Reexamining Ned's good

[LordStoneheart]

I don't recall Balon stealing Lyanna away from Robert, as that is the major reason that he hated the Targaryens.

Point taken, I'm wrong to suggest that. Robert probably wouldn't have been as harsh as I thought at first. Still, I think he would've had some sort of say in what happened to Theon. Ned may have defeated the Ironborn with the northern army, but it was Robert's name they had to kneel to.

I have no idea why you keep mentioning the idea that Ned was only taking Theon hostage because of the ethics of Westeros, because it has no bearing at all on anything. You also conveniently ignored my reply. There's no evidence that taking people hostage was okay in Westeros.

Yes there is. There is so much more evidence that it is okay than not okay. Starting with the actual story we read, and ending with George himself in The Polite Fiction video. But perhaps "hostage" is too general of a term for you. Lets say Noble-Born Hostage. That is the established and accepted practice in Westeros, and when behaviors and practices are accepted in a society, that's where the moral line starts to be defined.

I mention that because it has an absolute bearing on judging Ned. For his society, this world that is not our own, taking Theon is something that is acceptable morally. I'm all for characters that are grey, and Ned has his shades and flaws, but you're using the generalization "Theon was a hostage" to try and convince people to like Ned less.

[Nephenee]

There is so much more evidence that it is okay than not okay.

What's this evidence? Robb killed his kin, as did Tyrion, but just because people often do something doesn't mean it's not ethically wrong. We see rape all the time, but that doesn't mean it's not ethically wrong, even in Westeros time.

[LordStoneheart]

What's this evidence? Robb killed his kin, as did Tyrion, but just because people often do something doesn't mean it's not ethically wrong. We see rape all the time, but that doesn't mean it's not ethically wrong, even in Westeros time.

I already answered that so I won't even respond to it.

Rape is not the same thing and you know it. Men are punished for rape in the society, depending on the situtation. War is different. There's too much chaos to really control it.

I am not saying "because it happens a lot its alright." I don't know how you interpretted it as that. I said its an accepted practice among the high lords. And how did you bring Robb and Tyrion into this? First off, Robb never killed his kin. If you're referring to Karstark, he executed a traitor. That's also debatable but no one but Karstark himself called him a kinslayer. Tyrion's killing of Tywin was a completely different situation and motive from anything we've discussed so its not comparable.

[danm_999]

I'm endlessly amused someone who wrote this;

There's infinitely many situations in which murdering an innocent child is justified.

Creates a topic attempting to problematise the morality of Ned's actions - re-examine 'Ned's good' because he took a ward.

[Nephenee]

I already answered that so I won't even respond to it.

Rape is not the same thing and you know it. Men are punished for rape in the society, depending on the situtation. War is different. There's too much chaos to really control it.

I am not saying "because it happens a lot its alright." I don't know how you interpretted it as that. I said its an accepted practice among the high lords. And how did you bring Robb and Tyrion into this? First off, Robb never killed his kin. If you're referring to Karstark, he executed a traitor. That's also debatable but no one but Karstark himself called him a kinslayer. Tyrion's killing of Tywin was a completely different situation and motive from anything we've discussed so its not comparable.

What on earth makes you think it's accepted, other than the fact that people do it often?

[WastingSickness]

What on earth makes you think it's accepted, other than the fact that people do it often?

It's the fact people do it often, combined with the fact they suffer no persecution, attempts at retribution, or negative consequences of any kind. And the fact it is expected whenever a truce is signed. You are being disingenuous.

There is no need to insist that hostage-taking is somehow illicit if all you want to argue is that Ned's morals are suspect. All you have to show is that it is immoral, a less demanding claim. As a moral person, Ned should have trouble accepting hostage-taking on purely pragmatic merits. Start from there.

[shearstone]

If you really think Ned would have taken Theons head because of his fathers actions, then you should pay closer attention to the text my friend. Neds time is defined by children. He defies Robert twice to try save children, and swallows his own and his Houses honor to save more. That the man would behead a child in his care whom he raised as his own, is not really feasible IMHO

I don't know what Ned would have done I bet not even Ned would have known the mountain clans in Dance show us what happens if the father misbehaves whilst the son is a hostage and after Jon takes his hostages and talks to the clansmen he reassures them by telling them he's Ned Starks son. What's the point of taking a hostage if your enemy doesn't believe you'll harm then if you rebel again? If Robert gave the order for Theon's head Ned would be very conflicted and I think that conflict of what might come to pass having Theon as a ward/hostage is why Ned was percieved to be distant by Theon.

[danm_999]

Six, and sickly, and Lord of the Eyrie, gods have mercy,” the king swore. “Lord Tywin had never taken a ward before. Lysa ought to have been honored. The Lannisters are a great and noble House.

I was speaking of your sister. I proposed that Lord and Lady Arryn foster two of my grandsons at court, and offered to take their own son to ward here at the Twins. Are my grandsons unworthy to be seen at the king’s court?

The younger boys will be fostered out as squires. If they serve well and loyally, they may be knights in time. Let it never be said that House Lannister does not reward those who serve it.

All of which will only salt Lord Walder’s wounds. It has always rankled him that older houses look down on the Freys as upstarts. This insult is not the first he’s borne, to hear him tell it. Jon Arryn was disinclined to foster his grandsons.

Lady Waynwood sighed. “Lord Petyr, if you think to set us one against the other, you may spare yourself the effort. We speak with one voice here. Runestone suits us all. Lord Yohn raised three fine sons of his own, there is no man more fit to foster his young lordship.

It was not until they were back at Horn Hill that his mother told Sam that his father had never meant for him to return. “Horas was to come with us in your place, whilst you remained on the Arbor as Lord Paxter’s page and cupbearer. If you had pleased him, you would have been betrothed to his daughter.”

I’ll send your wife to join you, if you like. If her child is a boy, he will serve House Lannister as a page and a squire, and when he earns his knighthood we’ll bestow some lands upon him. Should

Roslin give you a daughter, I’ll see her well dowered when she’s old enough to wed. You yourself may even be granted parole, once the war is done. All you need do is yield the castle.

I have four sons. Would you consider one of them instead? Ben is twelve and thirsty for adventure. He could squire for you if it please my lord.”

“I have more squires than I know what to do with. Every time I take a piss, they fight for the right to hold my cock.

“How many daughters do you have, my lord?” Jaime asked him. “Five. Two by my first wife and three by my third.” Too late, he seemed to realize that he might have said too much.

“Send one of them to court. She will have the privilege of attending the Queen Regent.”

Yes, Daenerys thought, and so am I. “We must keep them safe as well. I will have two children from each of them. From the other pyramids as well. A boy and a girl.”

“Hostages,” said Skahaz, happily. “Pages and cupbearers. If the Great Masters make objection, explain to them that in Westeros it is a great honor for a child to be chosen to serve at court.”

Jon gave the boy a close inspection. Bran’s age, or the age he would have been if Theon had not killed him. Dryn had none of Bran’s sweetness, though. He was a chunky boy, with short legs, thick arms,

and a wide red face—a miniature version of his father, with a shock of dark brown hair. “He’ll serve as my own page,” Jon promised Tormund.

“Hear that, Dryn? See that you don’t get above yourself.”

But once my innocence is proved, it would please me if Taena Merryweather might attend me once again. She could bring her son to court. Tommen needs other boys about him, friends of noble birth.” It was a modest request. Ser Kevan saw no reason why it should not be granted. He could foster the Merryweather boy himself, whilst Lady Taena accompanied Cersei back to Casterly Rock.

[Nephenee]

I'm endlessly amused someone who wrote this;

Creates a topic attempting to problematise the morality of Ned's actions - re-examine 'Ned's good' because he took a ward.

Lol at your petty ad hominem attack. But I stand by what I said earlier--you simply do not understand it. Let me explain it to you clearly: there are infinitely many extreme situations in which murdering a child can be morally justified (and, indeed, if there are infinitely many situations of one kind, then it follows that there are infinitely many situations). Generally, murdering a child cannot be justified. However, murdering a child can be morally justified to prevent the murder of 3 other children, or 4, or 5, and so on ad infinitum, for example. In fact, you'd have to be intellectually challenged to not see that.

combined with the fact they suffer no persecution, attempts at retribution, or negative consequences of any kind.

And none of the rapists in Westeros suffer any persecution, either.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How many times does this have to be said? Why are all of you so logically incompetent that you cannot see that you are committing the most basic logical fallacy there is?

[Nephenee]

I'm not sure if you guys are intentionally acting to get on my nerves, but there's a reason why slavery is wrong--and it's because it takes away a person's freedom. Why does Dany call her Unsullied "freed men?" Because Westerosi morals care about freedom. And taking someone hostage is denying their freedom.

People in Westeros are corrupt pieces of shit. People get away with rape all the time, and various other crimes.

I'm completely appalled at how the people here are so uneducated in logic and it really upsets me to see people so incapable of thinking rationally.

[ab aeterno]

Lol at your petty ad hominem attack. But I stand by what I said earlier--you simply do not understand it. Let me explain it to you clearly: there are infinitely many extreme situations in which murdering a child can be morally justified (and, indeed, if there are infinitely many situations of one kind, then it follows that there are infinitely many situations). Generally, murdering a child cannot be justified. However, murdering a child can be morally justified to prevent the murder of 3 other children, or 4, or 5, and so on ad infinitum, for example. In fact, you'd have to be intellectually challenged to not see that.

There are a small number of philosophers who might agree with you, though most who would consider it would most likely select "rationalized" as the descriptor, rather than justified. At any rate, contrary to your apparent assertion, this type of utilitarian judgement if far from uncontested.

And none of the rapists in Westeros suffer any persecution, either.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How many times does this have to be said? Why are all of you so logically incompetent that you cannot see that you are committing the most basic logical fallacy there is?

Impressive. You accuse someone of ad ad hominem attack and then make an ad hominem attack. You're also accusing people of fallacious logic when you yourself are asking them to commit a fallacy: you're asking them to prove that wards/fostering/hostage taking are not a crime where, in fact, the burden to demonstrate that they are falls upon you.

[Nephenee]

There are a small number of philosophers who might agree with you, though most who would consider it would most likely select "rationalized" as the descriptor, rather than justified. At any rate, contrary to your apparent assertion, this type of utilitarian judgement if far from uncontested.

Impressive. You accuse someone of ad ad hominem attack and then make an ad hominem attack. You're also accusing people of fallacious logic when you yourself are asking them to commit a fallacy: you're asking them to prove that wards/fostering/hostage taking are not a crime where, in fact, the burden to demonstrate that they are falls upon you.

Which is better: the murder of one child vs the murder of three children? Any philosopher is obviously going to agree with the latter. This isn't just a utilitarian viewpoint; it's common sense, period.

Why does the burden fall upon me? In a society where taking away people's freedom is frowned upon (see Dany's "freed men") it's merely rational that taking people hostage would also be morally frowned upon.

And I tried to have a proper debate with these people prior to their ad hominem attacks. It's clear to me that having a proper debate is impossible. Notice that I never used an ad hominem attack first.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

Something I believe hasn't been brought up yet , is the similarity to Ned volunteering to execute Lady . He felt like he was the one that could carry out the most clean and "undishonorabe" punishment with the most respect, which he thought was the least the victim deserved. I think it was exactly the same with Theon. The Lords that put down the rebellion insisted that Theon had to be given away as a ward/hostage, and Ned thought that with him Theoun would ahve to suffer the least, because of the same reasons that he thought "qualified" him to execute Lady. He didn't want Theon to be taken by Tywin or someone else as he didn't want Lady to be butchered by some of Joffreys men (Ilyn).

Yet no one in their right mind accuses him for misstreating or abandoning Lady.

If anything, Ned's treatment of Theon confirms our picture of him as a man who can and will make hard choices and tries to find the most honorable and kind, mercifull way under the harshest sircumstances. Stop trying to accuse The Ned.

[ab aeterno]

I'm not sure if you guys are intentionally acting to get on my nerves, but there's a reason why slavery is wrong--and it's because it takes away a person's freedom. Why does Dany call her Unsullied "freed men?" Because Westerosi morals care about freedom. And taking someone hostage is denying their freedom.

People in Westeros are corrupt pieces of shit. People get away with rape all the time, and various other crimes.

I'm completely appalled at how the people here are so uneducated in logic and it really upsets me to see people so incapable of thinking rationally.

You may want to consider, in the interest of logic, rationality, humility and the spirit of honest debate, that when everyone disagrees with you, the issue may not be their reasoning, but your own.

Which is better: the murder of one child vs the murder of three children? Any philosopher is obviously going to agree with the latter. This isn't just a utilitarian viewpoint; it's common sense, period.

It is a utilitarian viewpoint because it presupposes that the moral judgement comes from the greater good; that is to say, that "what is better murdering one child, or three," is not the issue for many philosophers. Many philosophers would say that actively murdering one child is worse than passively allowing three to die. Similarly, most would likely argue that neither is justified.

Of course, the example you give above is a false dichotomy where you have specified murder in both cases, meaning that, of course, almost anyone would agree that murdering one child is not as severe as murdering three, but neither is necessary and both are entirely beyond justification.

You also might want to consider that you appear to have an unhealthy fascination with murdering children, as it has come up in at least three of your threads now.

Why does the burden fall upon me? In a society where taking away people's freedom is frowned upon (see Dany's "freed men") it's merely rational that taking people hostage would also be morally frowned upon.

Yet all evidence shows that it is not. Hostage taking is not the same as slavery, and hostage taking is far from the only situation in Westeros where people lose their freedom. The Night's Watch is another example and so is a jail sentence. You've been provided with a great deal of evidence for why hostage taking is accepted, but you're asking people to prove that it isn't illegal, but there is no suggestion within the books that it is illegal. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but in the absence of evidence to controvert everyone else's position, the burden falls upon you to provide evidence for why all the evidence in the books (that they have provided to support their own position,) is wrong. You're asking people now to prove that you aren't right, rather than proving why you are.

And I tried to have a proper debate with these people prior to their ad hominem attacks. It's clear to me that having a proper debate is impossible.

Most people seem to manage to have proper debates, but you keep making threads that come back to justifying killing children, or using dubious arguments to assert the morality of heinous acts or other things generally not supported by the text. There is no way for people to properly engage with you when you make these arguments.

[Nephenee]

You may want to consider, in the interest of logic, rationality, humility and the spirit of honest debate, that when everyone disagrees with you, the issue may not be their reasoning, but your own.

Facepalm. Another basic fallacy.

Similarly, most would argue that neither is justified.

I think it's pretty clear that one choice or the other has to be morally justified. That's what ethics does, doesn't it? It tells us which action is the right one to take. And I don't see how actively committing murder is any different than allowing people to get murdered--I give no importance to the means by which something is caused, because the end result is completely the same.

Yet all evidence shows that it is not. Hostage taking is not the same as slavery, and hostage taking is far from the only situation in Westeros where people lose their freedom. The Night's Watch is another example and so is a jail sentence. You've been provided with a great deal of evidence for why hostage taking is accepted, but you're asking people to prove that it isn't illegal, but there is no suggestion within the books that it is illegal. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but in the absence of evidence to controvert everyone else's position, the burden falls upon you to provide evidence.

There is no suggestion, as far as I can remember, within the books that rape is illegal, either. There is also no suggestion within the books that pixies exist, either. But I see no reason to believe such silly claims.

There's also a great deal of evidence for why all other crimes are accepted, too. For example, despite it being illegal to murder people and burn houses down into the ground, it's perfectly okay for the Lannisters to do it to King's Landing, and so on. It's perfectly okay to "sack" towns, despite it being illegal. There's obviously a difference between what is morally frowned upon and a difference between how people act. People cheat on their spouses all the time in Westeros even though it's morally frowned upon.

[LordStoneheart]

Ned's treatment of Theon confirms our picture of him as a man who can and will make hard choices and tries to find the most honorable and kind, mercifull way under the harshest sircumstances. Stop trying to accuse The Ned.

This I agree with.

I'm not sure if you guys are intentionally acting to get on my nerves, but there's a reason why slavery is wrong--and it's because it takes away a person's freedom. Why does Dany call her Unsullied "freed men?" Because Westerosi morals care about freedom. And taking someone hostage is denying their freedom.

People in Westeros are corrupt pieces of shit. People get away with rape all the time, and various other crimes.

I'm completely appalled at how the people here are so uneducated in logic and it really upsets me to see people so incapable of thinking rationally.

This I don't. You're horrible at logic, but feel free to keep trying to use it. It's endlessly amusing.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Wall? Perhaps does Dareon rings a bell? Hmm... how did he end up on the Wall... Oh yeah, he was accused of rape. Accused. I don't understand how you think rape is completely unpunishable in Westeros, but you're completely wrong in that aspect and I have to call into question your knowledge. Did you skip every Jon Snow chapter and paragraph about the Wall? Its basically just a prison camp in the people's eyes.

Also, is it Jaime's pushing of Bran that you're defending while criticizing Ned for something that many of us have proven you wrong about? Jaime may have acted to save Cersei, his children, his own ass, but it was to protect his various crimes and not morally justifiable.

[danm_999]

Lol at your petty ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem would mean I'm attacking your person. I'm attacking your moral arguments.

But I stand by what I said earlier--you simply do not understand it.

My comprehension of your argument isn't the issue. The problem is precisely I, and everybody else in the thread, got what you were saying.

Let me explain it to you clearly: there are infinitely many extreme situations in which murdering a child can be morally justified (and, indeed, if there are infinitely many situations of one kind, then it follows that there are infinitely many situations). Generally, murdering a child cannot be justified. However, murdering a child can be morally justified to prevent the murder of 3 other children, or 4, or 5, and so on ad infinitum, for example. In fact, you'd have to be intellectually challenged to not see that.

Charming. FYI, this is an example of an ad hominem.

As your argument, it seems to be one largely rejected as moral by even the harsh morality of the series itself;

“Your Grace,” said Davos, “the cost . . .”

“I know the cost! Last night, gazing into that hearth, I saw things in the flames as well. I saw a king, a crown of fire on his brows, burning . . . burning, Davos. His own crown consumed his flesh and turned him into ash. Do you think I need Melisandre to tell me what that means?

Or you?” The king moved, so his shadow fell upon King’s Landing. “If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?”

“Everything,” said Davos, softly.

In fact, your argument almost exactly mirrors another character's:

Melisandre said, “Azor Ahai tempered Lightbringer with the heart’s blood of his own beloved wife. If a man with a thousand cows gives one to god, that is nothing. But a man who offers the only cow he owns . . .”

“She talks of cows,” Davos told the king. “I am speaking of a boy, your daughter’s friend, your brother’s son.”

“A king’s son, with the power of kingsblood in his veins.” Melisandre’s ruby glowed like a red star at her throat. “Do you think you’ve saved this boy, Onion Knight? When the long night falls, Edric Storm shall die with the rest, wherever he is hidden. Your own sons as well. Darkness and cold will cover the earth. You meddle in matters you do not understand.”

“There’s much I don’t understand,” Davos admitted. “I have never pretended elsewise. I know the seas and rivers, the shapes of the coasts, where the rocks and shoals lie. I know hidden coves where a boat can land unseen. And I know that a king protects his people, or he is no king at all.”

Who does the story vindicate? Melisandre, with her desire to murder Edric Storm for the supposed good of all, or Davos Seaworth, who argues that the life of a single innocent is everything. Whose guidance and actions end up saving the realm?

Spoiler alert; it's Davos.

[danm_999]

Facepalm. Another basic fallacy.

In some circumstances, a person may argue that the fact that most people believes X implies that X is false. This line of thought is closely related to the ad hominem, appeal to emotion, poisoning the well, and guilt by association fallacies given that it invokes a person's contempt for the general populace or something about the general populace in order to persuade them that most are wrong about X. The ad populum reversal commits the same logical flaw as the original fallacy given that the idea "X is true" is inherently separate from the idea that "Most people believe X".

[ab aeterno]

Facepalm. Another basic fallacy.

No, that's not what I said. What I said was that you may want to consider it. I explicitly did not say that the fact that more people disagree with you means you are wrong. What I said is that you might want to consider that you are not infallible; Occam's Razor suggests that in such a disagreement, it is more likely that your reasoning is wrong, rather than the reasoning utilized by everyone else. I once again did not say that you are wrong because more people believe a differing viewpoint, but that in the interests of debate you may want to consider the possibility that there might be something notable in the fact that everyone else disagrees with you. You are, after all, accusing them of flawed reasoning.

I think it's pretty clear that one choice or the other has to be morally justified. That's what ethics does, doesn't it? It tells us which action is the right one to take. And I don't see how actively committing murder is any different than allowing people to get murdered--I give no importance to the means by which something is caused, because the end result is completely the same.

I think you may want to spend more time studying philosophy and ethics. Your opinion is your own, but the highlighted sentence, for a start, is entirely wrong by most estimations. It's a false dichotomy (a logical fallacy,) and no, that often isn't what ethics does. The purpose of ethics is in part to determine what is right, but ethics is an entirely debatable field and makes few objective conclusions - in many cases many ethicists don't even take absolutist stands.

As to to the latter part, you may want to consider the Trolley Problem thought experiment.

And, again, the end result absolutely is not completely the same. That is a gross oversimplification.

There is no suggestion, as far as I can remember, within the books that rape is illegal, either. There is also no suggestion within the books that pixies exist, either. But I see no reason to believe such silly claims.

Firstly, there is a great deal of evidence that rape is illegal, given how rapists are hung, gelded, sent to the Wall and otherwise punished.

Secondly, I'm not sure how this pixies idea fits with your wider argument? All you have done is use an example to restate that the burden of proof is on the believer.

There's also a great deal of evidence for why all other crimes are accepted, too. For example, despite it being illegal to murder people and burn houses down into the ground, it's perfectly okay for the Lannisters to do it to King's Landing, and so on. It's perfectly okay to "sack" towns, despite it being illegal. There's obviously a difference between what is morally frowned upon and a difference between how people act. People cheat on their spouses all the time in Westeros even though it's morally frowned upon.

Giving a couple of examples is not a great deal of evidence for "all" crimes being accepted. Secondly, acts committed during wartime do not tend to be punished in the same way as crimes committed during peacetime, especially when committed by the victorious faction. Hostage taking, to various extents, occurs during peacetime as well as wartime, and there is no evidence that it is frowned upon or illegal.

[ab aeterno]

Lol at your petty ad hominem attack. But I stand by what I said earlier--you simply do not understand it. Let me explain it to you clearly: there are infinitely many extreme situations in which murdering a child can be morally justified (and, indeed, if there are infinitely many situations of one kind, then it follows that there are infinitely many situations). Generally, murdering a child cannot be justified. However, murdering a child can be morally justified to prevent the murder of 3 other children, or 4, or 5, and so on ad infinitum, for example. In fact, you'd have to be intellectually challenged to not see that.

I feel that it is worth noting (explicitly,) that this argument defeats your wider argument. Taking one person hostage can be morally justified to prevent the deaths of a thousand, five thousand, or ten thousand, etc. It uses the same logic, but is more justifiable my many degrees because it is not a question of outright murder.