Jaime's pushing Bran out the window

[WildBlood]

Your 1st line in 1st paragraph is true.The second para not so.I do not think Bran was falling.That is so not true.

Bran almost fell but caught himself just before Jaime extended his hand to 'help'(push him)

[Nephenee]

Murder is something to be condemned without further reasoning, moreover child murder,

Just.. if you're going to live your life without finding explanations for why something is the way it is, then I don't think you're capable of reasoning at all.

Here is a reason why murder is to be condemned: because it denies a person the right to live, and a life is in and of itself extremely valuable, because a living being has abilities that other beings don't: the ability to have experiences, emotions, a personality, and so on. A rock cannot feel pain when it is destroyed, but a person can feel pain at the prospect of their destruction. And as human beings, pain is something we try our best to avoid.

Which is better: denying 5 people the right to live or 1 person? Any rational person would go with 5.

What do rational people think?

A 2013 survey in a paper by David Chalmers and David Bourget shows that 68% of professional philosophers would switch (sacrifice the one individual to save five lives) in the case of the Trolley Problem

It's quite amusing, and not surprising at all, that generally, more intelligent and educated people (philosophers) understand that murdering one person to save 5 lives is justified.

[Father of Hosts]

I don't think it's odd that Niklolaj found a way to justify Jaime's actions, because that's what actors have to do for their characters. I read interviews with actors all the time in which they're explaining and justifying horrible things their characters do... because they have to do that for themselves, in order to play those characters.

And it’s not that Jaime’s actions aren’t understandable – I can see where he’s coming from, why he did what he did. That doesn’t make it right or okay that he did it.

Spot on.

It's quite amusing, and not surprising at all, that generally, more intelligent and educated people (philosophers) understand that murdering one person to save 5 lives is justified.

Who says philosophers are intelligent? Besides other philosophers and first year philosophy students, of course.

[Nephenee]

Spot on.

Who says philosophers are intelligent? Besides other philosophers and first year philosophy students, of course.

Well, you need to be quite smart to get a PhD in philosophy, first off.

And you have to be sickeningly arrogant to think that you know what is right or wrong better than people who spend their lives and careers studying what is right or wrong. The vast majority of these people, who have proven themselves to be smart, and who have spent their lives studying what is right and what is wrong, agree with me.

It's incredibly funny to see the mob of uneducated people here talking about how I have a moral impediment when the vast majority of people who study their lives doing this stuff agree with me. I'm getting a major kick out of how irrational the vast majority of people are. It really is true that intelligence gets you bullied and shunned from society. People don't like it when you think on another level from them.

[Lux Umbar]

If anybody thinks Jaime pushed Bran out the window to prevent a war he's severely delusional. It was strictly to cover his and Cersei's guilt. He never had time to consider war, the kids, or anything else. He went from full-throttle lust to CYA mode in two or three seconds, no time for reflection.

As others have said, this topic has been done to death. Total lack of originality.

This.

The OP's series of progressively unlikely assumptions apply neither to Jamie nor to ordinary readers. Therefore, no one's guilty of ignoring this "crucial fact."

[The Dornishman's Wife]

And you have to be sickeningly arrogant to think that you know what is right or wrong better than people who spend their lives and careers studying what is right or wrong. The vast majority of these people, who have proven themselves to be smart, and who have spent their lives studying what is right and what is wrong, agree with me.

Really? They agree it's justified to murder the witnesses of your crime if you think the persecution of that crime would result in costs of life and then keep committing that crime because, hey, if you get caught again you're after all again justified to kill them?

Talk about "sickeningly arrogant".

In fact, just talk about "sickening" tbh.

[Overlord of Skagos]

No matter how much you reason..we can all agree.... Is it rightful to kill a child/ Can it be excused in anyway....Certainly not....

Was what Jaime did at that moment wrong?..I do not think so.

[Nephenee]

If anybody thinks Jaime pushed Bran out the window to prevent a war he's severely delusional.

Straw man. I said it was to save his family.

He never had time to consider war, the kids, or anything else.

Faces appeared in the window above him.

The queen. And now Bran recognized the man beside her. They looked as much alike as reflections in a mirror.

"He saw us," the woman said shrilly.

"So he did," the man said.

Bran's fingers started to slip. He grabbed the ledge with his other hand. Fingernails dug into unyielding stone. The man reached down. "Take my hand," he said. "Before you fall."

Bran seized his arm and held on tight with all his strength. The man yanked him up to the ledge. "What are you doing?" the woman demanded.

The man ignored her. He was very strong. He stood Bran up on the sill. "How old are you, boy?"

"Seven," Bran said, shaking with relief. His fingers had dug deep gouges in the man's forearm. He let go sheepishly.

The man looked over at the woman. "The things I do for love," he said with loathing.

Sounds like a couple minutes to me. They actually had a small chat.

[Nephenee]

Really? They agree it's justified to murder the witnesses of your crime if you think the persecution of that crime would result in costs of life and then keep committing that crime because, hey, if you get caught again you're after all again justified to kill them?

Talk about "sickeningly arrogant".

In fact, just talk about "sickening" tbh.

Fucking your sister is not a moral crime. Fucking a married woman who is unhappy and unloved in a marriage is not a moral crime.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

Straw man. I said it was to save his family.

Funnily enough, you're not the only person in the universe. The post you quote was an answer to #14, which does try to argue that war thing.

You might have known if you weren't so busy telling other people that they have a reading impediment.

[Winter's Knight]

My mistake-he did not instinctvely catch Bran.

Bran tried to pull himself up, bending double as he reached for the gargoyle. He was in too much of a hurry. His hand scraped uselessly across smooth stone, and in his panic his legs slipped, and suddenly he was falling. There was an instant of vertigo, a sickening lurch as the window flashed past. He shot out a hand, grabbed for the ledge, lost it, caught it again with his other hand. He swung against the building, hard. Theimpact took the breath out of him. Bran dangled, one-handed, panting.

Faces appeared in the window above him.

The queen. And now Bran recognized the man beside her. They looked as much alike as reflections in a mirror.

“He saw us,” the woman said shrilly.

“So he did,” the man said.

Bran’s fingers started to slip. He grabbed the ledge with his other hand. Fingernails dug into unyielding stone. The man reached down. “Take my hand,” he said. “Before you fall.”

Bran seized his arm and held on tight with all his strength. The man yanked him up to the ledge. “What are you doing?” the woman demanded.

The man ignored her. He was very strong. He stood Bran up on the sill. “How old are you, boy?”

“Seven,” Bran said, shaking with relief. His fingers had dug deep gouges in the man’s forearm. He let go sheepishly.

The man looked over at the woman. “The things I do for love,” he said with loathing. He gave Bran a shove.

[Jory Cassel]

Just.. if you're going to live your life without finding explanations for why something is the way it is, then I don't think you're capable of reasoning at all.

Here is a reason why murder is to be condemned: because it denies a person the right to live, and a life is in and of itself extremely valuable, because a living being has abilities that other beings don't: the ability to have experiences, emotions, a personality, and so on. A rock cannot feel pain when it is destroyed, but a person can feel pain at the prospect of their destruction. And as human beings, pain is something we try our best to avoid.

Which is better: denying 5 people the right to live or 1 person? Any rational person would go with 5.

What do rational people think?

It's quite amusing, and not surprising at all, that generally, more intelligent and educated people (philosophers) understand that murdering one person to save 5 lives is justified.

I'm really unsure how to respond do this..how do you conclude that I am unable to explain why murder is wrong? Is questioning my reasoning skills supposed to be a personal insult, or what?

Could that be the reason why you're only adressing half of a sentence of my whole post?

My overall point, which you did not adress the least bit, was that reasons for a murder do not negate its moral implications, and as I said before two times, even if you hold an utilitarian belief, not everyone does so.

Even under the assumption that I'd agree that killing one person to save five others, even though I'm not set on this matter on general (yet), the murder still is not automatically moral as soon as there are reasons for it and as soon as (supposedly) a greater good stems from it.

As to your last point, the point this study is making deviates from the point you're trying to make, you were claiming that "almost everyone in the forum" would kill a child themselves to save one's family, this being emphasized by bringing up the Jaime-parallel.

[David Selig]

Look, for the 65th time - the situation was created because Jaime was committing a capital crime repeatedly. His kids were in danger because they were born of incest and were illegitimate. Cersei was in danger because she was committing high treason with Jaime. So Jaime could've prevented all this by simply keeping it in his pants. It wouldn't have been a choice to make. You can't just isolate the choice between saving 5 lives and one life and say it's justified. By the same logic, if I buy a gun, take 6 kids hostage and say "I will kill either 5 kids or one kid", and then kill "just" the one kid, then I'd be justified.

Besides, your whole premise is flawed. Taking the kids and running away to Essos was a viable choice. Sure, it might not have worked, but the chances were decent. Talking to Bran and convincing him to forget about this had a decent chance to succeed too.

Hell, the Lannisters might've tried staging the coup earlier by assassinating Robert. There were options.

Fucking your sister is not a moral crime. Fucking a married woman who is unhappy and unloved in a marriage is not a moral crime.

What the hell is a "moral crime"?

[The squid that squints]

Firstly, I would argue you can't be sure that himself Cersei AND his kids would have all been killed, the child killing handled under Robert's reign was only done by Lannister henchmen so there's no certainty they would have been killed, Ned would have counselled sending Jamie to the wall and Cersei to the Faith presumably and left Tyrioin to raise the incest born children. A massive blow to his family perhaps but equal to the death or maiming of a child no. Also Bran didn't know what he saw anway and may not have told anyone, if he did tell anyone it would have just been Ned and Ned found out for himself eventually anyway so even then it could have changed nothing.

Secondly if you could be sure of the future then all sorts of morally reprehensible acts could be seen as justified, for instance if R+L=J=AAR and Raegar did rape Lyanna would that then make him a good guy? The ends don't justify the means and a "good" character may well contribute in a negative way but still be "good", Sansa for instance is a massive nuisance for Ned in KL but is still a morally right character

[Nephenee]

Funnily enough, you're not the only person in the universe. The post you quote was an answer to #14, which does try to argue that war thing.

You might have known if you weren't so busy telling other people that they have a reading impediment.

My bad. I was getting angrily called out by a mob of people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Look, for the 65th time - the situation was created because Jaime was committing a capital crime repeatedly.

It doesn't change the fact that he had to choose between one life and the life of his family. Just because he was committing a legal crime doesn't mean he shouldn't have just ignored the life of his two innocent children. It's a nonsensical argument.

"Oh look, I'm committing a crime, so let me just ignore the lives of my two innocent children!" No. That is stupid.

And then there's the issue that sleeping with your sister is not a moral crime, nor is sleeping with the unhappy Queen who is hated by her husband...

even if you hold an utilitarian belief, not everyone does so.

You don't need to hold a utilitarian belief to agree. 70% of philosophers aren't utilitarians, and they still agree with me. You just need to be capable of some reason, which most people here aren't at all.

the murder still is not automatically moral as soon as there are reasons for it and as soon as (supposedly) a greater good stems from it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The murder is still bad. If every life is worth 10 points, and there are 6 lives at stake, that's 60 lives. By saving 5 people you save 50 points but lose 10. So it's still bad, but also good.

[Father of Hosts]

Well, you need to be quite smart to get a PhD in philosophy, first off.

And you have to be sickeningly arrogant to think that you know what is right or wrong better than people who spend their lives and careers studying what is right or wrong. The vast majority of these people, who have proven themselves to be smart, and who have spent their lives studying what is right and what is wrong, agree with me.

It's incredibly funny to see the mob of uneducated people here talking about how I have a moral impediment when the vast majority of people who study their lives doing this stuff agree with me. I'm getting a major kick out of how irrational the vast majority of people are. It really is true that intelligence gets you bullied and shunned from society. People don't like it when you think on another level from them.

You have to have some sort of intelligence to get a PhD, I'll grant you that. The problem with "the trolley problem" is that it is an exact set of circumstances set up to elicit a specific response.

As far as your diatribe about how the the intelligent are shunned and this is a mob of uneducated people who don't understand you, politely, take that elsewhere. Standing on other men's shoulders to call yourself tall is a ridiculous way to make an argument.

[Drogon'sWrath]

The vast majority of these people, who have proven themselves to be smart, and who have spent their lives studying what is right and what is wrong, agree with me.

Most would agree that killing one person to save five isn't morally reprehensible. However, you are ignoring the fact that Jaime did this to cover up for a crime that he was committing. He was fucking the king's wife, a crime that, in Westeros, is considered high treason and punishable by death. Basically he pushed Bran not just to keep the secret of his incest safe and in extension saving his own life, Cersei's, and their children's. He was covering up a crime he committed repeatedly, both before and after he pushed Bran. In the heat of the moment, Jaime did what he had to do. But looking at the big picture, Jaime is at fault and, to be frank, was a bit of a douche at this point of the story.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

My bad. I was getting angrily called out by a mob of people who have no idea what they're talking about.

No problem. I understand that it must be hard to be the only one who thinks you're clever. No wonder that such emotional trauma can affect your reasoning capabilities.

[Nephenee]

Most would agree that killing one person to save five isn't morally reprehensible. However, you are ignoring the fact that Jaime did this to cover up for a crime that he was committing. He was fucking the king's wife, a crime that, in Westeros, is considered high treason and punishable by death. Basically he pushed Bran not just to keep the secret of his incest safe and in extension saving his own life, Cersei's, and their children's. He was covering up a crime he committed repeatedly, both before and after he pushed Bran. In the heat of the moment, Jaime did what he had to do. But looking at the big picture, Jaime is at fault and, to be frank, was a bit of a douche at this point of the story.

I'm not sure where you get that idea. There's no evidence for that claim.

Jaime obviously cared for Cersei, Tommen, Myrcella and himself, so why wouldn't he do it to save their lives? Why would he do it to cover up his crime, but not to save their lives?

[The squid that squints]

Well, you need to be quite smart to get a PhD in philosophy, first off.

I'm not sure this is true that philosophers would mostly agree with reasoning in the OP, generally philosophers can be very moralistic, for instance Daoist philosophers would disagree because the act goes against the nature of a good person I would imagine. I don't know a lot of philosophy but I think you should back up this point more. I would say the most influential figures in thinking like Jesus or Gandhi would certainly disagree, perhaps Nietzsche might agree with you but then he was probably fine with the Nazis

Just noticed you accept that non-Utilitarian philosophers agree with your point too, would you flesh that out too?