Lady Tippy Wolfsbane Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 As I pointed out earlier in the thread, I am concerned with whether we consider burning people with dragons immoral, not whether the people in ASOIAF do.I find war and all weapons used for death immoral, but I understand that it is currently a fact of life since my species is not evolved enough to settle major disputes any other way. It is also the reason I can live a nice, mostly worry free, 'apple-pie' life. Therefore, if dragons existed I would love to be on the side that had them rather than one that didn't. Sad, but true. :crying: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab aeterno Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I find war and all weapons used for death immoral, but I understand that it is currently a fact of life since my species is not evolved enough to settle major disputes any other way. It is also the reason I can live a nice, mostly worry free, 'apple-pie' life. Therefore, if dragons existed I would love to be on the side that had them rather than one that didn't. Sad, but true. :crying:I agree, to an extent, but assuming war must happen, I would fall on the side which says that you eliminate the use of unnecessary force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Tippy Wolfsbane Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I agree, to an extent, but assuming war must happen, I would fall on the side which says that you eliminate the use of unnecessary force.Then, assuming war must happen, your side loses and more of your people may die if the other side disagrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab aeterno Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Then, assuming war must happen, your side loses and more of your people may die if the other side disagrees with you.Of course. But does the end justify any means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurkhal Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Is it immoral if you're killing military targets in an especially painful manner? Mustard gas, napalm, white phosphorus etc?I think that Apple Martini put if very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab aeterno Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I think that Apple Martini put if very well.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Tippy Wolfsbane Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Of course. But does the end justify any means?Never, but that's the way things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Alot of people are saying using the dragons is fine, and I geuss I would use them if I was in aegon or danys position. Conquering westeros without them would be impossible. But the same people saying dragons are ok to be used in war often criticise stannis for burning criminals, I find this confusing. Either there is some huge hypocrisy going on here or people are differentiating between killing enemies in war and killing criminals. If its the latter, you really find the deaths by burning of way more people in battle more acceptable then the burning of, maybe 10 criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Visenya Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Burn them, burn them all!!!!!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Alot of people are saying using the dragons is fine, and I geuss I would use them if I was in aegon or danys position. Conquering westeros without them would be impossible. But the same people saying dragons are ok to be used in war often criticise stannis for burning criminals, I find this confusing. Either there is some huge hypocrisy going on here or people are differentiating between killing enemies in war and killing criminals. If its the latter, you really find the deaths by burning of way more people in battle more acceptable then the burning of, maybe 10 criminals?The criticism of Stannis is that the people are either not criminals (ie his retainers who refuse to worship R'hllor, or Edric Storm, had he not been smuggled out), or else that burning is completely disproportionate to the offence (eg the starving men who eat a corpse, Lord Florent exploring peace terms).A further ethical problem is that burning people actually works, as a form of magic, so there is a further argument as to whether it is justified pragmatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 The criticism of Stannis is that the people are either not criminals (ie people who simply refuse to worship R'hllor, or Edric Storm, had he not been smuggled out), or else that burning is completely disproportionate to the offence (eg the starving men who eat a corpse, Lord Florent exploring peace terms).Prepare for some Stannis apologetics.Refusing to worship Ruh-loor is not a crime. Attacking the king's men when they're carrying out their lawful duties is.Treason, I think they call it. Edric Storm==utilitarian argument. Honestly it's so basic I don't need to go over it. Lord Florent was basically a traitor in every way. How is he not a traitor? Seriously. He's lucky he wasn't hanged, drawn and quartered. Starving men...ehh. Point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Stark Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well it's like, use dragons and more of your people survive, and in the end probably more of the other side too, because after that big loss they wouldn't keep trying and/or try again. So at the end of the day, it's messed up, but better in a way too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Prepare for some Stannis apologetics.Refusing to worship Ruh-loor is not a crime. Attacking the king's men when they're carrying out their lawful duties is.Treason, I think they call it. Edric Storm==utilitarian argument. Honestly it's so basic I don't need to go over it. Lord Florent was basically a traitor in every way. How is he not a traitor? Seriously. He's lucky he wasn't hanged, drawn and quartered. Starving men...ehh. Point.Those are all arguable points, particularly the utilitarian issue, but I was simply pointing out it's not inconsistent for people to criticise Stannis, while not objecting to the use of dragons.I wonder, though, if Stannis himself was committing a crime by desecrating the Sept (which would place the Sept's defenders on the side of the law) or whether lords have the right to determine what form of religious belief is to be followed in the area they rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Those are all arguable points, particularly the utilitarian issue, but I was simply pointing out it's not inconsistent for people to criticise Stannis, while not objecting to the use of dragons.I wonder, though, if Stannis himself was committing a crime by desecrating the Sept (which would place the Sept's defenders on the side of the law) or whether lords have the right to determine what form of religious belief is to be followed in the area they rule.Without any sort of "Magna Carta" the powers of the kings in Westeros are only limited by tradition and common sense. There's really nothing making his decree illegal. Unless of course someone overthrows him and declares it illegal, then we have the establishment of another tradition, arguably stronger and so on. That hasn't happened as far as we can see. Freedom of religion as a concept hasn't been codified into law, it's just something the Targs didn't allow to be an issue by converting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 The criticism of Stannis is that the people are either not criminals (ie his retainers who refuse to worship R'hllor, or Edric Storm, had he not been smuggled out), or else that burning is completely disproportionate to the offence (eg the starving men who eat a corpse, Lord Florent exploring peace terms).So let me get this straight, you would rather have thousands of soldiers who were just doing their duty of fighting their lords enemies burn to death then a few criminals? Sorry, but to me that makes no sense at all. Oh and Edric was not burned and I doubt he would have been. So dany is allowed to burn men in war but stannis can't burn criminals, hypocrisy at its finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Dying by dragonfire (on the battlefield) doesn't seem obviously worse to me than getting a pike rammed through one's guts, having a sword through the throat, an arrow through one's chest, or dying by inches of gangrene, or dysentry, all of which are common fates for soldiers in this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arland Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 So let me get this straight, you would rather have thousands of soldiers who were just doing their duty of fighting their lords enemies burn to death then a few criminals? Sorry, but to me that makes no sense at all. Oh and Edric was not burned and I doubt he would have been. So dany is allowed to burn men in war but stannis can't burn criminals, hypocrisy at its finest.Yes. People prefer to do to soldiers things they are not ready to do to criminals. That is why even countries who long abolished death penalty have hoards of lethal weapons. That is because killing an enemy during war (as gruesome as it happens to be) is considered a necessity, while giving overly cruel punishment to a criminal is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Ro Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 My phone is not quoting properly, anyway @ Seanf the just pretend the men burned were fighting on a battlefield.@arland so it is hypocrisy. If you are ready to burn men in war then you should not be outraged when criminals burn. It is the kings duty to uphold the law and protect his subjects, in order to do so he must punish criminals I wish he wouldn't burn them but he does. It's hard for me to accept people bashing stannis for burning criminals then in the next thread saying its ok for dany to burn all the people she wants, it boils down to I like dany so she cans do whatever but I don't like stannis so any chance I get I will complain about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spotted Cat Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 burning vs beheading? or chopping off body parts. what do we think of this?a dragon burns and finally kills. a knight cuts a man in two. is there so much difference?. i think people who hate stannis do so because he is burning the lot and not beheading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spotted Cat Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Dying by dragonfire (on the battlefield) doesn't seem obviously worse to me than getting a pike rammed through one's guts, having a sword through the throat, an arrow through one's chest, or dying by inches of gangrene, or dysentry, all of which are common fates for soldiers in this world. :agree: :bowdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.