Judging ASOIAF people with modern morals

[Tommens Cat]

I love how people pop in and say things like "you can't possibly be enjoying the books if you consider morality." Um, thanks for telling people what they can and can't enjoy? Many people enjoy reading as a thought-provoking exercise. Many people enjoy engaging actively, and critically (analytically) with texts!

I agree. To each his own. Gods! If everyone had the same ideals how boring would our world be?

[WildBlood]

I love how people pop in and say things like "you can't possibly be enjoying the books if you consider morality." Um, thanks for telling people what they can and can't enjoy? Many people enjoy reading as a thought-provoking exercise. Many people enjoy engaging actively, and critically (analytically) with texts!

Nothing like taking quotes out of context, eh?

I simply stated that if you hold fictional characters to your real-world code of ethics, you will always find something wrong.

And FWIW, I asked 'How' not 'You can't be...'

[Summerqueen]

Nothing like taking quotes out of context, eh?

I simply stated that if you hold fictional characters to your real-world code of ethics, you will always find something wrong.

And FWIW, I asked 'How' not 'You can't be...'

There you have it, then. Many readers enjoy the complexity and do not passively receive a text.

[FuriousGeorge]

The killing to attain power is so that he can save the realm. Its not as if he just wants power for the sake of it.

Ramsay tortures and does horrible horrible things for the fun of it, there is no reason. He is just a sicko

I'm struggling to see how this is an explanation of why one is more morally acceptable than the other? Also why would you include a quote that emphasises the fact that Stannis is doing some of the things he is doing because he has been convinced by some charlatan crazy woman that he is the reincarnation of a saviour?

[Ser Not Appearing]

I've stated a few times that I find it strange when people attribute modern conceptions of morality/ethics to Westeros.

To avoid re-typing it all...

... (should not) morality in the world of Westeros ... be interpreted and discussed by readers in a way that holds true to the world created and written? Does not the suspension of disbelief go hand in hand with an adoption of non-westernized / thoroughly unmodern perspectives on life an liberty?

I seek no insertion of the 21st century into this novel (or any other time-specific historical or forward looking work of fiction), find that avoiding such provides more insight into the world created and believe it to be the truer and more immersive way for an audience (me) to filter the story.

I tend to think that a good author (I consider GRRM to be one) creates a world with enough depth and detail that morality and justice are explained and justified in the text. Certainly, writing a good story is almost like teaching and a good teacher tailors any message or lesson to the capacity and understanding of the student (readers in this case), thus my sensibilities are inherent in my interpretation of what an author is trying to say. But as a student, if I am truly trying to understand the world created, the more I am able to leave my own world and perspective behind and "opt-in" to the world created... the more likely I am to gain a fuller understanding of the teacher's intent.

This is largely why I believe that looking to the world of Westeros is the most appropriate reference for morality of something that happens to a character. If an author wrote a book, for instance, wherein the Devil was truly good (albiet misunderstood) and God was the true trickster... or the play Wicked which seeks to humanize and create sympathy for the Wicked Witch... or even POVs from ASoIaF that seek to humanize characters like Jamie... if I am truly to understand what the author is trying to teach - I have to "opt-in" and believe in that perspective as presented. I have to assume that Jamie's thoughts are his real beliefs and what I used to think his motivations were is no longer as relevant.

If I am to suspend disbelief, I have to suspend such things as cause disbelief. Those things often include my own perspectives on right and wrong.

[TheMysteriousOne]

I judge the characters in ASOIAF, the way I would judge anyone else today; by their actions and choices, intentions and the circumstances surrounding the former. GRRM wrote this story for contemporary readers, and as such we should the judge the characters accordingly.

[The Holy Goat]

I try to mainly judge them based on the morals of the world they live in, though my own moras obviously influence my opinions somewhat. "Luckily" for me, I'm rather apathetic to the suffering of unnamed, undeveloped others and thus have no problem with shadier actions.

[Onna Lewyys]

I love how people pop in and say things like "you can't possibly be enjoying the books if you consider morality." Um, thanks for telling people what they can and can't enjoy? Many people enjoy reading as a thought-provoking exercise. Many people enjoy engaging actively, and critically (analytically) with texts!

I hope that's not aimed at me, because I agree with you. It is a thought-provoking exercise to read this series and challenge your own worldview through these characters. What bothers me (and I see it most often with show-watchers) is when people say things like, "I still don't like Jaime because he did X" or "Theon because he did Y." Of course everyone has the right to their own opinions, but to me it's obvious that a major point of the series is to explore moral ambiguity. It's why Martin lets people like Jaime and Cersei and Theon have POVs. So we can get inside their heads and understand them. If people don't want to do that, then, I'll say again, they're reading the wrong series.

[E-Ro]

I'm struggling to see how this is an explanation of why one is more morally acceptable than the other?

Im fast losing my patience with this. You don't see how committing one horrible act to save millions is more morally acceptable then committing numerous horrible acts just for the fuck of it? Sorry broseph, but its not on me to explain this to you, if you don't understand that there is nothing i can say.

Also why would you include a quote that emphasises the fact that Stannis is doing some of the things he is doing because he has been convinced by some charlatan crazy woman that he is the reincarnation of a saviour?

Because he has seen her power in action and it is very real. She managed to kill renly and penrose, and as far as he knows she killed three rival kings.

[Chaircat Meow]

Yea, of course I judge actions by the standards and norms of westeros. The Ned was apparently prepared to execute an ten year old innocent to keep the peace, (Theon Greyjoy) which would certainly be considered a moral abomination today. In their world, where hostages are an accepted part of war and security, we have to accept the fact that willingness to go through with this isn't really meant to reflect on the The Ned or make him a bad person. Once you accept this you have to re-calibrate a bit when assessing certain practices. Most things are the same though, murder, rape are known to be evil to everyone.

[Tiki]

Im fast losing my patience with this. You don't see how committing one horrible act to save millions is more morally acceptable then committing numerous horrible acts just for the fuck of it? Sorry broseph, but its not on me to explain this to you, if you don't understand that there is nothing i can say.

Because he has seen her power in action and it is very real. She managed to kill renly and penrose, and as far as he knows she killed three rival kings.

Save millions from what?

[E-Ro]

Save millions from what?

Ummm, the others, you know, the enemy that the whole story has been moving toward. did you even read the quotes i posted?

The darkness will devour them all she says. The night that never ends.

If I must sacrifice one child to the flames to save a million from the dark

[Summerqueen]

I hope that's not aimed at me, because I agree with you. It is a thought-provoking exercise to read this series and challenge your own worldview through these characters. What bothers me (and I see it most often with show-watchers) is when people say things like, "I still don't like Jaime because he did X" or "Theon because he did Y." Of course everyone has the right to their own opinions, but to me it's obvious that a major point of the series is to explore moral ambiguity. It's why Martin lets people like Jaime and Cersei and Theon have POVs. So we can get inside their heads and understand them. If people don't want to do that, then, I'll say again, they're reading the wrong series.

It wasn't aimed at you, though I do happen to disagree with your opinion here. If people can't dislike characters because they judge their actions as creating harm, upon what banner may they claim to dislike them that does generate your approval? I think that a reader holding harmful actions against a character is a perfectly legitimate reason to decrease a reader's affection. Understanding characters and their actions does not always generate compassion, which readers are, what, supposed to have in unlimited supply? Sometimes understanding simply makes a reader hope the character will own up to those mistakes and try to repair the damage caused.

[FuriousGeorge]

Im fast losing my patience with this. You don't see how committing one horrible act to save millions is more morally acceptable then committing numerous horrible acts just for the fuck of it? Sorry broseph, but its not on me to explain this to you, if you don't understand that there is nothing i can say.

Because he has seen her power in action and it is very real. She managed to kill renly and penrose, and as far as he knows she killed three rival kings.

I assure you your position sounds as absurd to me as mine does to you. Basically I don't think that what Stannis is doing can be described as saving millions of people, even if that is how he conceives of it.

[Tiki]

Ummm, the others, you know, the enemy that the whole story has been moving toward. did you even read the quotes i posted?

Burning people alive has nothing to do with saving millions of people.

[TheMysteriousOne]

Off topic but my main problem with the whole Stannis is Azor Ahai thing is Stannis' willingness to accept the role and believe that he is saving millions, when he hasn't even seen an Other or even a wight.

[E-Ro]

Burning people alive has nothing to do with saving millions of people.

Jesus christ. You know asoiaf is a fantasy book, and in fantasy there is such a thing as magic. An example of this magic would be a shadowbabey or a 700 foot tall wall made of ice. Now, melisandre has certain powers, and she can use those powers to do things. The way she gets her power is by burning people. So yes, in asoiaf burning someone alive can lead to saving millions of people because it can give you the power to fight the others.

It is very simple.

[TheMysteriousOne]

Burning people alive has nothing to do with saving millions of people.

Melisandre and Stannis burn criminals as sacrifices to R'hllor for his aid.

[rystine]

Why would a fair trial for the "deserter" be impossible? Maester Luwin could e.g. have acted as defense attorney. While he could have found two other lords to act as judges. Than even if he would have sentenced the person to execution he could have waited a month with the sentence and given the person time to present new evidence. It would be far from perfect. But it would at the very least be a big improvement.

I realize that the conversation has strayed beyond this, but I noticed this remark and the others you have made similar to this.

AFAIK, in modern legal settings if a person is accused of a crime and pleads guilty, then no trial takes place and the case goes immediately to sentencing, correct? Are there any countries that force a person who has admitted guilt to still stand trial?

So in the case of Gared's execution, since the man presumably admitted guilt for the crime of desertion in the course of the questioning, how is it unfair of Ned, even by modern standards to forgo a trial and proceed with sentencing? It doesn't really seem that different to modern judicial standards to me. Of course I'm no legal scholar.

[Ser Not Appearing]

As always, I could be missing something, given the length of time since I read all the books and was aware of interconnectedness of narratives throughout... but I have more of a problem with the idea that Ned or anyone else wouldn't consult the wall before an execution. This involves no need for modern morality or legal justice... it's just a matter of logic. Their system was detrimental.

Wouldn"t Mormont have preferred to question Gared? Yes. Why didn't he? Because Ned was... what... doning him a service by administering justice on his behalf? Apparently not. Gared's experiences would have been valuable knowledge for the wall.

There's also the matter of how Gared got past the wall, but that's another discussion entirely.