Judging ASOIAF people with modern morals

[E-Ro]

Aren't you the like the chief Stannis cheerleader? Unless you are a sick bastard (by today's standards) I doubt your moral compass is substantially aligned with that of Stannis. Remember he burns people alive, wanted to burn a child alive, cut Davos' fingers of even though he saved him etc etc I'm sure your aware of what Stannis does and I am also sure that you don't judge him based on your sense of morality.

Motive and intention also factors into it allot, I understand the reasons stannis does the things that he does, the reason why he is so strict. The same goes for a guy like ned, ned beheads people who break the law. I don't support capitol punishment but ned really doesn't have a choice in the matter, its his job.

[Frozentree]

Middle Eastern morality isn't modern morality. It's morality from a medieval book.

Really guys, it's exactly like Westerosi morals, almost. Marrying off your daughters, being sexist, chopping the heads off people, hands off thieves, and so on. It doesn't belong in modern morality and I'm appalled that people are actually defending it.

We are not defending it, we are just being realistic. If I say that innocents dying during war is common, I am not saying it is all right to kill them, I am just acknowledging it happens and am not making statements like "but it is wrong and archaic and thus does not count"

[Penguin king]

I personally don't consider the Middle Eastern and African countries we have today for modern morals. Just look at the Western world instead.

So what makes one country's morals more modern than another's? Is a more recent moral development always better? There are on going attempts to transform Turkey from a secluar democracy to an islamic state. which of the two value systems is the modern one? Likewise in Russia laws are being passed to increase discrimination against homosexuals. These laws are a recent development, so does that make them more modern? How can you reconcile that with increased tollerance to gays, and increased marriage rights in other parts of the world? Can two contradictory moral judgements both be modern? If not then how do you decide what "modern morality" is? Is it just the set of moral values that you personally subscribe to?

[E-Ro]

This thread is going so well.

[FuriousGeorge]

Motive and intention also factors into it allot, I understand the reasons stannis does the things that he does, the reason why he is so strict. The same goes for a guy like ned, ned beheads people who break the law. I don't support capitol punishment but ned really doesn't have a choice in the matter, its his job.

Exactly so you don't use a modern moral standard to judge him then do you. You understand the decisions and choices he makes within his own moral framework.

[jons nissa]

I think you're a troll, because I'm personally offended that you're actually defending Middle Eastern morals as modern. I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

you're offended that i find your support of western civilization as the benchmark for morals questionnable and i'm the troll? however your position has really driven the point home that morality is hardly a given. carry on.

[Tiki]

We are not defending it, we are just being realistic. If I say that innocents dying during war is common, I am not saying it is all right to kill them, I am just acknowledging it happens and am not making statements like "but it is wrong and archaic and thus does not count"

I think archaic is the opposite of modern, isn't it? So by definition I'm not considering it.

And it is kinda archaic. It's from 1500 years ago.

[James Sucellus]

I judge characters based on MY morals, yes. How else am i supposed to judge them?

If a character commits numerous acts that are considered by me to be bad, then chances are I am really not going to like said character.

Why do people only like characters that remind them of their own morals? It strikes me as incredibly narcissistic.

I like characters if I find them interesting. I don't agree with the actions of Ramsay Bolton but I think he's brilliant to read, as is Theon. Roose Bolton is one of my absolute favourite characters, along with Melisandre who I also disagree with. I found Joffrey absolutely hilarious and was sad when he died.

Game of Thrones TV show version of Shae is a nice person and I wish Tyrion had strangled her right there in the camp during Season 1. Being nice doesn't make a character likeable.

[E-Ro]

Exactly so you don't use a modern moral standard to judge him then do you. You understand the decisions and choices he makes within his own moral framework.

Oh no, you misunderstand. I don't support burning people alive, or mutilation of criminals. Those things are bad, and i haven't ever defended them. I just get over them, because the good he does far outweighs the bad he does.

Why do people only like characters that remind them of their own morals? It strikes me as incredibly narcissistic.

Oh well yes, i am a horrible narcissist.

[Tiki]

Oh no, you misunderstand. I don't support burning people alive, or mutilation of criminals. Those things are bad, and i haven't ever defended them. I just get over them, because the good he does far outweighs the bad he does.

What good does he do exactly?

[jons nissa]

This thread is going so well.

that's to be expected, e-ro. it always happens when posters assume their view of right and wrong is "the" view. we already experienced it with butterbump's thread on morality and she was actually posting intelligent and non-judgmental comments. (where is butter, for that matter? :P )

in the end, the debate of how to read a book can only ever be a debate. people will always apply their own lens on what they read. expecting anything else is not taking into account how we read.

[WildBlood]

If anyone really tries to hold characters of a piece of fictional work to any standard moral code is doing themselves a serious injustice in their enjoyment of said work. The book is fiction and should be treated as such. If you have a problem reading about characters that are morally grey then you should put these books down and move on.

[E-Ro]

What good does he do exactly?

Saving the north from wildlings, actually caring about westeros and wanting to protect the realm from the others and winter, fighting to preserve the law so that there is order and not anarchy, etc.

[FuriousGeorge]

Oh no, you misunderstand. I don't support burning people alive, or mutilation of criminals. Those things are bad, and i haven't ever defended them. I just get over them, because the good he does far outweighs the bad he does.

No I don't think I have misunderstood actually. You said you judge characters based on your own moral code and that if someone behaves in a way that goes against that moral code it is not likely that you will think well of that character. Assuming that you are from the 'West' (I only say this because a broadly Western moral code is the only one I am familiar with and is what I assume people are talking about when they say 'modern moral code') , I don't think it is possible to reconcile this way of judging characters with a love of Stannis.

[James Sucellus]

If anyone really tries to hold characters of a piece of fictional work to any standard moral code is doing themselves a serious injustice in their enjoyment of said work. The book is fiction and should be treated as such. If you have a problem reading about characters that are morally grey then you should put these books down and move on.

This.

I'm shocked there aren't more ASOIAF fans that understand this. We seriously have a thread proclaiming Tyrion to be a "goodie", and people declaring Stannis a "hero". I love Stannis but he's obviously not a hero. This series is so much more complicated and interesting than that.

[Tiki]

that's to be expected, e-ro. it always happens when posters assume their view of right and wrong is "the" view.

I never said that. I said that I don't consider archaic moral views because they're.... not modern. I must only be considering my view as a result, right?

No. I consider, as Furious George puts it, a "broadly Western moral code." It's a very broad view, so it considers as many viewpoints as possible.

1. Killing is wrong.

2. Marrying off your daughters and arranging marriages is wrong.

3. Stealing is wrong.

4. Sexism is wrong.

5. Discrimination is wrong.

And so on. We all don't agree on the finer points, and that's fine--I'm not encouraging anyone here to take my view and my view only. That's nothing more than a lie and a strawman. The modern morals that I have in mind are very broad and accepting.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

If you have a problem reading about characters that are morally grey then you should put these books down and move on.

I don't think anyone here expressed any problems with reading about morally grey characters as such -- it's just that some people can't stand that the moral greyness is acknowledged, analyzed or talked about, which is why they try to push dogmas like "you can't talk about morality" or this new variation of "if you talk about morality, you have to forget who you are, who the author is or who the intended audience is".

It doesn't appear as if these people enjoy the books any less though, even though I do feel that they might miss half of the layers of the story if they have to regress a few hundred years to talk about the books.

[E-Ro]

No I don't think I have misunderstood actually. You said you judge characters based on your own moral code and that if someone behaves in a way that goes against that moral code it is not likely that you will think well of that character. Assuming that you are from the 'West' (I only say this because a broadly Western moral code is the only one I am familiar with and is what I assume people are talking about when they say 'modern moral code') , I don't think it is possible to reconcile this way of judging characters with a love of Stannis.

Like i said, I support stannis for westeros because he is the best option out of a selection of complete and utter shit. His harsh punishments are the worst aspect of his character, but compared to the other factions vying for the throne he is a saint. I dont support the way he deals out justice(or the way ANY westerosi lord does it) Just like most other characters, he has done bad things, but he has also done a whole lot of good, so I think he should rule westeros.

I don't think anyone here expressed any problems with reading about morally grey characters, just some people can't stand that the moral greyness is acknowledged, analyzed or talked about, which is why they try to push dogmas like "you can't talk about morality" or this new variation of "if you talk about morality, you have to forget who you are, who the author is or who the intended audience is". It doesn't appear like these people enjoy the books any less though, even though I feel they might miss half of the layers of the story.

:agree: Well said dornishmans wife, well said.

[WildBlood]

I never said that. I said that I don't consider archaic moral views because they're.... not modern. I must only be considering my view as a result, right?

No. I consider, as Furious George puts it, a "broadly Western moral code." It's a very broad view, so it considers as many viewpoints as possible.

1. Killing is wrong.

2. Marrying off your daughters and arranging marriages is wrong.

3. Stealing is wrong.

4. Sexism is wrong.

5. Discrimination is wrong.

And so on. We all don't agree on the finer points, and that's fine--I'm not encouraging anyone here to take my view and my view only. That's nothing more than a lie and a strawman. The modern morals that I have in mind are very broad and accepting.

If you assume those 5 things as your 'moral code' then I seriously have to ask... What books do you actually enjoy reading where you aren't constantly judging characters instead of indulging in the story?

[Tiki]

If you assume those 5 things as your 'moral code' then I seriously have to ask... What books do you actually enjoy reading where you aren't constantly judging characters instead of indulging in the story?

I said so on. =_=