discussing morality in ASOIAF

[butterbumps!]

Dont agree with butterpumps! here though. What Arland says is obviously applicable even to moral assessments today, without historical distance, how much more with historical distance.

To condemn slavery unequivocally is one thing (99,9% of forum agrees I think). Thinking that any and all high-born person in ancient Astapor Athens should be killed because their household held slaves, like it had been for centuries, is just a wild jump.

Hang on a second. I'm not-- by any means-- trying to assert that characters who do immoral things by our standards today do not deserve to live or be geonocided or any such thing. In fact, I always argue against the mass-murder and shared guilt of the Slavers Bay inhabitants.

____________________

Maybe I should clarify something. My intention was to sort out a lot of these invisible moral lines here, away from character threads, where this always hijacks discussion.

I'm not looking for anyone to hate certain characters who commit moral atrocities (I know that I for one like some reprehensibles). Nor am I remotely suggesting that characters need to be "cleansed" in some way by death, vengeance, mass murder (no, I don't even want this for the Freys).

My intention here has to do with the way issues of morality are discussed. For instance, pointing out that a character has committed a moral atrocity, even when judged solely from our own sense of morality (but honestly, the morals of ASOAIF intersect our own world more than many think), does not mean that a poster is saying that the character is without redemption, that the character should die, or that the character is worthless.

When the morality of characters comes up, the conversation tends to get blown out of proportion, whereby one poster's saying that a character's actions are immoral is taken to mean that the character is categorically reprehensible, and yelling matches tend to ensue. I've honestly seen way too many justifications of various atrocities according to "everyone does it," "at least he's not Gregor" and "it was common back then."

Acknowledging, for example, that the slavers are categorically wrong for committing the sin of slavery is something we should all agree on. I am not suggesting that they ought to be slaughtered for this immoral act, that there isn't some reason to feel uncomfortable about the "imperialist" sort of conquest going on there, or saying they have shared guilt for ALL of the atrocities committed there. Precisely the opposite. I am saying that there is a real conflict here that Martin's created, and the way to really experience that conflict is to just acknowledge that certain things are, in fact, unequivocally immoral.

For a more precise list of the sort of moral atrocities I am referring to:

slavery

child abuse

murder (not self-defense, and not even capital punishment categorically-- I mean murder for the sake of bloody murder)

rape

reaving

torture

These are all things that I've seen excused and justified on the forum on the basis of moral relativity, and I find this incomprehensible. It is not ok, in my opinion, to say that any of the above are anything but immoral in discussion. Not only is it unreasonable to me that a modern audience would deny the immorality of any of the above (which I've seen for each of the above, as it happens), but I strongly believe that doing so is really missing what makes Martin's characters so rich.

One can acknowledge that certain things are just objectively wrong while still finding virtue in a character. It's not a character assassination, for example, to say that Jaime really transgressed by abusing Bran, that raping a Volantene sex slave is wrong, or torture is just categorically a crime against humanity.

I'm not speaking to whether a character is "likable" or "forgivable" here. I'm specifically trying to speak against the justification and absolution of crimes that we honestly should all just acknowledge as immoral.

[Cas Stark]

You know, I always thought that was a primordial wrong, even Ned in the book says the man wasn't given time enough to explain himself... What the hell... And then the great Lord chops the guy's head off without so much as a hearing.

Please, don't get me wrong, I like Ned very much but I always thought that what subsequently transpired was nemesis for that act of hubris.

It wasn't hubris, it was the king's justice. He did explain himself and the penalty for deserting the NW is death, there is no clause that says "you get a reprieve if you really, truly were confronted by The Others".

[SeanF]

Stannis' burnings are morally wrong; but the reasoning behind his burnings make them unacceptable or acceptable depending on the reader.

In-universe, most of the protagonists have to face far more extreme and dangerous situations than most of us will ever have to experience (I apologise to posters who have faced such situations). Added to this, this is a world in which magic works, but in which there is often a blood price required to use it. Sometimes, it's not clear what the right or wrong course of action is.

If burning Edric Storm alive will help to save humanity, is Melisandre right to urge it, and Davos wrong to prevent it?

If killing an innocent guard enables Arya and her friends to escape Harrenhall, is she right to do it?

Does Sansa have any realistic option but to lie about her Aunt's murder, and so condemn Marilliion?

And, so on.

[JMJ]

To me, the genius of the series is how it took me on a personal journey of reassessing my moral compass. Granted, I most definitely am not saying that after reading these books I now am okay with murder, rape, incest, etc. Thinking back to reading the first chapters of AGOT, Ned's exectution scene throws in your face a different moral standard applied in Westeros. Then it just takes off from there. By the end of ADWD, I found myself used to, if not comfortable, with reading about repeated atrocities committed by one party to another. I don't want to call it becoming numb to those atrocities, but they are certainly commonplace in the books.

During this process, I think GRRM purposely is trying to lead the reader to gradually accept and/or acclimate to the vicious acts that happen throughout the story, but at key points, certain acts are so vile that we recognize what is in our minds an absolute standard of what's morally right vs. wrong.

A bit rambling, I confess...

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

You know, I always thought that was a primordial wrong, even Ned in the book says the man wasn't given time enough to explain himself... What the hell... And then the great Lord chops the guy's head off without so much as a hearing.

Please, don't get me wrong, I like Ned very much but I always thought that what subsequently transpired was nemesis for that act of hubris.

There was also no need for a hearing, because a deserter will always be a deserter, and he was being punished for the crime of desertion; but that doesn't seem right does it? His reasoning for deserting should be taken into account, right?

The same is true for immoral choices; a character should not be automatically condemned as evil scum for making an immoral choice, because their reasoning makes all the difference.

[SeanF]

Torture is one of the most interesting moral issues for me, in ASOIAF, because it's not just carried out by the villains in the story, but also by people who we can sympathise with, to varying degrees.

[Cas Stark]

Torture is one of the most interesting moral issues for me, in ASOIAF, because it's not just carried out by the villains in the story, but also by people who we can sympathise with, to varying degrees.

Isn't the only person who uses torture who we allegedly can sympathize with Dany? Maybe I am forgetting others. I don't think the Boltons are sympathetic, Robb Stark forbids the torture of his prisoners, Cersei uses torture, but she's not sympathetic, the High Septon uses torture but he's not sympathetic, who am I missing?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

In-universe, most of the protagonists have to face far more extreme and dangerous situations than most of us will ever have to experience (I apologise to posters who have faced such situations). Added to this, this is a world in which magic works, but in which there is often a blood price required to use it. Sometimes, it's not clear what the right or wrong course of action is.

But, it is clear what is moral and what is immoral.

If burning Edric Storm alive will help to save humanity, is Melisandre right to urge it, and Davos wrong to prevent it?

Burning Edric Storm is morally wrong; but it arguably may be the best option if it saves thousands of lives, and will therefore be seen as acceptable..that is the avenue for discussion.

If killing an innocent guard enables Arya and her friends to escape Harrenhall, is she right to do it?

Killing an innocent guard is morally wrong; but it arguably may have best the best option for Arya and her friends, and was therefore acceptable...that is the avenue for discussion.

Does Sansa have any realistic option but to lie about her Aunt's murder, and so condemn Marilliion?

Sansa's decision to lie was morally wrong; but it was arguably the best decision...that is the avenue for discussion.

And, so on.

And, so on.

[Chaircat Meow]

Isn't the only person who uses torture who we allegedly can sympathize with Dany? Maybe I am forgetting others. I don't think the Boltons are sympathetic, Robb Stark forbids the torture of his prisoners, Cersei uses torture, but she's not sympathetic, the High Septon uses torture but he's not sympathetic, who am I missing?

Stannis.

Qhorin Halfhand tortured someone too I seem to recall.

Isn't the Robb Stark bit about prisoners just from the tv show?

[SeanF]

Isn't the only person who uses torture who we allegedly can sympathize with Dany? Maybe I am forgetting others. I don't think the Boltons are sympathetic, Robb Stark forbids the torture of his prisoners, Cersei uses torture, but she's not sympathetic, the High Septon uses torture but he's not sympathetic, who am I missing?

A lot of readers sympathise with Stannis, Jaime, Qhorin Halfhand, and Wyman Manderly.

[JMJ]

(snip)

These are all things that I've seen excused and justified on the forum on the basis of moral relativity, and I find this incomprehensible. It is not ok, in my opinion, to say that any of the above are anything but immoral in discussion. Not only is it unreasonable to me that a modern audience would deny the immorality of any of the above (which I've seen for each of the above, as it happens), but I strongly believe that doing so is really missing what makes Martin's characters so rich.

Exactly. But, I think the genius in these books is that (real world) human nature is such that most of us do of course know what is morally right or wrong on a basic level. Yet throughout history, horrible things have happened that defy our sense of morality (insert your own example here). A very fundamental question raised by these books is, what mix of individual character, geneal human nature, and external circumstances leads people to committ horrible acts that defy our sense of right and wrong. I'm not talking about clearly sick individuals (mass murderers in the real world, Ramsay Bolton, Vargo Hoat as examples). I'm talking about otherwise normal, decent humans who are willing to commit horrible acts in stressed situations, or at least turn a blind eye.

Most of the morally grey characters in the books are faced with ethical decisions over and over again, and their choices in these situations are what lead us to judge these characters as morally "good", "bad" or ambiguous.

To cite one of the examples in this thread, Jaime's journey is so interesting precisely because he has had more than his fair share of moral dilemmas presented to him, and his choices have taken a very interesting arc, starting from Aerys' slaying, to pushing Bran out the window, to trying to escape Brienne, to jumping in the bear pit, to giving her the sword, to how he dealt with Riverrun. His decisions at each of these points illustrates how his moral compass shifted progressively. Same can be said with all the "most interesting" characters, IMO.

[butterbumps!]

Torture is one of the most interesting moral issues for me, in ASOIAF, because it's not just carried out by the villains in the story, but also by people who we can sympathise with, to varying degrees.

I agree. I very much like Stannis, but despite understanding his rationale for live burnings, I have to acknowledge that this is a form of torture, which is categorically wrong, and therefore a blemish on his character. It doesn't mean he's without virtue; quite the opposite in fact. It's an example of how supposedly good concepts like religious faith and justice, when taken to extremes, produce immoral outcomes. Humans who do bad and good; therein is the tragedy.

[LuisDantas]

I agree. I very much like Stannis, but despite understanding his rationale for live burnings, I have to acknowledge that this is a form of torture, which is categorically wrong, and therefore a blemish on his character. It doesn't mean he's without virtue; quite the opposite in fact. It's an example of how supposedly good concepts like religious faith and justice, when taken to extremes, produce immoral outcomes. Humans who do bad and good; therein is the tragedy.

That is one reading, I suppose. Not one that I can agree with, though.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Torture is one of the most interesting moral issues for me, in ASOIAF, because it's not just carried out by the villains in the story, but also by people who we can sympathise with, to varying degrees.

In my view, torture is always morally wrong, but the ability to accept or condemn the reasoning behind a character's choice to use torture is the biggest issue for me.

[Lyanna Stark]

Great thread butterbumps.

For a more precise list of the sort of moral atrocities I am referring to:

slavery

child abuse

murder (not self-defense, and not even capital punishment categorically-- I mean murder for the sake of bloody murder)

rape

reaving

torture

Like you, it puzzles me when the subjects you've mentioned gets explained away. Same as it seems that a character can't be both a victim in one sense and a perpetrator in another, i.e. the same character can be both a victim of abuse/violence/transgressions and also a perpetrator. Cersei is a good example of this, I think. Then it's often argued that because a certain character is a perpetrator, their status as a victim is either non existent or it's not wrong.

To cite one of the examples in this thread, Jaime's journey is so interesting precisely because he has had more than his fair share of moral dilemmas presented to him, and his choices have taken a very interesting arc, starting from Aerys' slaying, to pushing Bran out the window, to trying to escape Brienne, to jumping in the bear pit, to giving her the sword, to how he dealt with Riverrun. His decisions at each of these points illustrates how his moral compass shifted progressively. Same can be said with all the "most interesting" characters, IMO.

I agree, and it goes along with the theme that no character is morally set, but defined through their choices. They are presented with ethical dilemmas of different kinds and react differently to them. Sometimes "good" sometimes "bad", sometimes inbetween. Fire Eater's example of Bracken vs Blackwood is a good example. None of them are really wrong.

[Penguin king]

Butterbumps! you seem to be of the opinion that when something "immoral" occurs in the series Martin has written it to provoke some sort of moral debate in his readers. That might be true in some cases. but most of the time I think he's just having his character act in a way that's appropriate to the world he's created.

Going back to my previous example. When Ned has a night's watch deserter summarily executed. Martin's not trying to provoke a debate about the abuses of power in the justice system, or the merits of the death sentence he's just showing us that the world Ned lives in is a brutal one and that a Northen lord has to be responsible for his own Justice.

If you put the situation in a modern perspective Ned's role becomes abhorrent, but Martin doesn't want us to see it that way, and I don't think it would be fair to judge Ned on that basis.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Stannis.

Qhorin Halfhand tortured someone too I seem to recall.

Isn't the Robb Stark bit about prisoners just from the tv show?

Personally, Jaime's cell in Riverrun sounded like torture to me, although I doubt Robb viewed it that way.

[JMJ]

I agree. I very much like Stannis, but despite understanding his rationale for live burnings, I have to acknowledge that this is a form of torture, which is categorically wrong, and therefore a blemish on his character. It doesn't mean he's without virtue; quite the opposite in fact. It's an example of how supposedly good concepts like religious faith and justice, when taken to extremes, produce immoral outcomes. Humans who do bad and good; therein is the tragedy.

Stannis is interesting in that in his mind, his moral compass is completely immobile. He "knows" exactly what is right and wrong in his own mind, and those who transgress that sense are seen as shit. He reminds me of Javert. The added level of complexity is that he doesn't seem to realize that even he has slipped from his own sense of absolute right/wrong. I doubt he consciously accepts that sleeping with Mel is wrong, but OTOH, he seems to have expressed inklings of self-doubt realizing that he contributed to Renly's death.

[Chaircat Meow]

Personally, Jaime's cell in Riverrun sounded like torture to me, although I doubt Robb viewed it that way.

'Ice cells' could also go in the 'cruel and unusual category.' No need to make your cells out of the wall, you could use a cellar or something.

[Kolantero]

I do believe that we have to keep modern "lenses" when we are reading the books but not when we are passing judgement on characters. By modern standards, Ned is an oppressor who does not allow his smallfolk to be free and have democratic procedures like voting and he is also forcing them to join his army and fight his battle. If we take an anti-death penalty view he is also a murderer for executing that deserter (although maybe i have a different view from most people on how i interpret "judging by modern standards").

That being said, i personally judge the characters by the "moral norms" not the "lawful norms" of ASOIAF. For example, if Tyrion did consummate his marriage to Sansa, it would still not be a moral norm for Westeros (evidenced by Tyrion's reluctance but other occasions as well such as Jamie's thoughts on the Mad king raping his wife etc) even if it was a lawful act.

On the other hand personally i can't call Khal Drogo a rapist when he wouldn't even understand the concept. I might as well call a cat or a dog the same when they have sex.

Torturing, in my opinion, is not a moral norm in Westeros, which is why it is generally not viewed well by people in the books and why most people are doing it in secret. There is plenty of torture in today's real world during war times (and even without them) but no one would say that torture is a moral norm (at least in most countries)