Judging ASOIAF people with modern morals

[Hrafntýr]

Since we are opening new threads about same question, I see no point in creating new answer... Here's mine:

Since when any of us understands medieval morality that well? We can certainly position characters in the cotext of era they are in, but we can judge them based on what we think morality represents. As you said, this series is written for modern audience. Unless some of the fans came from medieval age, I don't understand how anyone would ever dare to claim to understand the morality of the time. Basically, people are claiming these books are about morality they certainly know nothing about. I judge each character by moral codes that are transcendental, and I would never claim that you need medieval moral code for understanding the books. Simply, it doesn't work that way.

Because the series was written by a modern author for a modern audience. Pretty self-explanatory.

Westeros isn't medieval Europe. It's a fictional world that might have some similarities with our own real world history. However, this isn't nonfiction. None of this stuff happened in real life.

Just wanted to make sure everyone is clear about that.

Well, one thing is clear... You really don't get it... As Homer hasn't written Illiad for those that fought in Trojan War, GRRM hasn't written ASOIAF for medieval people. Do you know why? Because they are all dead. The point is that modern readership is his audience, and the pieces of art, no matter what they are talking about, are meant for audience in that particular epoch. Following your logic we can't understand Star trek, or we should wait another 2 centuries to watch it in right context... Art is created for the era in which it is incepted. Because not people from 23rd century, or those in medieval ages will read this. We will, and we are.

You're acting like a modern audience can't consider a medieval context. Not everyone has to read a book in a modern context. People can think and consider the morality in the ASOIAF world for themselves.

Also, we can watch Star Trek and consider the morals going on in Star Trek and judge characters based on that.

I think that any author who situates his or her fiction in another time and place is inviting the reader to explore alternate moral systems as a means of calling into question and reflecting upon the reader's own moral systems (like "Homer" addressing the kings of his present day by painting a picture from the age of heroes). There's truth in both the views represented above: yes, ASoIaF is written for us, but it's also true that there's enough realism in the series for us to get a moral education in the values of Westeros.

But what I really wanted to note is that the pov style that Martin uses seems ideally designed for this sort of "in-world" moral reflection on the part of readers. We get a range of moral evaluations of characters by other characters in addition to the inner dialogue of some characters. One of the things I most love about these books is precisely the fact that most every act made or perspective offered by a given character can be understood and rationalized, no matter if we are also given contradictory views that are similarly justifiable. Of course it's easy to apply a narrative of moral progress, "look how far we've come, we've abolished slavery, have less sexism and now gay marriage!" but we've got other injustices, there continues to be horrible loss of life for wars fought no less for political power, and a version of the Doom of Valyria or Winter or whatever might be just as much a threat as we continue to play the game of thrones based upon our partial knowledge and perspective. Haha, I'm a terrible pessimist, I think the more things change the more they stay the same, and people irl are no better or worse than the fictional people in GRRM's books. We've just created different rules by which to play the game.

[Morienthar]

No one in peacetime, perhaps. In wartime, plenty of commanders would act in the same way as Ned (and probably be much more perfunctory about establishing guilt).

It was peace time and Ned isn't just a general though is he,He is sort of the Prime Minister/President of the North.

Even if he had evidence about the Others, it only makes his desertion worse.

True....

[SeanF]

It was peace time and Ned isn't just a general though is he,He is sort of the Prime Minister/President of the North.

True....

There is constant fighting between wildlings and Northmen. To Ned, the Wall is a war zone.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I have seen it happening ad nauseam here. But the funny thing is that one time people judging by modern times standards and the next time by medieval standards, there is no consistency.

[Andersson]

There is constant fighting between wildlings and Northmen. To Ned, the Wall is a war zone.

There are some fighting yes but it can hardly be compared to a war zone most of the times. Furthermore a fair trial is the right thing even if the end result would be the same. The idea of a lifetime of is also kinda immoral. What if you have been there for 10 years and than change your mind, in my mind it's clearly very immoral to execute a person for that. It is not slavery since you sign up "voluntarily" and people are not traded. But it has serval similarities.

[Andersson]

And tbh even if it was a war zone and Ned was a general it would still be immoral to execute a deserter even more so without a proper and fair trial.

[SeanF]

There are some fighting yes but it can hardly be compared to a war zone most of the times. Furthermore a fair trial is the right thing even if the end result would be the same. The idea of a lifetime of is also kinda immoral. What if you have been there for 10 years and than change your mind, in my mind it's clearly very immoral to execute a person for that. It is not slavery since you sign up "voluntarily" and people are not traded. But it has serval similarities.

In most cases, taking the Black is an option given to people who have been found guilty of capital crimes. You've already been sentenced to death, but the sentence is suspended so long as you remain in the Night's Watch.

[jons nissa]

grrm has spoken about modern perspective vs medieval. here's one quote:

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.

i believe he wants us to think about many things but not put every act under the modern, egalitarian magnifying glass, especially since he is talking about sexual violence here. however what the author wants and what the reader gets isn't always the same thing.

[Queen Daenerys]

And tbh even if it was a war zone and Ned was a general it would still be immoral to execute a deserter even more so without a proper and fair trial.

There's no need of a trial because the sentence for a deserter is the death penalty, no matter why he deserted. Others or not, he would have been executed anyway.

[Andersson]

In most cases, taking the Black is an option given to people who have been found guilty of capital crimes. You've already been sentenced to death, but the sentence is suspended so long as you remain in the Night's Watch.

But now I was talking about those who go there without being sentenced for a crime, maybe Sam e.g. changes his mind when he is 35. Furthermore the fact that those crimes has execution as a sentence is immoral in it own right. Than again the Death Penalty is in itself immoral.

[kecsek]

In most cases, taking the Black is an option given to people who have been found guilty of capital crimes. You've already been sentenced to death, but the sentence is suspended so long as you remain in the Night's Watch.

Wasn't there some people from the smallfolk in the Nightswatch who committed minor crimes? (IIRC stealing a bit) IMO judging with modern morals it's pretty terrible to get a life sentence for stealing and be executed if you escape later -no matter how many years you "served' already-

It's possible that these people got the option of the Watch or getting bits chopped off like the Tarly justice in AFFC, but to me that's not exactly moral either.

[Andersson]

There's no need of a trial because the sentence for a deserter is the death penalty, no matter why he deserted. Others or not, he would have been executed anyway.

The sentence for murder is prison or execution we still give every murderer a fair trial, since a fair trial is the right thing to do. Furthermore we still have the issues of the sentence being in itself immoral and should not people be allowed to leave the Night Watch?

[Tiki]

There's no need of a trial because the sentence for a deserter is the death penalty, no matter why he deserted. Others or not, he would have been executed anyway.

Are you kidding? Everyone has the right to a fair trial in the modern world, regardless of what the penalty is.

[Queen Daenerys]

But now I was talking about those who go there without being sentenced for a crime, maybe Sam e.g. changes his mind when he is 35. Furthermore the fact that those crimes has execution as a sentence is immoral in it own right. Than again the Death Penalty is in itself immoral.

That's the point of the thread. Should we judge Ned because we see it as immoral, or we don't because in the historical context of Westeros and the North it's the right thing to do.

ETA

Are you kidding? Everyone has the right to a fair trial in the modern world, regardless of what the penalty is.

I wasn't talking about the modern world, but about the law in Westeros.

[Andersson]

That's the point of the thread. Should we judge Ned because we see it as immoral, or we don't because in the historical context of Westeros and the North it's the right thing to do.

Yes, and I stated in my first post here that it would be cumbersome to judge everything from a modern viewpoint and have been arguing for that case since than.

[SeanF]

This is a world in which imprisonment doesn't exist (apart from a few noble captives) and jurisprudence is primitive (and what constitutes a fair trial differs markedly from country to country in the real world). In procedural terms, the "fairest" trial we see is the one Tyrion gets at King's Landing. Ned was acting fairly towards the deserter, given the nature of the offence, and his circumstances.

[Tiki]

This is a world in which imprisonment doesn't exist (apart from a few noble captives) and jurisprudence is primitive (and what constitutes a fair trial differs markedly from country to country in the real world). In procedural terms, the "fairest" trial we see is the one Tyrion gets at King's Landing. Ned was acting fairly towards the deserter, given the nature of the offence, and his circumstances.

We all agree with you, you know. I don't know what you're arguing for exactly.

[James Sucellus]

In ASOIAF we view characters through their own private inner thoughts. I'm pretty sure if some of the self-righteous liberals on here's honest inner monologues and intentions were written as prose they wouldn't come out smelling of roses.

[Tiki]

In ASOIAF we view characters through their own private inner thoughts. I'm pretty sure if some of the self-righteous liberals on here's honest inner monologues and intentions were written as prose they wouldn't come out smelling of roses.

How on earth do we judge non-POV characters then?

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

In ASOIAF we view characters through their own private inner thoughts. I'm pretty sure if some of the self-righteous liberals on here's honest inner monologues and intentions were written as prose they wouldn't come out smelling of roses.

Grinning from ear to ear.

Also if every one of the self righteous conservatives inner monologue was written out I'm pretty sure their shit would stink just as bad. The point being Human nature is not as humane as we would like to think and many people are morally vague and self serving in spite of the image they portray publicly.