime was right to push Bran out the window, because the lives of his sister and children were at stake. You are saying that Cersei was right to murder Robert's bastards, whose existence threatened her own children. Etc., etc., etc.

I just disagree.

No, if you think like that then you are understanding nothing at all ;-). Did Ned ever burned Sansas face or Robb ever had sex with her?

It all depends on what you consider to be a family. Jaime and Cersei are incest committing creeps and i dont consider them to be a real family, their relation is based on lust for each other. Gregor and Sandor both are evil psychos so i dont even want to go there, i am talking about a proper family not weirdos lol i have to laugh at your idea or family my friend :D :D kinda creeping me out =))

[Jojen]

I've yet to read a convincing argument that incest is even morally wrong, yet alone evil. But yeah, the Bran thing was something of a dick move.

Okay, putting aside the question of morality regarding the concept of incest in general, let's look specifically at the case of Jaime and Cersei. They engage in incest, repeatedly, and do whatever they can in order to hide that fact. They know it's considered immoral. They don't say "Hey, if the Targs can do it, than so can we." They don't try to reform the Faith of the Seven to allow others to engage in it. All they care about is concealing the truth no matter the consequences, no matter how many innocent people die in the process. The act doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's what makes it evil--the lengths they will go to prevent the truth getting out when they know full well that the act is wrong in the first place. They'd rather make countless others suffer than suffer themselves.

[Silmarien]

Er, I don't think Catelyn Stark and Lady Stoneheart can really be meshed into a single character. UnCat is not the same human being she was before she was reanimated (after three days dead - her brain is simply dead, biologically). And Catelyn was surely not evil. Flawed, yes, but evil is far too harsh.

Lady Stoneheart is a different story, but I don't consider her evil because she's basically a zombie without human emotion. Her amygdala is dead.

[The Shadowbinder]

Sure, his being there might not be so bad if he planned to merely run away from guards, and allow himself to be taken into custody if that strategy fails. But he doesn't. He plans to shoot and kill.

He could also foresee shooting guards. He could also foresee his father attempting to take him into custody. Has he no obligation to avoid such eventuality?

We have no evidence that Tyrion entered the tower with the intent to kill anyone, he did not even contemplate the crossbow until after he (spontaniousely and unexpectedly) murdered Shae. The only reason Tyrion picked up the crossbow was so that his father would listen to him instead of immediately picking his 3 ft body up by the neck and strangling him to death.

This is a really interesting discussion but you guys are debating whether Tyrion is legally guilty of murder 1... The original question was whether he is evil, i think we all agree he's a murderer - since he unlawfully killed Shae and Tywin.

Fred I got a question for you: Do you think there's any situation in which a human can murder another and it not be evil?

[Alexia]

*snipped for ranting*

Sansa is has warged your computer and forced it to begin pounding out counter-factual, nonsensical, and rather amusing rants on the subject of family. Just thought you should know -- holy water might do the trick. Gotta watch out for that Sansa!

[zalim]

Ignore me please !

is that it? the best you could do? dont want to defend Sansa anymore? That wasnt very grown up, you shouldnt personal attack here, i am not attacking anyone personally. Just a evil character.

Its obvious that you lost the argument.

[redriver]

As to people labeling Gregor Clegane and Ramsay Snow (I refuse to call him Bolton) as psychopaths, um, lets review.

A psychopath is somebody prone to psychotic delusions, psychosis, as in losing touch with reality. This is the legal definition of insanity (in the US), when someone cannot tell the difference between right and wrong; when they cannot tell the difference between their psychotic thoughts and reality.

A sociopath is someone who knows what they're doing is wrong, and doesn't care. This is Gregor and Ramsay. They know rape and torture is considered vile and illegal, but they still carry on with the behavior because they feel like it. Sociopaths are not exempt from jail - see notable serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc.

As to whether incest is right or wrong? Who cares when it's between consenting adults (twins, in this case)? Why would we apply the standards of The Faith to characters in a novel with 5+ different major religions (old gods, new gods, drowned god, Rh'llor, meh, I'm missing one, but whatever)?

By the standards of The Faith, Cersei's sexually humiliating walk of shame was considered OKAY! That chapter made me cringe and was difficult to get through. I felt sympathy for Cersei, who is as a character a pretty dark shade of gray, and has committed atrocities, including murdering an infant. Until we got her POV, and discovered she's pretty close to leaning towards psychotic with a hint of sociopath in there, and then her Walk of Shame, I'd felt zero pity for her.

ETA: That said, I think Robert Baratheon is more of an asshole for flaunting his multiple affairs and siring 16 bastards without providing for them. Oh, and his physical abuse of Cersei. But evil? That's a strong word. I'll go with asshole.

Actually psychopathy and sociopathy are essentially the same thing and have nothing to do with delusions.Both are hallmarked by a lack of "normal" emotional resposes,empathy and social bonds.

A sociopath is a psychopath with social skills,basically.In the novels I would consider the likes of Biter and Ramsey as psychopaths whereas Cersei and Roose are sociopaths.

Both see other people as expendable in order to meet their aims,usually purely selfish.Politics and big business seem to attract a lot of sociopaths in the real world as well as fantasy.