Dio Brando Posted August 27, 2013 Author Share Posted August 27, 2013 I already answered that... it's to win the throne.What does saving a million lives to do with winning the throne, according to you?Why did he say "save a million lives?" Why not anything else?I'm not the biggest Stannis fan out there, but this has to be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I hope nobody's under the delusion that I think Stannis' rule will be 100% golden era? It'll have its problems, but hey this is Westeros, problems are unavoidable. He'll at least have an idea of how to deal with em.I think this is a false contrast. I can (and do) see serious problems with Stannis' tendency to justify his means according to that one end without needing to make that end a Disney film, even in his eyes. Even if he believes his reign would be the best option...and I think he'd have to lack something to not envision the problems his character flaws will necessarily cause for a dynasty as tenuous as his...you'd still stop short if thinking it do advantageous as to be a moral carte Blanche as Stannis does.Stannis often does things he would find unforgivable in others. His pretext is that his cause is just. He ascribes that cause to no one else, and as such, by definition, he permits himself to do things no one else should be allowed to do. And it's is all with a throne in mind. I do not find it unusual that a power player would have a moral blind-spot resting directly above his own head. I do find it unusual that many readers think that's the Sunne in Splendour up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 What does saving a million lives to do with winning the throne, according to you?Why did he say "save a million lives?" Why not anything else?I'm not the biggest Stannis fan out there, but this has to be addressed.How can he win the throne with a tiny army and no support from anyone?Saving those lives gains him support, support that he needs to win the crown.I'm not sure why he said 'a million lives', it's an arbitrary # in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Imperator Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Seriously, what kind of hero go everywhere burning people, cheating his wife, trying to kill people?. Stannis is worst than Cersei because at less she love her children and all of what she's doing is for secure their safety and position in the IT.Stannis only burns criminals. He fucks Melisandre to make shadow babies to kill people like Renly, who are his enemy and a traitor to Stannis, the True King of Westeros. Also, everyone in war tries to kill someone else. Same with Robb. Same with Tywin. Same with everyone else. Also, Stannis is better than Cersei because at least Stannis loves the Realm, saved it form the Wildlings, and doesn't judge people based on their nobility but how much they've proben themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Imperator Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 He has too much self-interest to be a utilitarian. Sacrificing the life of an innocent child is worthwhile, sacrificing his right to the throne isn't. Despite the former being a much more dire price than the latter.It's a good thing that Stannis doesn't intend to sacrifice his right to the IT because of people like Joffrey and all the other selfish people trying to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 It's a good thing that Stannis doesn't intend to sacrifice his right to the IT because of people like Joffrey and all the other selfish people trying to get it.Stannis is one of those selfish people because he would never sacrifice his right to it, even if it was best for the realm. Ruling a kingdom where nobody wants you as king means war and Stannis would punish every high lord who didn't accept him as king... which is everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dio Brando Posted August 27, 2013 Author Share Posted August 27, 2013 How can he win the throne with a tiny army and no support from anyone?Saving those lives gains him support, support that he needs to win the crown.I'm not sure why he said 'a million lives', it's an arbitrary # in my opinion.He said "save a million from the dark."I gave yolkboy a quote earlier. Melisandre refers to the Others as "the dark."There, this debate is over now that I've figured it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Imperator Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Stannis is one of those selfish people because he would never sacrifice his right to it, even if it was best for the realm. Ruling a kingdom where nobody wants you as king means war and Stannis would punish every high lord who didn't accept him as king... which is everyone.Stannis would maintain his Kingship with the respect that he already has and with Davos at his side. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yolkboy Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Lol what. You can have utilitarian BELIEFS, but you can have different ACTIONS. A utilitarian philosopher might be too scared to pull the trigger even if he's a utilitarian at heart and he believes he's doing the wrong thing."In the sense we are discussing." What gave you the right to dictate what sense we're discussing? We are simply discussing whether or not Stannis is a utilitarian man, and a utilitarian man is defined as someone who has utilitarian beliefs.So someone that says they are vegetarian and eats steak is still a vegetarian whilst the blood of an animal is sliding down their neck? Utilitarianism is not a religion. It's a belief of which the only measure is your actions.Believe it or not, there are several variations of utilitarianism. When i said 'in the sense we are discussing', I meant in the sense YOU are discussing and almost everyone in this damn thread is discussing. I'm don't think that's grounds to claim I'm dictating.I'm not sure why you're so hostile, but as a self-proclaimed utilitarian you should cease, because it will only cause negativity for others. John Stewart Mill would be ashamed of you.He said "save a million from the dark."I gave yolkboy a quote earlier. Melisandre refers to the Others as "the dark."There, this debate is over now that I've figured it out.You're still arguing Stannis invaded King's Landing in order to build an army to fight the Others?Again you are not respecting the timeline. Melisandre does not mention the Others until further along. There's no indication she interpreted 'the darkness' to equal the Others at that early stage (CoK). And there's no evidence of Stannis thinking of 'saving millions' until SOS, and didn't become aware of a greater enemy until then too.The 'saving millions' argument falls apart anyway on account of Davos convincing Stannis of the value of one life. It's been explained to you very plainly that this does not fit in with the notion of Stannis being a utilitarian. You've tried to circumvent this quite desperately, I get the impression you want your ideas to hold up so much that you will reject the obvious.The rest has already been said by others but Butterbumps nailed it...http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/95752-stannis-is-a-utilitarian/page__st__20#entry4887322 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Not sure what that's supposed to show other than he's stubborn, which we already know. The throne is his by rights and he'll do whatever it takes to get it. That's his main motivation, and he's wanted it since before Robert left for Winterfell.It's but one of his many motivations. To simplify his actions down to ''he really wants the throne'' does him and the author a disservice.The quote linked shows that he is not after the throne for his own benefit, as one may have inferred from the tone of your posts. He's willing to die to restore the Baratheon dynasty, to place his daughter upon the throne, to have justice done to the guilty parties in King's Landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Song of Tyrion's member Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Acting from utility doesn't make one a utilitarian. I'm sure he's made decisions from a deontological standpoint as well. In fact, most characters in aSoIaF seem to jump from ethical branch to branch throughout the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco_Dracul Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 It's a good thing that Stannis doesn't intend to sacrifice his right to the IT because of people like Joffrey and all the other selfish people trying to get it.Sacrificing his right to the throne during his parley with Renly would have both all but ensured the removal of the Lannister pretenders and brought the Kingdoms back together (the North could be placated with a fancy new title for the lord Paramount, the combined Redwyne and Royal Fleet could completely crush the Iron Born). Why is burning a child alive a lesser price to achieve those ends?Stannis can only be considered a utilitarian if you assume him a Utility monster i.e. anything that benefits Stannis is inherently better than anything that doesn't even if the thing that benefits Stannis leaves everyone worse off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Alysanne™ Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 No, this is wrong. If Stannis truly interpreted this the way you are claiming, then he'd have gone to the Wall rather than fight at Blackwater; Stannis doesn't even understand that there is a bigger enemy until he gets North. Stannis fights for the throne because he believes it's his by rights. Later, when he realizes the common enemy (which happens in aSoS), his focus is about saving the realm in order to win the throne. Stannis definitely does not interpret the passage the way you have until much later in the series (and the ultimate goal is winning the throne through saving humanity, not saving humanity on its own).This is Stannis in a nutshell, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Alysanne™ Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 So why does he want to save a million lives?To win the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 To win the throne.It's because he has a duty to his subjects. I will never understand this insistence on Stannis' motivation being nothing but obtaining the throne. Is it part of his motivation? Sure. The entirety (or even largest part) of his motivation? No. The man thinks his kingship is going to kill him, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 It's because he has a duty to his subjects. I will never understand this insistence on Stannis' motivation being nothing but obtaining the throne. Is it part of his motivation? Sure. The entirety (or even largest part) of his motivation? No. The man thinks his kingship is going to kill him, after all.Which he finds out after blackwater and after he had already declared he wanted the throne. Stannis wanted the throne before Robert left for WF. It had nothing to do with his 'duty to his subjects' and everything to do with being denied what he felt was rightfully his, something that has plagued his entire life and is the biggest driver for him killing his brother. His motivation IS obtaining the throne because it is driven by his sense of what is rightfully his and will not be denied that again from some pretender.What I don't understand is why it's looked at as a bad thing that his motivation is the sitting the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 It had nothing to do with his 'duty to his subjects' and everything to do with being denied what he felt was rightfully his, something that has plagued his entire life and is the biggest driver for him killing his brother.The specific scenario my post was in response to has everything to do with his duty to his subjects. He was initially adamantly opposed to the idea of killing Edric because Edric was an innocent, and thus someone Stannis has a duty to protect (a point Davos raises). It is only after Melisandre's claims gain credence that Stannis begins to strongly consider that the boy's death will be necessary (or at least more utilitarian) in order to save Westeros.His motivation IS obtaining the throne because it is driven by his sense of what is rightfully his and will not be denied that again from some pretender.No, it is but part of his motivation. If obtaining the throne was his be-all-end-all Edric would've died immediately, but as we should both know, the better part of his arc in ASOS is him being slowly brought around to the idea that the death will be necessary for reasons other than him wanting the throne. What I don't understand is why it's looked at as a bad thing that his motivation is the sitting the throne.Nor do I, as he is entitled to it from a Westerosi perspective, and very few others would be willing to surrender a claim like his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.