Tyrion is a good person

[The Dornishman's Wife]

Jory, I think you missed my argument. I think the actions are right in a medieval context. I think Ned is a good person. I'm saying that, if Ned were considered in a modern context, he would be a bad person.

Actually, I think you might miss an important distinction here: Applying enlightened morality to a medieval context does not mean that you act as if it was a modern society and ignore what works and what doesn't in that context.

[Woman of War]

Actually, I think you might miss an important distinction here: Applying enlightened morality to a medieval context does not mean that you act as if it was a modern society and ignore what works and what doesn't in that context.

And who decides "what works"? Nobility, who with each war to come kills countless common people no matter how just the war may appear to those upright knights? How honorable the cause may be? Whom will you ask in a society that is built upon the rule that 99% of the population are not entitled tho a valid opinion?

The mercenaries, sellswords and hedgeknights who earn their living with killing and dread peace as time of unemployment?

Or the women who want their children to have a good life?

Martin is very much telling us what he thinks about the Game and its morals: that it is outright wrong nor matter how it is played, apart from being ridiculous in the face of a serious threat.

There is no character who per se is on the right side, already by being on one side each character has a part in evil deeds, condones some lord's grabbing for power. No, with every single move, every small decision Martin's characters are confronted again with doing the right or the wrong thing, not one moment in their story they can lean back and feel safe under the just command of some ruler who fights for the light, the right religion or the right family.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

And who decides "what works"?

That appears to be such a different question entirely that I'm not sure you actually intended to answer my post. Considered as a standalone analysis towards a new question, you do have some valid points though.

[Woman of War]

That appears to be such a different question entirely that I'm not sure you actually intended to answer my post. Considered as a standalone analysis towards a new question, you do have some valid points though.

Yes, of course this was meant as rhetorical question since there is obviously no way tho precipitate this quasi medieval society into our way of thinking. I have no intelligent answer, I only wanted to point out that this society is infinitely far from having a common agreement about morality as it is far from post enlightenment norms and values.

[Tiki]

Actually, I think you might miss an important distinction here: Applying enlightened morality to a medieval context does not mean that you act as if it was a modern society and ignore what works and what doesn't in that context.

Um, yes you do. Should Ned be considered a discriminator simply because he didn't allow gay marriage?

[SeanF]

Indeed. Tyrion certainly knows that Joffrey is at best a little shit and at worst Aerys the third, but he has no compunction serving him as Hand and does everything in his power to perpetuate Lannister rule. He also strongly suspects his siblings of attempting to murder Bran, but doesn't do anything about it.

I have to be honest and say that if I suspected my siblings of attempted murder, I probably wouldn't reveal my suspicions either.

[SeanF]

Um, yes you do. Should Ned be considered a discriminator simply because he didn't allow gay marriage?

I doubt if Ned had ever heard of homosexuals.

[Jory Cassel]

Actually, I think you might miss an important distinction here: Applying enlightened morality to a medieval context does not mean that you act as if it was a modern society and ignore what works and what doesn't in that context.

This, if Ned suddenly tried to allow gay marriage that would certainly be noble, but most persons in power would name him insane an as no one outed himself/herself anyway, no one would take the offer up. The purpose of marriage to produce heirs is staunchly established in the minds of people. What Tiki did was transferring Ned's actions to a modern setting and then judged them by today's morals (of tolerant, open-minded, egalitarian persons).

But in the post I quoted the only thing stated there was "By applying your own morals, (...)". Even by applying the morals of enlightened and egalitarian people of today to Ned's actions in the given ASoIaF-context were not wrong.

Jory, I think you missed my argument. I think the actions are right in a medieval context. I think Ned is a good person. I'm saying that, if Ned were considered in a modern context, he would be a bad person.

But I'm sure we can agree these actions were wrong in a modern context:

1. Ned should have put a democratic system into the North with a Prime Minister.

2. Ned should have allowed free speech in the North.

3. Ned shouldn't have talked about getting Arya married when she didn't want to.

4. Ned shouldn't have chopped someone's head off for abandoning his duty.

5. Ned should have given the aforementioned person a right to a free trial with a defense attorney.

6. Ned shouldn't have taken Theon hostage.

Well, that's a convenient way not to respond to my post.

I did not miss your argument, I responded to the point you made in the post I quoted, you clearly stated that Ned was a murderer, a sexist and someone who discriminates against homosexuals if judged by modern, enlightened morals (aka your morals).

In this post, however, you changed your original point, there was nothing about "in a modern context" in the post I responded to, but now you just changed your point and accused me of missing your point?

You did not even bother to make the distinction between judging his actions in a modern society by enlightened moral standards or in his society, the society of ASoIaF, by modern standards.

In the former, his action can be condemned, in the latter, not or only to a small extent (death penalty). And I explained that in my post, I never doubted that his actions would be wrong in a modern context.

[Tiki]

In this post, however, you changed your original point, there was nothing about "in a modern context" in the post I responded to, but now you just changed your point and accused me of missing your point?

http://asoiaf.wester...60#entry4659741

That Ned shouldn't be considered a bad person for not allowing homosexuals to marry, for chopping people's heads off for running away from their job, for wanting Arya to get married despite knowing that's not what she wants, and so on.

By applying your own morals, Ned is a murderer, a sexist and he discriminates between straights and gays.

What does that mean to you? It means modern morals. You even bolded that bit! I've been arguing this point for pages.

[Jory Cassel]

Would you please read all yours and my posts once again?

There is a distinction between judging actions in the given context by applying modern, enlightened morals and judging the actions in a modern context by applying modern, enlightened morals. There is a distinction between "modern morals" and a "modern context", too.

The part you pointed out, just as I did, only says that you applied common, enlightened morals of today to Ned's actions.

(eta: and just to clear it up, when I'm using the term "modern morals" I refer to a set of egalitarian, open-minded and democratic morals)

[SeanF]

In many parts of our modern world people agree that there is no such thing as lawful execution, a broad coalition here from liberals to the catholic church.

You can state that there is an idea of universal moral values. And yet people are still "lawfully" executed.

Which morality is the right one?

There are many modern liberal democracies (like the UK) in which either a majority, or a large minority, of the public think that people should be executed for a variety of offences, even if their political leaders disagree. And, very few people in such countries object to the execution of their countries' enemies through war and assassination.

[Tiki]

Would you please read all yours and my posts once again?

There is a distinction between judging actions in the given context by applying modern, enlightened morals and judging the actions in a modern context by applying modern, enlightened morals. There is a distinction between "modern morals" and a "modern context", too.

The part you pointed out, just as I did, only says that you applied common, enlightened morals of today to Ned's actions.

(eta: and just to clear it up, when I'm using the term "modern morals" I refer to a set of egalitarian, open-minded and democratic morals)

What's the difference? Give me an example. Say, judge the fact that Ned chops off people's heads off with both of those things. If you're right, I'll be convinced.

[jons nissa]

a. Westeros is not the real medieval world

b. Even if it was, rape, forced marriage, kinslaying and stewing singers were certainly not behaviours that were endorsed

c. The author's intention is most definitely for us readers to consider the text and the moral complexities presented therein. This is not Conan the Barbarian or the latest Goodkind; ASOIAF presents a far richer and more complex reading experience and using your thinking reduces it to nearly nothing. A shame when it comes to such a great work, no?

i don't know that saying these things happened regularly during this era is saying we endorse it. i agree the author's intention is for us to consider moral complexities however i would disagree with many of the opinions that have been challenged here as the ones he intended for us to focus on.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/george-rr-martin-on-sex-fantasy-and-a-dance-with-dragons/241738/

How do you make decisions about the depictions of sexual violence that you include in your writing?

Well, I’m not writing about contemporary sex – it’s medieval.

that said, author's intent and reader's interpetation are not always the same thing and may not always align. however, i think judging every act in this series with a modern lens is not always prodcutive. that leaves the question "how do we pick and choose which acts to focus on or not"? i don't think we can make universal statements regarding this since readers come to the books with different perspectives, experiences, etc. expecting consensus on these issues is unrealistic, imho. but it is very interesting to discuss them in forums like these.

[Woman of War]

I have to be honest and say that if I suspected my siblings of attempted murder, I probably wouldn't reveal my suspicions either.

Would ANYONE deliver his siblings and their children to the executioner? Even considering this is gruesome!

There are many modern liberal democracies (like the UK) in which either a majority, or a large minority, of the public think that people should be executed for a variety of offences, even if their political leaders disagree. And, very few people in such countries object to the execution of their countries' enemies through war and assassination.

And for a good reason the majority is against executions.

I wonder how several centuries away from now the morality of our time will be seen: probably as closer to medieval ideas about assassination and war than to the ideas valid in a thousand years from now. Otherwise there would be no mankind anymore who might reflect about philosophy and consider our present day morality in the light of future times.

[SeanF]

WoUld ANYONE deliver his siblings and their children to the executioner? Even considering this is gruesome!

And for a good reason the majority is against executions.

I wonder how several centuries away from now the morality of our time will be seen: probably as closer to medieval ideas about assassination and war than to the ideas valid in a thousand years. Otherwise there would be no mankind anymore who might reflect about philosophy and consider our present day morality in the light of future times.

I think it will depend on whether or not war is still part of the human condition. A thousand years from now, war may be such a distant memory that everyone is a pacifist. But, in our day and age, even someone as liberal as President Obama is willing to supervise and order the assassination of US enemies.

[mrunderhill]

I think it will depend on whether or not war is still part of the human condition. A thousand years from now, war may be such a distant memory that everyone is a pacifist. But, in our day and age, even someone as liberal as President Obama is willing to supervise and order the assassination of US enemies.

In my opinion there is as much chance of everyone being a pacifist tomorrow as there is in a thousand years providing we are still here.

Tyrion's political life can be held up to any modern day world leader and he would look pretty good morally. The issues I have with Tyrion are to do with his personal life.

[jons nissa]

I like Tyrion a lot, but he is not good or evil, he is gray, but a very dark shade of gray.

grrm's take on tyrion's shade of grey:

http://www.beatrice.com/interviews/martin/

Do you have a favorite character?

I love them all. They’re all my kids in that respect. But I got to admit that Tyrion is my favorite. He’s very easy to write and he’s a beautiful shade of gray. I like gray characters. I think all black and all white characters are, by their very nature, boring and one-dimensional. But gray characters can have all the subtle shadings and contradictions that make us human and make for an interesting person. And Tyrion is certainly that.

[Jory Cassel]

What's the difference? Give me an example. Say, judge the fact that Ned chops off people's heads off with both of those things. If you're right, I'll be convinced.

Well, I already elaborated on that on my previous posts, but to make my point completely clear and to avoid any missunderstanding:

1. judging in the given context by applying modern morals

The Night's Watch in its current state is an order that consists of criminals in a large part, they already chose it to avoid any other punishment. The Night's Watch deserters are normally criminals and rogues, so the decision/law to punish deserters is completely reasonable.

The death penalty however is simply wrong, according to my own moral code, yet I am unable to condemn him (Ned) for applying it. The act itself (beheading a deserter) is despicable, but that would neglect a thousand different factors such as the common opinion of the society Ned lived in, the moral code his father or Jon Arryn taught him, the need to punish criminals, the presence of war and thus death etc. etc.

2. judging in a modern context by applying modern morals

An adequate modern equivalent to the Night's Watch would be the french foreign legion, criminals are able to join, no matter if supposed to be prosecuted in their homecountries and they are sent to fight in areas where regular troops are not deployed by the french government.

Transferring the scenario into a contemporary one, it would be something like: A general of the foreign legion kills soldiers for desertion without giving them any kind of process.

That is something utterly intolerable by modern morals and everyone would agree here.

(I know this example is not perfect, but I could not come up with a better Night's Watch equivalent)

My point here is: you can judge Ned's action by calling him a murderer, reducing his actions only to him killing the deserter or criminals in general, but as soon as you look at all circumstances, Ned's upbringing, social conventions and expectations this does not work anymore and the accusations becomes ridiculous.

The society of Westeros roughly resembles the society of medieval Europe and it is groundless to judge a fictional character for not jumping ahead of centuries of human development.

[Tiki]

1. judging in the given context by applying modern morals

The Night's Watch in its current state is an order that consists of criminals in a large part, they already chose it to avoid any other punishment. The Night's Watch deserters are normally criminals and rogues, so the decision/law to punish deserters is completely reasonable.

The death penalty however is simply wrong, according to my own moral code, yet I am unable to condemn him (Ned) for applying it.

Bolded part. You aren't applying modern morals here. You're applying medieval morals. Only when you judge Ned by using modern morals can you say you're applying them. You're not applying them to judge a character at all.

[FuriousGeorge]

Well, I already elaborated on that on my previous posts, but to make my point completely clear and to avoid any missunderstanding:

1. judging in the given context by applying modern morals

The Night's Watch in its current state is an order that consists of criminals in a large part, they already chose it to avoid any other punishment. The Night's Watch deserters are normally criminals and rogues, so the decision/law to punish deserters is completely reasonable.

The death penalty however is simply wrong, according to my own moral code, yet I am unable to condemn him (Ned) for applying it. The act itself (beheading a deserter) is despicable, but that would neglect a thousand different factors such as the common opinion of the society Ned lived in, the moral code his father or Jon Arryn taught him, the need to punish criminals, the presence of war and thus death etc. etc.

2. judging in a modern context by applying modern morals

An adequate modern equivalent to the Night's Watch would be the french foreign legion, criminals are able to join, no matter if supposed to be prosecuted in their homecountries and they are sent to fight in areas where regular troops are not deployed by the french government.

Transferring the scenario into a contemporary one, it would be something like: A general of the foreign legion kills soldiers for desertion without giving them any kind of process.

That is something utterly intolerable by modern morals and everyone would agree here.

(I know this example is not perfect, but I could not come up with a better Night's Watch equivalent)

My point here is: you can judge Ned's action by calling him a murderer, reducing his actions only to him killing the deserter or criminals in general, but as soon as you look at all circumstances, Ned's upbringing, social conventions and expectations this does not work anymore and the accusations becomes ridiculous.

The society of Westeros roughly resembles the society of medieval Europe and it is groundless to judge a fictional character for not jumping ahead of centuries of human development.

How do you realise that you are in almost total agreement with each other? The original argument though was that if we can't expect Ned to do that why should we expect Tyrion to do it?