Enlightening essays on Dany and Jon- ADWD (New Jon essay)

[Treemaster]

Bumps: I understand you don't like utilitarianism, but what is the goal for which you are advocating?

Utilitarianism has lots of problems, but it's hard (for me at least) to think of something better. It's like democracy being the last bad of all governments.

I'm just curious, not trying to change your mind..

[nirolo]

You've got to be kidding me.

I am not.

I argued for maximized utility not as an end, but as a means toward a non-utilitarian goal. It's called strategic planning. The fact that I'm placing fairly equal importance on the imperatives of saving one versus many should tell you I'm not making a utilitarian argument. I know you say you're not in agreement with me, and that's fine, but I'm not sure you're understanding what you're disagreeing with given a post like this one.

Why would you use utility maximization as your means to achieve an end that won't be utility maximizing? That's a contradiction right there.

[nirolo]

But I don't deny "third paths" in many cases. I didn't criticize the baby swap, though I attempted to accurately describe the risk Jon was taking. I said Jon could've hidden Alys to Long Barrow or somewhere else, and better avoided a potential conflict with the Boltons. I didn't even criticize Jon's giving Stannis military advice, except in his failure to properly prepare for the possibility of a Bolton victory.

I just don't don't think "third paths" are particularly relevant to understanding Jon's ADWD arc because… particularly with the decisions that look most disastrous and momentous to me, the Mance Mission and Hardhome, Jon didn't choose them. The Mance Mission seemed like a third path, where Jon could help his sister without consequences to the Watch, but the Pink Letter dispels that comforting and mistaken impression. For Hardhome, it is hard to see what a third path would be, but I'm confident that Jon promising Tormund as many men as he desires isn't it.

You know what just came to me? That there might have been a third path that could have greatly strengthened the NW but at the same time avoided confronting the Boltons: convince Stannis to stay at the Wall.

We know that the NW had 10,000 men during the height of its power. It's hard to imagine Jon doing a finer job if he could swell his rank close to half that number. And I see a realistic way for Jon to do that -- by convincing Stannis to stay.

1. Before Stannis leaves the Wall for the Dreadfort, he has 1,500 men under his command.

2. It is said that the Queen's Men outnumber the NW 3 to 1. This mean the NW has close to 500 men.

3. The Mountain clans boast another 3,000.

4. Then there is Tormund, who has 4,000 windings under his command. Though perhaps only 1/4 of them are able to fight, which would translate to another 1,000 fighting men.

Added together, we have close to 6,000 able bodied soldiers who could be commanded to defend the Wall. On top of this, Jon has already negotiated with the Iron Bank to support the NW until spring comes. This means provisions for all these men will not be a problem.

I think having 6,000 soldiers manning the Wall should have been enough to defend it in the short term. And even if it's not, it would wake up and unite the realm when they see 6,000 men being swept away by the Others.

[butterbumps!]

Bumps: I understand you don't like utilitarianism, but what is the goal for which you are advocating?

Utilitarianism has lots of problems, but it's hard (for me at least) to think of something better. It's like democracy being the last bad of all governments.

I'm just curious, not trying to change your mind..

I think I have a post somewhere back where I wrote that in general, I do agree with the virtue of saving many over one. In broad terms, I agree with the principle.

My problem is in asserting that there is a mutually exclusive dichotomy between "one v many" in a number of circumstances where I don't believe this strict dichotomy exists. I think Adam presented too many issues as "either save many" or "either save one," and I don't believe that most of these cases were as clear cut as he argued. As second problem, I don't believe that Martin presents moral dilemmas such that if a decision that works toward a "greater good" would involve some sort of cooperation with or engagement in an immoral party or action, that this should be taken as a "correct" solution just because it allegedly saves many.

As one more problem with the essays and utility, I found the conflation of "the Watch" and "greater good" more intertwined than I think the books express them to be. From the essays, they felt almost synonymous.

Does that explain it a bit better?

ETA: Nirolo, in the example of mine you quoted, I was advocating for Jon to sit down, think through the various scenarios of involving himself in the realm's affairs, think of what brings the best benefit to EVERYONE, and commit to it. It's different than the "one versus many" that was being presented.

[Jô Maltese]

@Adam, you have not replied to my first post (p 28 I think, lost in space...): do you intend to write some similar essays on Tyrion's arc? I would be most interested.

[hecameburning]

You know what just came to me? That there might have been a third path that could have greatly strengthened the NW but at the same time avoided confronting the Boltons: convince Stannis to stay at the Wall.

We know that the NW had 10,000 men during the height of its power. It's hard to imagine Jon doing a finer job if he could swell his rank close to half that number. And I see a realistic way for Jon to do that -- by convincing Stannis to stay.

1. Before Stannis leaves the Wall for the Dreadfort, he has 1,500 men under his command.

2. It is said that the Queen's Men outnumber the NW 3 to 1. This mean the NW has close to 500 men.

3. The Mountain clans boast another 3,000.

4. Then there is Tormund, who has 4,000 windings under his command. Though perhaps only 1/4 of them are able to fight, which would translate to another 1,000 fighting men.

Added together, we have close to 6,000 able bodied soldiers who could be commanded to defend the Wall. On top of this, Jon has already negotiated with the Iron Bank to support the NW until spring comes. This means provisions for all these men will not be a problem.

I think having 6,000 soldiers manning the Wall should have been enough to defend it in the short term. And even if it's not, it would wake up and unite the realm when they see 6,000 men being swept away by the Others.

Your numbers are off. Stannis` men are a separate number than Queens men.

[E-Ro]

You know what just came to me? That there might have been a third path that could have greatly strengthened the NW but at the same time avoided confronting the Boltons: convince Stannis to stay at the Wall.

We know that the NW had 10,000 men during the height of its power. It's hard to imagine Jon doing a finer job if he could swell his rank close to half that number. And I see a realistic way for Jon to do that -- by convincing Stannis to stay.

1. Before Stannis leaves the Wall for the Dreadfort, he has 1,500 men under his command.

2. It is said that the Queen's Men outnumber the NW 3 to 1. This mean the NW has close to 500 men.

3. The Mountain clans boast another 3,000.

4. Then there is Tormund, who has 4,000 windings under his command. Though perhaps only 1/4 of them are able to fight, which would translate to another 1,000 fighting men.

Added together, we have close to 6,000 able bodied soldiers who could be commanded to defend the Wall. On top of this, Jon has already negotiated with the Iron Bank to support the NW until spring comes. This means provisions for all these men will not be a problem.

I think having 6,000 soldiers manning the Wall should have been enough to defend it in the short term. And even if it's not, it would wake up and unite the realm when they see 6,000 men being swept away by the Others.

Been lurking this thread for a while now, watching the lemoncake! fight the good fight, I figure this is a good place to jump in(at the end) but what you propose is not feasible. Stannis cannot just sit at the wall to defend it with an enemy at his back. It is simply not convenient or smart. The boltons and ironborn HAD to be dealt with, there was no defending the wall with them running amok. Another issue with what you propose, even if all those 6k men come together that's not even close to the amount that can be gathered if Stannis can rally the north and possibly even some men from the south. Stannis leaving the wall with the plan given to him by jon was the right move.

Also, it would be really hard for jon to convince Stannis to stay at the wall if that was what jon wanted. I cant think of anything he could say that would sway Stannis to stay.

[nirolo]

Your numbers are off. Stannis` men are a separate number than Queens men.

So did I over- or underestimate?

Been lurking this thread for a while now, watching the lemoncake! fight the good fight, I figure this is a good place to jump in(at the end) but what you propose is not feasible. Stannis cannot just sit at the wall to defend it with an enemy at his back. It is simply not convenient or smart. The boltons and ironborn HAD to be dealt with, there was no defending the wall with them running amok. Another issue with what you propose, even if all those 6k men come together that's not even close to the amount that can be gathered if Stannis can rally the north and possibly even some men from the south. Stannis leaving the wall with the plan given to him by jon was the right move.

The Boltons never made plans to attack Stannis at the Wall. In fact, every evidence we have points to the Boltons waiting to make a move after Stannis leaves the Wall (thus the Dreadfort trap, which the purpose is to lure Stannis away from The WAll).

Also, it would be really hard for jon to convince Stannis to stay at the wall if that was what jon wanted. I cant think of anything he could say that would sway Stannis to stay.

Easy. Jon could have said, "I'll give you 3,000 men if you stay."

[E-Ro]

The Boltons never made plans to attack Stannis at the Wall. In fact, every evidence we have points to the Boltons waiting to make a move after Stannis leaves the Wall (thus the Dreadfort trap, which the purpose is to lure Stannis away from The WAll).

And Stannis, jon, and the folk at the wall know this because they have magical abilities and can know exactly what their enemies are planning? Its too bad they didn't use these abilities at the blackwater or fist of the first men.

Easy. Jon could have said, "I'll give you 3,000 men if you stay."

Jon cant give Stannis any men at all. He is in command of the nights watch, so yeah, the only men he has to give are black brothers. I dont see that going well. furthermore, as I said above, the amount of men jon can give are nothing compared to the rest of the north, and the south. If stannis can rally more support further south and take that north is far more valuable then sitting at the wall and doing nothing just so that jon can say he is staying neutral.

[Adam Feldman]

To clarify my personal moral calculus, in case anyone is wondering -- in contrast to, say, Tywin, I believe human life has very great value. However, the flipside of that, is that a ruler is not only responsible for individual lives, but responsible for all lives under her rule. And I believe she must take great care with that responsibility.

"As the children splashed in the pools, Daenerys watched from amongst the orange trees, and a realization came to her. She could not tell the high-born from the low. Naked, they were only children. All innocent, all vulnerable, all deserving of long life, love, protection. ‘There is your realm,’ she told her son and heir, ‘ remember them, in everything you do.’ My own mother said those same words to me when I was old enough to leave the pools. It is an easy thing for a prince to call the spears, but in the end the children pay the price. For their sake, the wise prince will wage no war without good cause, nor any war he cannot hope to win."

The last bit gets at how important the proper management of risk is for a ruler. The very importance of human life means that the ruler must pay close attention to not just having proper cause to take action, but the practicalities and dangers of it. The cost of doing otherwise is potentially quite dire, for a great many people. Jon is charged with defending all humanity against the Others, so in a sense his responsibility is greatest and most difficult of all.

@Adam, you have not replied to my first post (p 28 I think, lost in space...): do you intend to write some similar essays on Tyrion's arc? I would be most interested.

Sorry for not answering, and thanks for your interest! I have a shorter Tyrion essay in mind, maybe up next. Probably not a multi-part analysis, though. I'm most interested in how leaders choose to use their power, and Tyrion had very little power in ADWD, and I feel his ACOK Hand-ship is very well-analyzed already. I am totally fascinated to see what transpires for him in TWOW though.