Cultural Relativist vs Modern Humanist vs a balanced approach to ASoIaF

[KingofSothoryos]

I think first and foremost, I give GRRM the freedom to tell the story he wants. I don't assign any thought or action conveyed in the books to the author, so racism, sexism, sadism or moral equivalency in the text is simply just part of the tapestry that is the text.

Second, I believe evaluating the thoughts and actions of the characters by one's own moral compass as well as evaluating your own moral compass by the thoughts and actions of the characters is the point of high drama. Basically, I read the books because I wanted a brilliant and insightful author to detail scenarios, circumstances and motivations which would challenge my beliefs in what's right or necessary in order for me to have a better understanding of myself and how other people can come to a different conclusion given the same situation. Ironborn culture is reprehensible, but when I read the Damphair says "a man must fight to live" describing the essence of their drowning ceremony, I understood their culture and why they reave and pillage, why the Greyjoy words are "We do not sow." All from one sentence.

We can judge Westorosi laws and customs based on our modern humanistic values of equity of justice, opportunity and welfare, of which understandably they fall far short, since it is based on a precursor culture to our own. I find it more interesting to judge RL based on the laws and customs of Westoros. I find myself judging RL less harshly when I look at Westoros and think how far we've come from the codified injustice most people live with in the books.

I think we cannot help but judge the characters by humanistic principles like empathy, compassion, charity and fidelity. No matter what human interaction, these principles are valued, though where they compete or what other principles are added and must be balanced is where we can judge each character. So where Ned must execute a deserter by law and custom in order to be faithful to his duty; the fact that he takes no joy in it, shows his compassion and empathy, even as he does the most uncharitable (sorry FM) thing one can do, kill someone (when you kill a man, you take away everything he owns or will ever own). This makes us understand that though Ned lives with a different justice system which is more punitive than ours, he is a "decent" man because he displays fidelity, empathy and compassion even when they force him to be less charitable than we would be in our modern times.

So I would say I see the books as a great exercise of one's judgment and we need to bring all of ourselves to the text to fully appreciate it. But we must also understand that it is an exercise and not assign characters our moral judgments because they never raped or killed anyone, their entire existence is to challenge us to examine ourselves and our world. So a certain moral relativism and modern humanism is required.

[Facebookless Man]

Here I think that you (and a lot of people) are actually overthinking it on one single point: Westeros is not about real people, it's not about "back then", it's fictional.

You can certainly try to analyse it in the "modern humanism" way you presented, but ultimately, you are only going to see the author's ideas on psychology, and then quickly your own, reflected. And then you can try the "cultural relativism" thing, except there is no different culture, just a fake one sprouting from the author's mind to appeal to a modern audience, and then, again, a reflection of the author's morality and your own.

So I guess in the end, for me, the only way to take it is to read it with my own morality filter: murderers are not cool, rapists neither, misogyny is not acceptable, and so on, and although circumstances (settings) can be extenuating for a behaviour or another, it's distasteful to use lines that amount to "everyone does it so it's ok" (especially when not everyone does it, and it's not even OK for people in the setting)

This.

The story is written by a contemporary writer for a contemporary audience. And if GRRM or anyone tried to create a really alien or even just really medieval culture and stick to it the result would be barely readable. The setting in such books is little but cosmetic, and it has to be that way.

As for the kind of thought you call "modern humanism", it cannot provide a useful analysis of anything ever.

[Pearlthegirl]

This.

The story is written by a contemporary writer for a contemporary audience. And if GRRM or anyone tried to create a really alien or even just really medieval culture and stick to it the result would be barely readable. The setting in such books is little but cosmetic, and it has to be that way.

As for the kind of thought you call "modern humanism", it cannot provide a useful analysis of anything ever.

Well, I think the setting in the books is more than cosmetic, unless I misunderstand you. Part of why the books are so clever is the world built here is drawn so significantly from our own history. Most of the characters are so developed that they can seem real for an era in our past. That helps greatly with the suspension of disbelief we have while magic and dragons begin seeping into the story that still correlate to myths and folk tales of history. These characters have a different set of survival skills that culturally we don't need anymore. So who are we to judge them? Alas, but we do, we have to, we bring our morality into every aspect of our lives even when we are reading fiction. Fiction about a more brutal and feudal world! The characters survive in this world using a brutality we don't need to subscribe to anymore. Drawing a parallel to the here and now, what if some Great War, or ice age or other tragedy befalls us, who here would survive without fighting for it perhaps brutally? There are still places in our world, modern and backward, where brutality still thrives.

Arya is a young girl who has killed men. Condemn her or marvel that she is still alive.

Jaime attempts the murder of a young boy. The horror! He's a villain! Later we get more of his back story and ooh, there's a redemption arc! Or condemn him and marvel he's still alive.

I don't think we can put ourselves in Westeros anymore that we can pluck a character out and place them in ours. But it's mega fun to talk and speculate! :)

I'm reminded of more recent history within my own family. Big Mama was my great grandma, so that's 3 generations. She would go to the coop in her backyard, wring a chicken's neck, and pluck the feathers out on her way back to her kitchen. I, on the other hand, buy a bag of frozen skinless and boneless chicken breast at the bulk grocery. I cannot do what she did but I don't have to, thankfully. Yet it makes me wonder what survival skill I've lost? And someone is doing the job for me, hopefully as humanely as possible. I could judge them or thank them for their butchery. Someone else does my butchery for me.

I dunno, does this make sense to anybody? Did I just talk myself into vegetarianism?

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

hahaha, perhaps.

I rang one of our chickens necks for the first time the other day and my husband looked well queasy. Still ate his dinner though.

[Facebookless Man]

Well, I think the setting in the books is more than cosmetic, unless I misunderstand you.

That may have come out harsher than intended. What I mean is, the setting is meant to give a contemporary reader the impression of an alien, archaic, and more or less fleshed out world BUT in reality it would not work even on a reader from 100 years ago. It is a fantasy world created by and for contemporary people. It has features that make it seem realistic to us - e.g. grit, foul language and angsty characters - but that is to us only, that is OUR culture deeming those things "realistic".

As far as actual historical accuracy goes, it has jousts where the goal is to unhorse your opponent for chrissakes...

[outofthecage]

None of this had really occurred to me all that much. First of all, it's fiction. The setting has realistic elements, the history of both the world and its characters has realism, but it is still just a bunch of stuff that GRRM has (brilliantly) made up. He's depicting a different culture than our own. That doesn't excuse the behavior of certain characters, but it does help with understanding it and accepting it. I don't usually get too deep into thought about the morals and cultural connotations behind fiction, because for me it's an escape from reality, especially in the case of books. Outside of a few reactions to things that were happening in the text, anyway. It's been a long time since I've gotten into a series that literally made me forget the world around me because I was so immersed in the words on the page, and since I've gotten into a series I wanted to read over and over. About a month passed from when I finished ADWD for the first time and I decided I needed to read them over again. (I'm currently rereading them now!)

I prefer the moral discussions here to those on Tumblr though, by far. I'm a frequent user of that website but I have done my best to stay away from discussion posts about ASOIAF because I am pretty sure I'd want to reach through my computer and smack someone. The series is much more enjoyable without whiny, entitled "social justice" rants running through my head as I'm reading. The fanart and other creative efforts of the fandom on Tumblr are wonderful, though. My own approach, when I think about the books this way at all, is mostly "Cultural Relativist" with a dash of "Modern Humanist" mixed in. Obviously there are many atrocities that occur as the plot develops, but I think to come down too hard on it all morally makes the reading experience less enjoyable. It's much more satisfying for me to suspend my beliefs and morals for a time while I immerse myself in the fiction and think about the implications at a later time. It's certainly more fun to discuss it with others and to see it discussed by the intelligent and thoughtful folks here.

[Pearlthegirl]

^^ I see your pointed point! @ Facebookless Man

I think the themes would still work though. Sex, violence, morality, humanity, justice, honor etc. These things exist despite the setting.

hahaha, perhaps.

I rang one of our chickens necks for the first time the other day and my husband looked well queasy. Still ate his dinner though.

When the Zombie Apocalypse happens, save me a place for dinner!

[Pearlthegirl]

Snip

I think I'm trying to say something like this.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

:D I'm a great cook, and I am pretty sure in a zombie apocalypse I'd be kick ass too. I've seen all the movies. :fencing:

[UVA]

I think it's easier to be a cultural relativist while reading but the modern humanist comes out while discussing.

I do think it's appropriate to judge a character on the basis of more contemporary real-world values. My ideal approach is to be able to judge a character's enormities without exonerating or condemning the character to some flat analysis, sort of detaching the act from the character e.g., "I find Jaime's attempted murder of Bran morally appalling, but what's interesting about his character is..." For me, it seems much richer to approach the text in this way and there's less of a chance to justify a monstrous act because it was OK "back then"; and like Errant Bard mentioned up-thread, there isn't a "back then" with these books. Westeros is a quasi-medieval world, fake history if you will.

Where a certain relativism is acceptable (for me at least) is when very modern, sophisticated concepts are used to justify or explain organic in-universe issues, such as arguments made in succession controversies that a appeal to a "right to" this or that seat of power. There's also the frequent conflation of legal and moral, where real-world legal concepts are used as a basis for morality. 'Legal' and 'illegal' have no meaning in the books. For instance, there was a recent post where someone accused Rhaegar of statutory rape making explicit that their opinion was based on "US legal standard". But this interpretation falls flat because there are no legal consent laws in Westeros.

However, going beyond the legal argument, I think a case could be made that the moral idea supporting the legal concept of statutory rape -- whether a child is capable of consent -- is useful in judging Rhaegar's actions. The problem arises in this particular case because there is still incomplete information about the Rhaegar/Lyanna affair. But even so, you have to wonder about Lyanna's capacity to consent to a sexual relationship, and whether Rhaegar exploited her youth and inexperience in this regard.

In any event, great OP!

[juanml82]

So I would say I see the books as a great exercise of one's judgment and we need to bring all of ourselves to the text to fully appreciate it. But we must also understand that it is an exercise and not assign characters our moral judgments because they never raped or killed anyone, their entire existence is to challenge us to examine ourselves and our world. So a certain moral relativism and modern humanism is required.

:agree:

GRRM is writing books meant to challenge the reader's expectations, and that includes morals.

Of course, it's fictional, so we can immerse in the setting, so cultural relativism is a way to read the books. It's not like we are, I don't know, witnessing a case of real domestic violence among, for instance, immigrant neighbours instead of local neighbours (*1) and refusing to report it to the authorities because of some sick application of cultural relativism of some sort (trying to find something which might happen to us readers in the real world, unless someone here is some sort of Rambo in the worst parts of Nigeria or somewhere).

So I think we ought to acknowledge that, while Jon Arryn's marital rape of Lysa is wrong (*2), neither Jon nor Lysa think about it as rape. Lysa, while clearly loathing it, describes it as "doing his duty" (*3)

We can also go beyond mere morality (*4) and analyse how morals, politics, education, expectations, etc, are related/dependent/meant for/etc the oppressive fictional socio economical system GRRM writes. And also go into the pragmatical/Realpolitik side of clearly moral decisions.

For instance: Jeor Mormont knows who immoral and evil Craster is. He has the power to stop him, and chooses not to so his rangers can have a safe haven beyond the Wall. There is clearly a moral choice here (Allowing Craster to rape and beat his own daughters and give away his sons), and (not "but", "and") it has a practical side to it.

Tywin Lannister's sacking of the Riverlands is morally abhorrent. It's also done for strategic reasons - to terrify the enemy into submission. I can not stretch enough how morally wrong it is no matter what. We could also consider Tywin believes it will help him win the war. And while there are arguments against that point, there are also arguments about how such morally reprehensible actions have the potential to help him win the war.

There is, for instance, no divorce in Westeros either. Unhappy marriages are condemned to remain married. That comes from a very practical approach: marriage alliances would mean little, if any at all, with the option to divorce down the road.

Noble boys are taught how to kill from a young age. We could very well find it morally wrong, but it is required in such a warlike environment. And when a heir fails at that, some sort of action has to be taken, because the heir might not get to choose their profession. Randyll's "education" of Sam is morally wrong, pragmatically wrong and, by the end of it, Sam can't be kept in the Horn Hill succession line without severely affecting the position of House Tarly.

Girls are taught to desire political marriages to what account, by modern standards, warlords. Warriors are praised and young girls are taught from a young age that's the kind of man they have to desire. I think Septa Mordane teaching Sansa how she ought to find beauty in any man is very telling about young girls education.

We should also keep in mind Westeros is a society facing total degeneration due the war. Typical Westerosi arranged marriages aren't supposed to be like Sansa and Tyrion or Spotted Sylvia and some old man I don't remember (not an all-inclusive list, of course). A proper arranged marriage in peacetime isn't expected to be done against the will of the either member of the couple, and they are supposed to become something like "friends with benefits" by getting to know each other before they get married.

And, in modern morality, it seems to linger a somewhat sexist view, in which men are always ready, always wanting sex, no matter with who, while women require, I don't know, romanticism, or something. So, when applying that particular glass to GRRM's fictional world we find sex in an arranged marriage as "man raping woman". We do know, however, that women also crave for sex, can have sex without romanticism and men may not be always ready/always willing and care about who they are having sex with.

In other words, in the ASOIAF universe, it's perfectly possible for the wife to start a sexual relationship and "exert her duties".

To put a final word here, and maybe risking the thread to be locked, does anyone believe what happened to Ned and Cat in their wedding night was Ned raping Cat? Or was something different, like sex for convenience?

Disclaimers:

(*1) No, I'm not being xenophobic. I'm trying to come up with an example. If domestic violence where to happen among non migrant people, cultural relativism can't be applied. They would have to be migrants for cultural relativism to be an issue. Of course, this being the Internet, "migrant" and "local" can't possibly refer to any culture at all, because what means "local" for someone obviously means something different for people living 1,000 kilometres away. Just to clarify, of course domestic violence can happen in many, and probably unfortunately all, societies, and it's not the prerogative of "Others", whoever those might be.

(*2) Yes, it's wrong, I'm not making rape advocacy here. I repeat, I'm not condoning rape in any shape or form.

(*3) Yes, it's wrong. It's GRRM who wrote that, not me.

(*4) No, not disregard morality, but analyse beyond. I insist, do not disregard morality.

[juanml82]

And there is also the other type of challenge, where morally wrong actions are done by characters we root for. Take Manderly for instance.

There is little reason to argue the morality of killing the three Freys. But Frey Pies are just wrong. They are morally reprehensible, and there is no excuse for it. Add to that Manderlys gloating when accused of the murder of Little Walder, whom he might have ordered to kill, the torture happening in the Wolf's Den under his watch and refusing to tell Davos, in secret, that he might not be executed at all, and you have the markings of a monster. A gentler monster than Ramsay, to be sure, but a monster nonetheless.

And yet we're meant to root for him.

[anonymouseuser]

snip

You saved me the bother of posting. Thanks!

[WeddinGuest]

Thanks again for all the responses! Now, I totally realize that some people approach the books as they do, say, soap operas, or mob movies, or shows about serial killers; as pure escapist entertainment, where the entire point is to not worry at all about the moral implications of what's going on. Hence people who express admiration of Victarion as a "bad-ass Viking", who love his chapters because "at least he's out there doing stuff", without even touching on whether his actions are justified. However, I've also come across the idea that the ONLY way to enjoy the series is to suspend one's moral judgment. But GRRM has said he writes about the "heart in conflict with itself", and much of that conflict, involves a character's sense of ethics, morals, and "honor". If we say "there's no good and evil, everyone is morally grey, end of story", then I think we miss out on a lot.

Dicer said:

So while Ned, Jon, Dany and Catelyn were all cruel to children in different ways and to different degrees, Martin's focus on Jon and Cat's interaction and Jon's dislike and more unforgiving attitude towards Cat (As opposed to Theon's attitude towards Ned) brings Cat's actions to the forefront.

But these actions are nothing compared to actual moral event horizons which would include pushing children out of windows, burning innocent miller boys, chasing down little butcher boys and murdering them, Cersei abusing little Tyrion (Just one of her many MEHs), Randyll Tarly's treatment of Sam etc.

The interesting thing is I've seen people attempt to excuse almost ALL these supposed MEH's, both here and by tumblr social-justice types, though for different reasons. The tumblr excuse is along the lines of "but the people who did those things were VICTIMS", in keeping with this idea, prominent among social-justice bloggers, that once you label someone a victim, these means they get an automatic pass for all of their questionable actions. (Well, okay, Jaime and Randyll Tarly don't really qualify for that excuse. However, I've seen many people excuse Tarly's actions by stating he acted according to the standards of their time, or even express admiration for him!)

I also think that one pitfall of the "cultural relativist" approach is the assumption that certain norms are ingrained in EVERYONE in Westeros, when they aren't, really. As you noted, Jon challenges Ygritte about the wildling custom of "stealing", and thinks in his own head that wildings "prefer rape to marriage". While Ygritte challenges Jon about Westerosi customs.

And while many fans assume whatever Ygritte says about wilding culture is The Last Word, and that, therefore, "stealing" is okay because "look, even the women are OK with it" (and in the case of Val, even engage in it themselves), I'm not sure GRRM meant for us to conclude this. Ygritte, one girl, says she basically finds stealing to be sexy, and even rejected a prior lover because he failed to steal her, BUT Ygritte is a seasoned spearwife who does have SOME capacity to defend herself against unwanted advances. What about a defenseless, naïve girl from South of the Wall, such as Sansa, or Jeyne Poole?

UVA: I think that one pitfall of modernist thought, is that we tend to think everything that's immoral should be illegal, or at least regulated, and based on this assumption, think "so if it ISN'T illegal, that means it must not be immoral". Where marital rape is concerned, it's not illegal in Westeros, BUT Jaime still is appalled by Aerys's treatment of Rhaella, Robert is ashamed of his behavior toward Cersei enough to blame it on the drink, and while Jon is technically in the WRONG when it comes to "rescuing" Arya, he's certainly not the only character who thinks Arya should be "stolen" away from Ramsay.

juanmi82,

I actually know a number of people in arranged marriages, and I think the idea that ALL sex in arranged marriages is equivalent to rape, and specifically, the man always raping the woman, is much too simplistic. Many couples in arranged marriages that I know, do indeed seem to relate to each other as "friends with benefits"; it seems Elia and Rhaegar's marriage, in which they were "fond" of each other even if they didn't actually love each other, is meant to be the norm, not Robert and Cersei's battle royale of a marriage, and marriages such as Ned and Cat, who I think DID wind up loving each other, are meant to be the ideal. But that doesn't mean there aren't horrifically abusive RL arranged marriages in which the husband brutalizes the wife, openly takes mistresses, etc.

People having sex out of duty, or some ulterior motive, and not love or lust, doesn't mean the encounter is not consensual. I doubt Anna Nicole Smith got much fun out of having sex with her 80-something year old husband, but that doesn't mean she was raped. And even in loving, passionate marriages, there are times when one or the other spouse will not be totally "in to it", but participate for the sake of the other. (And it's not always the wife who's in this position, sometimes a husband who'd really rather catch up on his sleep will decide to let his wife "keep him up" past his ideal bedtime.)

(Also, just because someone gets pleasure out of a sex act doesn't make it consensual either -- Ramsay orders Theon to make Jeyne P "wet", and she may have gotten some pleasure out of what happened, but pretty much no one tries to argue that Jeyne wasn't raped.)

As for Manderly: ARE we supposed to root for him, really? Is he truly loyal to the Starks, or are his darker actions meant to be a sign that all is not right? Much as Roose delivering Theon's skin to Robb certainly didn't prove HIS loyalty. Retrieving Rickon would serve Manderly's interests, as he is a child, not fit to actually rule, and who's perfectly positioned to act as Regent?

I also don't think that "rooting for" a side means we need to excuse away all the questionable actions involved. Davos certainly is loyal to Stannis, yet doesn't hesitate to call him out, and even directly works against him at times. The Umbers are portrayed as quite likeable, but that doesn't mean we need to say "that First Night tradition must not be that bad after all, what peasant woman would refuse a turn with the Greatjon?" Etc.

[Pearlthegirl]

And there is also the other type of challenge, where morally wrong actions are done by characters we root for. Take Manderly for instance.

There is little reason to argue the morality of killing the three Freys. But Frey Pies are just wrong. They are morally reprehensible, and there is no excuse for it. Add to that Manderlys gloating when accused of the murder of Little Walder, whom he might have ordered to kill, the torture happening in the Wolf's Den under his watch and refusing to tell Davos, in secret, that he might not be executed at all, and you have the markings of a monster. A gentler monster than Ramsay, to be sure, but a monster nonetheless.

And yet we're meant to root for him.

I LOVE this example. To contrast Ramsey and Manderly is genius! I am guessing we allow ourselves to "root for" Manderly's monstrosities is because, as human beings, vengeance IS still a part of our nature and we have chosen sides. How flipping weird is that!?

[Wolf in Hallowed Places]

Tumblr: The cesspool of teenage social justice warriors, the bane of people who actually have to fight for real social justice in the real world. I try to stay away from that place.

You have the right of it, ser.

I don't think Jaime's squire forced Pia, although she may have felt she had no choice in the matter.

WRT the Elder Brother, he was clearly very ashamed of his past behaviour. Brienne thinks very differently of an unrepentant rapist like Shagwell.

I do think the author draws a distinction, through Jaime's comments, between soldiers who rape in the heat of battle (after taking a city by storm for example), but are otherwise ordinary men, and those like the Bloody Mummers, for whom war is just an excuse to enact their most depraved fantasies.

As a comparison, Dany doesn't rape, but at Astapor, she sees red in much the same way as a soldier who's fought his way into a city, and really seems to enjoy conducting her massacre.

Edit: There's a book I'd recommend to anyone "By Sword and Fire" by Sean McGlynn. It focuses on atrocities committed by medieval armies, but also includes a good chapter on modern armies. The conclusion that rape and murder will occur, even in the best-disciplined of modern armies, seems spot on. You can't get people to kill, and then expect them to switch off, the moment the battle has been won.

I read about that book on Amazon, it looks very interesting. I must read it as this is a topic which is a core theme of my interest in (and understanding of) history, and Man's relationship to it.

I agree with much of what you are saying in this thread - circumstances can bring out the demons in the best of us (see also Christopher Browning's work on the Holocaust, and Phillip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment). It's not nescessarily a case of our time and standards vs. theirs (whether Westeros or IRL historical societies), but of war vs. peace, scarcity vs. abundance, etc.

It's not so much our 'enlightened', 'progressive', 'modern' ethics that keep our darker natures at bay, but material wealth, abundance of resources (and more besides), and technology and culture that allows for mass placation unparralelled in history. 'Bread and circuses' have nothing on fast food and television. But when the bubble bursts - power goes out, oil runs dry, money becomes worthless, whatever it will be - you can bet we'll see a lot more Gregor Cleganes running around. Pearlthegirl's anecdote above about the chicken rings true - we are moral to the extent that we can afford it and someone else can do the dirty work, and modernity (via post-industrial surplus) provides and promotes comfort rather than virtue. In Westeros, comfort is harder to come by, and those who have it must cling to it ruthlessly or lose it.

But I hope this does not come across as too pessimistic - there will always be those who uphold and propagate virtue and morality through thick and thin - some people are just pre-disposed towards certain characteristics, and good and 'evil' are no different (not everyone is 'equal'!). But it's much more...convenient when you have stimulation at the click of a button and your proffessor/cultural elite have done the thinking for you, leaving you free to wring your hands and pontificate (see the above comment on tumblr social justice warriors!).

In Westeros as well, there are the good and the bad (in some ways, they know this better than us, with their talk of 'bad blood', in contrast to our egalitarian universalism) - some characters go far beyond scarity-induced brutality, and some even stop far short of it. What matters is that the good rise to the top (although scum tends to rise...) and have the power to punish the bad - preferably harsh enough to dissuade others from following suit (step forward Stannis, Randyll Tarly, and others who geld rapers).

Homo homini lupus est.

Homo sacra res homini.

"To speak impartially, both sayings are very true; That Man to Man is a kind of God; and that Man to Man is an errant Wolfe.''

-Thomas Hobbes

I think first and foremost, I give GRRM the freedom to tell the story he wants. I don't assign any thought or action conveyed in the books to the author, so racism, sexism, sadism or moral equivalency in the text is simply just part of the tapestry that is the text.

Do you really hold racism and sexism to be morally equivalent to sadism? These terms have very vague and malleable definitions, how do you define them that puts them on the same level as sadism?

[Sigurður Ingi]

What interest me about ASolaF is that I find it quite ironic that so called free cities are more modern than like any kingdoms in Westeros yet in those cities slavery is still held as high in those cities even thought free citizens in the cities have more rights than peasant in Westeros.another thing which interest me about ASolaF is that in those free cities like Braavos where there is more free choice of religion while in Westeros.One of thing which I find interesting about Valyrian Freehold mostly based the wiki:

The 'Freehold of Valyria' was neither a kingdom nor an empire. Instead, all free holders, or freeborn landowners, had a say in its governance.

- source:http://awoiaf.wester...lyrian_Freehold

One of my theories on how the ASolaF would end would the rise of Freehold where there would no king or ruler instead there would some kind of Freehold like in times Valyria expect with no slavery

.Last I want to was is an interesting OP but also one many reason why like ASolaF is becaue there are no black/bad and white/good characters but mostly grey.

Which why I find hard to believe that story is going end with having an ultimate enemy known as the others vs the unifying men under leadership of Azor or Prince the promised.Which I really don't see is going happened like for example seeing Lannisters men and Stark men fighting together against the greater evil.

[UVA]

UVA: I think that one pitfall of modernist thought, is that we tend to think everything that's immoral should be illegal, or at least regulated, and based on this assumption, think "so if it ISN'T illegal, that means it must not be immoral". Where marital rape is concerned, it's not illegal in Westeros, BUT Jaime still is appalled by Aerys's treatment of Rhaella, Robert is ashamed of his behavior toward Cersei enough to blame it on the drink, and while Jon is technically in the WRONG when it comes to "rescuing" Arya, he's certainly not the only character who thinks Arya should be "stolen" away from Ramsay.

I think we agree on this. The issue of how we equate legal with moral and illegal with immoral IRL notwithstanding, my point is that an analysis that appeals to what most of us, including the author, understand to be 'legal' isn't fruitful because it requires a legal analogue that is virtually non-existent in the books. I think we are supposed to apply our modern sensibilities but I also believe that the legal and the moral need to be desegregated in a discussion. I used the term 'relativism' here to refer to certain cultural and legal norms not morality, which I view as largely transcendent from the series' realities.

Your examples of martial rape in the series are very good expositions of this -- that just because it isn't "illegal" in Westeros doesn't make it morally right -- and speaks to my point that these acts shouldn't be exonerated because that was the norm, not just in real medieval history let alone some fake, quasi-medieval world.

With regard to the Manderly issue that juanml brought up, I think we are meant to be appalled but I wonder if on some level his cannibalism is mitigated for many readers because it's viewed as a vengeful response to another monstrous act (the Red Wedding) and to the deprivation in general of the Freys. Arguably, I think it's widely seen as an act of justice for the Starks. It's not all that different from the reactions to Gregor Clegane's painful demise.

[Sigurður Ingi]

Another thing which interest me about moral in ASolaF is like for example about the famous baby switch with Aegon if it happened.

I believe if it had happened then I think Ella was part of the group who where planning the switch.

and also that she would at least try saving one of her children even if it meant that it other child would die.

Whether it makes her good or bad mother is hard to say but also you could question if it is okay to sacrifice child for the heir of kingdom and also his elder sister.

[Associate Maester]

I tend to come at this topic from the perspective if it gives the story more meaning for you--interpret it however you wish and use whatever criteria you wish. I analyze from a more a "cultural-relativist" approach (picking one of the two you brought up). I use the CR approach because I do that as a scholar of religion (specifically Near-Eastern). I may not agree with certain practices; however I need to understand them and the reasoning behind them. I may not agree with human sacrifice, but I understand the reasoning behind it (the need to keep cosmic order that manifests itself on earth with good harvests etc.) I understand where the impetus for sacrificing humans in Martin's world comes from. Magic requires sacrifice and human sacrifice has been shown to be effective. I may not like it--but I understand it. For example, my only real issue with burning Edric is that burning is a terrible way to go.