|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On June 07 2013 09:20 GenesisX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 02:33 Redox wrote:On June 05 2013 04:33 Redox wrote:On June 05 2013 03:46 dehdar wrote:
You know what bothers me the most.
Not that the unborn child was stabbed to death in his mother's stomach.
Not that Robb was killed infront of his mothers eyes.
Not that Robb's wife was killed infront of him.
But the rat bastard, low life piece of scum who just had to whisper "The Lannisters send their regards" before killing Robb... God that was low. What was really low was how he lead Catelyn with his eyes to take a look at his sleeves and then smirked after she saw the chain mail. Found a perfect gif showing this. Haunting. + Show Spoiler + don't know if they wrote that in the books, but the chain mail part was my favorite part of the whole episode. Amazingly well done
for me that's gone down as one of my all time favorite scenes from any tv show ever. I've literally watched the last 10 minutes or so of this episode 3 or 4 times now lol.
|
Just as a note, I was talking to my uncle who worked on the show and was on set during that scene. His comment on it was this " You should have been there while that scene was filmed, quite a lot of the cast and crew where emotional wrecks! It was awesome to work on. Michelle ( catlin ) cried her eyes out." Amazing for a show to have such an impact on the actors themselves.
|
sc4k: My argument isn't about morality at all. It's the practical, political nature of it all. The actions she takes are not sustainable. What happens to Astapor after she finishes razing the city? Depending on how prevalent slavery is, you've indiscriminately killed a large percentage of the free population and skilled laborers (at the very least, gutted the political and merchant classes), and she doesn't even stay to sort out the mess that she creates. The complete decapitation of (at least) the ruling class and its institutions, customs, norms, etc, means that the city. For a modern example, think of Iraq or Afghanistan. Indeed, you could argue that the US intervened for good, moral reasons: except that the road to hell is paved on good intentions. She's effectively done the same thing as the US in Astapor and Yunkai in miniature, except she isn't even staying to rebuild those institutions, and enforce and cultivate the social change she wishes to occur. The short/long term effects of her incredibly impulsive action will probably mean that the slaves she freed, and who stayed in Astapor (not even speaking of the free population) will live worse.
She's as naive and rash as the Starks (except she's also a proud Targaryen with dragons).
Also,
On June 07 2013 08:17 mikkmagro wrote:I don't know whether this is against the rules, but this picture is one of the few things that manages to make me smile on the eve of a law exam: + Show Spoiler +
*snerk*
What about Juhn Sneauh, King of Know-Nothing.
Scratch that, King of a Windmill.
|
On June 07 2013 09:26 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 09:02 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 07 2013 08:14 SamsungStar wrote:
I think some people are projecting too much of their need for good guy/bad guy paradigms onto the story. If you actually look at the content with a critical eye, there are very few characters which can objectively be called good. Especially not the Starks.
To the Slaver Cities like Yunkai, Meereen, etc, Dany is completely barbaric. She reneges on deals, acts excessively belligerent and self-entitled, and unjustly massacres the rightful owners of slaves. To the slavers, it is normal to take prisoners of war or the children of slaves and sell them as property. That is the custom of their culture. It's Dany who is imposing her own arbitrary values on them and acting in a really despicable fashion.
People are just reading her actions through a modern-day Eurocentric lens and trying to paint her as the good guy. Hell, GRRM might be trying to do that too. But to me, she's just like everybody else: Someone who uses the values she's internalized to try to reach her goals. You mention the reality of an objective good and then proceed entirely to talk about morality as if its nothing but a cultural product which says nothing about inherent rights and duties. The fuck man. Danny is obviously one of the better characters, but I agree with others in that she acts unduly cruel at times. Robb and Ned were probably the only characters who I can actually cast no real aspersions towards. Even Robb marrying talisa for love was the morally justified thing to do, at least from his naive perspective where the Freys could still be negotiated and reasoned with. If he had known the imminent danger I highly doubt he would of married her. Even without knowing the imminent danger, he knew full well that it would have a political cost that could very well mean the lives of many of his subjects. It can definitely be argued that Robb marrying Talisa was the immoral thing to do. And again, this is where I think people aren't understanding. Dany by modern day standards is one of the more "moral" characters, but by the standards of the world in which SHE lives, she is NOT. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept to understand. Try to divorce yourself from the world of 21st century Earth and put yourself in Essos and you would be able to see why many people of that land would consider her a monster. Which is again why the whole concept of good/evil is relative. Greeks had a system of slavery that still allowed a high degree of autonomy to the slaves. Some slaves were even better off than freemen under the Greek system. The whole Unsullied thing is obviously an imitation of the Janissary system, a system which eventually saw the Janissaries overthrow their masters due to the many concessions they were able to extract from their erstwhile rulers. Slavery, like everything else, is not a matter of black and white. People fully understand that perspectives in GoT's reality differ from our own. But, and heres the clincher, it has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. We are discussing whether SHE is in actual fact, morally correct or morally incorrect. We arent discussing the view of the slavers because, I think its safe to say, everyone here who believes in the objectivity of moral value thinks slavery is abominable.
Your just completely missing the point of the discussion.
|
On June 07 2013 10:04 Dazed_Spy wrote:
People fully understand that perspectives in GoT's reality differ from our own. But, and heres the clincher, it has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. We are discussing whether SHE is in actual fact, morally correct or morally incorrect. We arent discussing the view of the slavers because, I think its safe to say, everyone here who believes in the objectivity of moral value thinks slavery is abominable.
Was mostly a late (late) response to one of his replies.
But fair enough, I shouldn't have gone back to that.
In regards to moral realism/objectivism, I'm not at all qualified to comment on, since I'm of a sociological bent.
|
On June 07 2013 10:04 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 09:26 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 09:02 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 07 2013 08:14 SamsungStar wrote:
I think some people are projecting too much of their need for good guy/bad guy paradigms onto the story. If you actually look at the content with a critical eye, there are very few characters which can objectively be called good. Especially not the Starks.
To the Slaver Cities like Yunkai, Meereen, etc, Dany is completely barbaric. She reneges on deals, acts excessively belligerent and self-entitled, and unjustly massacres the rightful owners of slaves. To the slavers, it is normal to take prisoners of war or the children of slaves and sell them as property. That is the custom of their culture. It's Dany who is imposing her own arbitrary values on them and acting in a really despicable fashion.
People are just reading her actions through a modern-day Eurocentric lens and trying to paint her as the good guy. Hell, GRRM might be trying to do that too. But to me, she's just like everybody else: Someone who uses the values she's internalized to try to reach her goals. You mention the reality of an objective good and then proceed entirely to talk about morality as if its nothing but a cultural product which says nothing about inherent rights and duties. The fuck man. Danny is obviously one of the better characters, but I agree with others in that she acts unduly cruel at times. Robb and Ned were probably the only characters who I can actually cast no real aspersions towards. Even Robb marrying talisa for love was the morally justified thing to do, at least from his naive perspective where the Freys could still be negotiated and reasoned with. If he had known the imminent danger I highly doubt he would of married her. Even without knowing the imminent danger, he knew full well that it would have a political cost that could very well mean the lives of many of his subjects. It can definitely be argued that Robb marrying Talisa was the immoral thing to do. And again, this is where I think people aren't understanding. Dany by modern day standards is one of the more "moral" characters, but by the standards of the world in which SHE lives, she is NOT. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept to understand. Try to divorce yourself from the world of 21st century Earth and put yourself in Essos and you would be able to see why many people of that land would consider her a monster. Which is again why the whole concept of good/evil is relative. Greeks had a system of slavery that still allowed a high degree of autonomy to the slaves. Some slaves were even better off than freemen under the Greek system. The whole Unsullied thing is obviously an imitation of the Janissary system, a system which eventually saw the Janissaries overthrow their masters due to the many concessions they were able to extract from their erstwhile rulers. Slavery, like everything else, is not a matter of black and white. People fully understand that perspectives in GoT's reality differ from our own. But, and heres the clincher, it has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. We are discussing whether SHE is in actual fact, morally correct or morally incorrect. We arent discussing the view of the slavers because, I think its safe to say, everyone here who believes in the objectivity of moral value thinks slavery is abominable. Your just completely missing the point of the discussion.
I don't think I am. Or else this is just a vastly dumber discussion than I thought. Why would you judge someone by the standards of a world they don't live in? That's like judging a pianist based on their ability to do algebra.
|
On June 07 2013 10:49 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 10:04 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 07 2013 09:26 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 09:02 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 07 2013 08:14 SamsungStar wrote:
I think some people are projecting too much of their need for good guy/bad guy paradigms onto the story. If you actually look at the content with a critical eye, there are very few characters which can objectively be called good. Especially not the Starks.
To the Slaver Cities like Yunkai, Meereen, etc, Dany is completely barbaric. She reneges on deals, acts excessively belligerent and self-entitled, and unjustly massacres the rightful owners of slaves. To the slavers, it is normal to take prisoners of war or the children of slaves and sell them as property. That is the custom of their culture. It's Dany who is imposing her own arbitrary values on them and acting in a really despicable fashion.
People are just reading her actions through a modern-day Eurocentric lens and trying to paint her as the good guy. Hell, GRRM might be trying to do that too. But to me, she's just like everybody else: Someone who uses the values she's internalized to try to reach her goals. You mention the reality of an objective good and then proceed entirely to talk about morality as if its nothing but a cultural product which says nothing about inherent rights and duties. The fuck man. Danny is obviously one of the better characters, but I agree with others in that she acts unduly cruel at times. Robb and Ned were probably the only characters who I can actually cast no real aspersions towards. Even Robb marrying talisa for love was the morally justified thing to do, at least from his naive perspective where the Freys could still be negotiated and reasoned with. If he had known the imminent danger I highly doubt he would of married her. Even without knowing the imminent danger, he knew full well that it would have a political cost that could very well mean the lives of many of his subjects. It can definitely be argued that Robb marrying Talisa was the immoral thing to do. And again, this is where I think people aren't understanding. Dany by modern day standards is one of the more "moral" characters, but by the standards of the world in which SHE lives, she is NOT. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept to understand. Try to divorce yourself from the world of 21st century Earth and put yourself in Essos and you would be able to see why many people of that land would consider her a monster. Which is again why the whole concept of good/evil is relative. Greeks had a system of slavery that still allowed a high degree of autonomy to the slaves. Some slaves were even better off than freemen under the Greek system. The whole Unsullied thing is obviously an imitation of the Janissary system, a system which eventually saw the Janissaries overthrow their masters due to the many concessions they were able to extract from their erstwhile rulers. Slavery, like everything else, is not a matter of black and white. People fully understand that perspectives in GoT's reality differ from our own. But, and heres the clincher, it has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. We are discussing whether SHE is in actual fact, morally correct or morally incorrect. We arent discussing the view of the slavers because, I think its safe to say, everyone here who believes in the objectivity of moral value thinks slavery is abominable. Your just completely missing the point of the discussion. I don't think I am. Or else this is just a vastly dumber discussion than I thought. Why would you judge someone by the standards of a world they don't live in? That's like judging a pianist based on their ability to do algebra.
He assumes our current 21st century western view on morality is the Correct one. And therefore its legitimate to judge everyone by it. Which seems like a pretty large assumption.
I agree with you, passing judgments on the actions of another requires you to empathize and understand their situation. Passing judgment without giving credence to context is unfair I feel.
|
On June 07 2013 11:11 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 10:49 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 10:04 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 07 2013 09:26 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 09:02 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 07 2013 08:14 SamsungStar wrote:
I think some people are projecting too much of their need for good guy/bad guy paradigms onto the story. If you actually look at the content with a critical eye, there are very few characters which can objectively be called good. Especially not the Starks.
To the Slaver Cities like Yunkai, Meereen, etc, Dany is completely barbaric. She reneges on deals, acts excessively belligerent and self-entitled, and unjustly massacres the rightful owners of slaves. To the slavers, it is normal to take prisoners of war or the children of slaves and sell them as property. That is the custom of their culture. It's Dany who is imposing her own arbitrary values on them and acting in a really despicable fashion.
People are just reading her actions through a modern-day Eurocentric lens and trying to paint her as the good guy. Hell, GRRM might be trying to do that too. But to me, she's just like everybody else: Someone who uses the values she's internalized to try to reach her goals. You mention the reality of an objective good and then proceed entirely to talk about morality as if its nothing but a cultural product which says nothing about inherent rights and duties. The fuck man. Danny is obviously one of the better characters, but I agree with others in that she acts unduly cruel at times. Robb and Ned were probably the only characters who I can actually cast no real aspersions towards. Even Robb marrying talisa for love was the morally justified thing to do, at least from his naive perspective where the Freys could still be negotiated and reasoned with. If he had known the imminent danger I highly doubt he would of married her. Even without knowing the imminent danger, he knew full well that it would have a political cost that could very well mean the lives of many of his subjects. It can definitely be argued that Robb marrying Talisa was the immoral thing to do. And again, this is where I think people aren't understanding. Dany by modern day standards is one of the more "moral" characters, but by the standards of the world in which SHE lives, she is NOT. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept to understand. Try to divorce yourself from the world of 21st century Earth and put yourself in Essos and you would be able to see why many people of that land would consider her a monster. Which is again why the whole concept of good/evil is relative. Greeks had a system of slavery that still allowed a high degree of autonomy to the slaves. Some slaves were even better off than freemen under the Greek system. The whole Unsullied thing is obviously an imitation of the Janissary system, a system which eventually saw the Janissaries overthrow their masters due to the many concessions they were able to extract from their erstwhile rulers. Slavery, like everything else, is not a matter of black and white. People fully understand that perspectives in GoT's reality differ from our own. But, and heres the clincher, it has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. We are discussing whether SHE is in actual fact, morally correct or morally incorrect. We arent discussing the view of the slavers because, I think its safe to say, everyone here who believes in the objectivity of moral value thinks slavery is abominable. Your just completely missing the point of the discussion. I don't think I am. Or else this is just a vastly dumber discussion than I thought. Why would you judge someone by the standards of a world they don't live in? That's like judging a pianist based on their ability to do algebra. He assumes our current 21st century western view on morality is the Correct one. And therefore its legitimate to judge everyone by it. Which seems like a pretty large assumption. I agree with you, passing judgments on the actions of another requires you to empathize and understand their situation. Passing judgment without giving credence to context is unfair I feel.
Assuming they are people living in a world dominated by people I think it's fair to assume that the ubiquitous ethical value of moral autonomy applies there too. Slavery is wrong, period, regardless of where that idea originates. Dany is absolutely in the right to crusade against it. That being said, sometimes perhaps the things she does are wrong, such as killing rather than capturing and submitting to trial, etc. She may "renege on deals" and thereby act in the wrong to the slavers, but I think it's a somewhat acceptable tradeoff given the relative gain in the right by bringing slaves freedom. I don't see any obvious reason to assume that violation of autonomy isn't a problem over there, in GOT-land. If some inhabitants there don't see it as a problem, then they are wrong and others that are right, such as Dany, will set them straight. I can't imagine any reasonable arguments for slavery being right, even through the lens of GOT slavers. Sure, it's a 'natural part of their culture', but it's nonetheless at the expense of the autonomy of the slaves.
|
Anyone who thinks the ethics of medieval men is superior or that we can't question it with relation to our own or thinks that the statement of such is an "assumption" is wrong. Period.
Our ethical viewpoints are vastly superior because we've been able to combine the past 2000 years of human development (and before) into our collective knowledge of right and wrong. Morality, almost by definition, relates to our subjective experiences or rather combined personal bias. Why is it bad to behead? Rape? Sack cities? Because we've learned the effects of such discourse through thousands of years of it and, in case you're stuck on the cliff hanger, they didn't turn out well (and still don't to this day) so we decided X, Y and Z are bad because all of those variables caused many negative effects vs the positive.
Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves
and all slave owners like owning slaves
then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing
|
On June 07 2013 12:07 Hitch-22 wrote:
Anyone who thinks the ethics of medieval men is superior or that we can't question it with relation to our own or thinks that the statement of such is an "assumption" is wrong. Period.
Our ethical viewpoints are vastly superior because we've been able to combine the past 2000 years of human development (and before) into our collective knowledge of right and wrong. Morality, almost by definition, relates to our subjective experiences or rather combined personal bias. Why is it bad to behead? Rape? Sack cities? Because we've learned the effects of such discourse through thousands of years of it and, in case you're stuck on the cliff hanger, they didn't turn out well (and still don't to this day) so we decided X, Y and Z are bad because all of those variables caused many negative effects vs the positive.
Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves
and all slave owners like owning slaves
then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing
You must live in an awesome world if you read all that and got "Ethics of medieval men are superior."
|
A lot of people have used the show (and books previously) to feed some cynical notions about moral relativism.
Bear in mind, however, that most of the show's protagonists come from the ruling aristocratic class. Just because the aristocracy of Essos considers Daenerys to be barbaric does not mean the majority of free people in that land will share that opinion. The slaves - making up a large part of the overall population - will almost certainly not. The more popular perspective on things isn't really displayed in the show yet.
When it comes to Westeros, bar a few complete psychopaths, you can tell that most characters have a moral compass that is very similar to ours. The only difference between them and us is that they're much less likely to act on it, but that's merely a consequence of the society they live in. It doesn't mean they are not aware that betrayal, murder or other dishonorable acts aren't inherently wrong. They just do it anyway - because it's necessary.
|
On June 07 2013 13:41 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 12:07 Hitch-22 wrote:
Anyone who thinks the ethics of medieval men is superior or that we can't question it with relation to our own or thinks that the statement of such is an "assumption" is wrong. Period.
Our ethical viewpoints are vastly superior because we've been able to combine the past 2000 years of human development (and before) into our collective knowledge of right and wrong. Morality, almost by definition, relates to our subjective experiences or rather combined personal bias. Why is it bad to behead? Rape? Sack cities? Because we've learned the effects of such discourse through thousands of years of it and, in case you're stuck on the cliff hanger, they didn't turn out well (and still don't to this day) so we decided X, Y and Z are bad because all of those variables caused many negative effects vs the positive.
Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves
and all slave owners like owning slaves
then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing You must live in an awesome world if you read all that and got "Ethics of medieval men are superior."
They're either inferior, superior, or illusory. The former and latter options are both fairly ridiculous, nevermind either of those two positions themselves lead to abominable conclusions such the holocaust and slavery having no intrinsic significance. Support the holocaust, support slavery? No real difference, its just an opinion.
I guess I shouldnt blame you, thoughtless nihilism is the zeitgeist of our times. -_-
|
On June 07 2013 13:53 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 13:41 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 12:07 Hitch-22 wrote:
Anyone who thinks the ethics of medieval men is superior or that we can't question it with relation to our own or thinks that the statement of such is an "assumption" is wrong. Period.
Our ethical viewpoints are vastly superior because we've been able to combine the past 2000 years of human development (and before) into our collective knowledge of right and wrong. Morality, almost by definition, relates to our subjective experiences or rather combined personal bias. Why is it bad to behead? Rape? Sack cities? Because we've learned the effects of such discourse through thousands of years of it and, in case you're stuck on the cliff hanger, they didn't turn out well (and still don't to this day) so we decided X, Y and Z are bad because all of those variables caused many negative effects vs the positive.
Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves
and all slave owners like owning slaves
then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing You must live in an awesome world if you read all that and got "Ethics of medieval men are superior." They're either inferior, superior, or illusory. The former and latter options are both fairly ridiculous, nevermind either of those two positions themselves lead to abominable conclusions such the holocaust and slavery having no intrinsic significance. Support the holocaust, support slavery? No real difference, its just an opinion. I guess I shouldnt blame you, thoughtless nihilism is the zeitgeist of our times. -_-
No man. It's exactly as the guy above you said. The world of Westeros/Essos has nothing to do with 21st century Earth. I don't know why you keep coming in with this stuff about "our times" or "the holocaust." I'm saying Daeny should be judged by the standards of the world SHE lives in, not OURS. Nobody is arguing that slavery is some great thing we should implement in every country ASAP. I have no idea where you would ever get that meaning out of anything I've said.
In the world of Westeros, Frey committed a terrible sin when he broke the laws of guest right. But simply changing sides and killing Starks would not have been that big a deal. In our world, obviously any sort of killing is considered wrong. I could go on for pages about all the various things that EVERY character in GoT does that would be considered appalling and vile by today's standards but obviously that would be a very dumb mental exercise. Just as it's very dumb to try to say Daeny is some highly moral character in the story, because by the standards of Westeros/Essos she is not all that great.
Or do you guys forget that she stood by and watched when her husband dumped a pot of gold on her own BROTHER's head? The brother that was the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. The brother that by right was supposed to get an army in exchange for his sister? Ugh, why am I even bothering. Daeny is such an easy target. I'm just astounded that some people can so quickly default to "she must be a good guy!" as soon as she positions herself as anti-slavery. That doesn't automatically make her a good person. She just happens to come down on the more humane side of the equation when it comes to a single subject. Sigh, it's scary how deep brainwashing goes in our supposedly modern and civilized society.
|
Dany is antislavery for reasons that make sense anyways
|
Slavery is forbidden in Westeros so she is morally right even by their own standards.
And her brother tried to kill her and Drogo's child. They didn't kill him out of the blue.
|
On June 07 2013 14:21 SamsungStar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 13:53 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 07 2013 13:41 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 12:07 Hitch-22 wrote:
Anyone who thinks the ethics of medieval men is superior or that we can't question it with relation to our own or thinks that the statement of such is an "assumption" is wrong. Period.
Our ethical viewpoints are vastly superior because we've been able to combine the past 2000 years of human development (and before) into our collective knowledge of right and wrong. Morality, almost by definition, relates to our subjective experiences or rather combined personal bias. Why is it bad to behead? Rape? Sack cities? Because we've learned the effects of such discourse through thousands of years of it and, in case you're stuck on the cliff hanger, they didn't turn out well (and still don't to this day) so we decided X, Y and Z are bad because all of those variables caused many negative effects vs the positive.
Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves
and all slave owners like owning slaves
then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing You must live in an awesome world if you read all that and got "Ethics of medieval men are superior." They're either inferior, superior, or illusory. The former and latter options are both fairly ridiculous, nevermind either of those two positions themselves lead to abominable conclusions such the holocaust and slavery having no intrinsic significance. Support the holocaust, support slavery? No real difference, its just an opinion. I guess I shouldnt blame you, thoughtless nihilism is the zeitgeist of our times. -_- No man. It's exactly as the guy above you said. The world of Westeros/Essos has nothing to do with 21st century Earth. I don't know why you keep coming in with this stuff about "our times" or "the holocaust." I'm saying Daeny should be judged by the standards of the world SHE lives in, not OURS. Nobody is arguing that slavery is some great thing we should implement in every country ASAP. I have no idea where you would ever get that meaning out of anything I've said. In the world of Westeros, Frey committed a terrible sin when he broke the laws of guest right. But simply changing sides and killing Starks would not have been that big a deal. In our world, obviously any sort of killing is considered wrong. I could go on for pages about all the various things that EVERY character in GoT does that would be considered appalling and vile by today's standards but obviously that would be a very dumb mental exercise. Just as it's very dumb to try to say Daeny is some highly moral character in the story, because by the standards of Westeros/Essos she is not all that great. Or do you guys forget that she stood by and watched when her husband dumped a pot of gold on her own BROTHER's head? The brother that was the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. The brother that by right was supposed to get an army in exchange for his sister? Ugh, why am I even bothering. Daeny is such an easy target. I'm just astounded that some people can so quickly default to "she must be a good guy!" as soon as she positions herself as anti-slavery. That doesn't automatically make her a good person. She just happens to come down on the more humane side of the equation when it comes to a single subject. Sigh, it's scary how deep brainwashing goes in our supposedly modern and civilized society.
Brainwashing? This trainwreck of an argument is hilarious to read.
|
On June 07 2013 15:27 Itsmedudeman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 14:21 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 13:53 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 07 2013 13:41 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 12:07 Hitch-22 wrote:
Anyone who thinks the ethics of medieval men is superior or that we can't question it with relation to our own or thinks that the statement of such is an "assumption" is wrong. Period.
Our ethical viewpoints are vastly superior because we've been able to combine the past 2000 years of human development (and before) into our collective knowledge of right and wrong. Morality, almost by definition, relates to our subjective experiences or rather combined personal bias. Why is it bad to behead? Rape? Sack cities? Because we've learned the effects of such discourse through thousands of years of it and, in case you're stuck on the cliff hanger, they didn't turn out well (and still don't to this day) so we decided X, Y and Z are bad because all of those variables caused many negative effects vs the positive.
Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves
and all slave owners like owning slaves
then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing You must live in an awesome world if you read all that and got "Ethics of medieval men are superior." They're either inferior, superior, or illusory. The former and latter options are both fairly ridiculous, nevermind either of those two positions themselves lead to abominable conclusions such the holocaust and slavery having no intrinsic significance. Support the holocaust, support slavery? No real difference, its just an opinion. I guess I shouldnt blame you, thoughtless nihilism is the zeitgeist of our times. -_- No man. It's exactly as the guy above you said. The world of Westeros/Essos has nothing to do with 21st century Earth. I don't know why you keep coming in with this stuff about "our times" or "the holocaust." I'm saying Daeny should be judged by the standards of the world SHE lives in, not OURS. Nobody is arguing that slavery is some great thing we should implement in every country ASAP. I have no idea where you would ever get that meaning out of anything I've said. In the world of Westeros, Frey committed a terrible sin when he broke the laws of guest right. But simply changing sides and killing Starks would not have been that big a deal. In our world, obviously any sort of killing is considered wrong. I could go on for pages about all the various things that EVERY character in GoT does that would be considered appalling and vile by today's standards but obviously that would be a very dumb mental exercise. Just as it's very dumb to try to say Daeny is some highly moral character in the story, because by the standards of Westeros/Essos she is not all that great. Or do you guys forget that she stood by and watched when her husband dumped a pot of gold on her own BROTHER's head? The brother that was the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. The brother that by right was supposed to get an army in exchange for his sister? Ugh, why am I even bothering. Daeny is such an easy target. I'm just astounded that some people can so quickly default to "she must be a good guy!" as soon as she positions herself as anti-slavery. That doesn't automatically make her a good person. She just happens to come down on the more humane side of the equation when it comes to a single subject. Sigh, it's scary how deep brainwashing goes in our supposedly modern and civilized society. Brainwashing? This trainwreck of an argument is hilarious to read.
Heh, I was going to respond to it but I realized "wait where the heck would I even begin..."
=========
I wonder if we'll see the dragons at a prime fighting age soon. Seems like they've grown fairly steadily up to where we are now in S3. Once those badboys are ready to kick into gear, I'm thinking she'll really start to dominate... She'll probably end up defending against the white walker hoard with her grown dragons as many people have mentioned.
And one related question: If the dragons had been getting smaller and smaller, was this due to them being treated like pets? Or was it just their breed losing power over time? Why are Dany's already bigger than "the last dragons" mentioned by Joffrey -- is it just that she gives them plenty of food & space?
|
On June 07 2013 15:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 15:27 Itsmedudeman wrote:On June 07 2013 14:21 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 13:53 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 07 2013 13:41 SamsungStar wrote:On June 07 2013 12:07 Hitch-22 wrote:
Anyone who thinks the ethics of medieval men is superior or that we can't question it with relation to our own or thinks that the statement of such is an "assumption" is wrong. Period.
Our ethical viewpoints are vastly superior because we've been able to combine the past 2000 years of human development (and before) into our collective knowledge of right and wrong. Morality, almost by definition, relates to our subjective experiences or rather combined personal bias. Why is it bad to behead? Rape? Sack cities? Because we've learned the effects of such discourse through thousands of years of it and, in case you're stuck on the cliff hanger, they didn't turn out well (and still don't to this day) so we decided X, Y and Z are bad because all of those variables caused many negative effects vs the positive.
Now as a point of counter argument you could, perhaps, question say like this;
If all slaves like being slaves
and all slave owners like owning slaves
then it is moral, since everyone's happy, to own slaves
or a better example would be cultures that have ritualistic slaughters (anyone who watched the vikings where they killed 9 humans for their gods for example) and the people want to meet their god. Is it a morale act then to have ritualistic sacrifice since all parties are happy with it?
So obviously the moral landscape is not flat and there are ups and downs (perhaps we're not even close to the top, note the objectifying of women in social media such as magazines) but generally it's based on what we all decide is working the best and while there is a medium between covering women from head to toe (with exclusion eyes) in garments and having them bare naked (practically) on magazines it's safe to say which of the two is likely more morally fitting and less oppressing You must live in an awesome world if you read all that and got "Ethics of medieval men are superior." They're either inferior, superior, or illusory. The former and latter options are both fairly ridiculous, nevermind either of those two positions themselves lead to abominable conclusions such the holocaust and slavery having no intrinsic significance. Support the holocaust, support slavery? No real difference, its just an opinion. I guess I shouldnt blame you, thoughtless nihilism is the zeitgeist of our times. -_- No man. It's exactly as the guy above you said. The world of Westeros/Essos has nothing to do with 21st century Earth. I don't know why you keep coming in with this stuff about "our times" or "the holocaust." I'm saying Daeny should be judged by the standards of the world SHE lives in, not OURS. Nobody is arguing that slavery is some great thing we should implement in every country ASAP. I have no idea where you would ever get that meaning out of anything I've said. In the world of Westeros, Frey committed a terrible sin when he broke the laws of guest right. But simply changing sides and killing Starks would not have been that big a deal. In our world, obviously any sort of killing is considered wrong. I could go on for pages about all the various things that EVERY character in GoT does that would be considered appalling and vile by today's standards but obviously that would be a very dumb mental exercise. Just as it's very dumb to try to say Daeny is some highly moral character in the story, because by the standards of Westeros/Essos she is not all that great. Or do you guys forget that she stood by and watched when her husband dumped a pot of gold on her own BROTHER's head? The brother that was the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. The brother that by right was supposed to get an army in exchange for his sister? Ugh, why am I even bothering. Daeny is such an easy target. I'm just astounded that some people can so quickly default to "she must be a good guy!" as soon as she positions herself as anti-slavery. That doesn't automatically make her a good person. She just happens to come down on the more humane side of the equation when it comes to a single subject. Sigh, it's scary how deep brainwashing goes in our supposedly modern and civilized society. Brainwashing? This trainwreck of an argument is hilarious to read. Heh, I was going to respond to it but I realized "wait where the heck would I even begin..." ========= I wonder if we'll see the dragons at a prime fighting age soon. Seems like they've grown fairly steadily up to where we are now in S3. Once those badboys are ready to kick into gear, I'm thinking she'll really start to dominate... She'll probably end up defending against the white walker hoard with her grown dragons as many people have mentioned. And one related question: If the dragons had been getting smaller and smaller, was this due to them being treated like pets? Or was it just their breed losing power over time? Why are Dany's already bigger than "the last dragons" mentioned by Joffrey -- is it just that she gives them plenty of food & space?
Good question. I guess we really don't know, maybe something about the re-birth of magic into the world? Warlocks mentioned that when they took the dragons, it made their powers greater, it's why they wanted them. But really who knows, it might be because of the breeding. Maybe the Targaryen inbred their dragons to keep the blood pure just like their family line? It'll be interesting just how big they get and if they rival the size of the biggest dragons seen. Big enough to roast 4000 soldiers with a single breath and big enough to ride into battle in the skies.
|
Compared to the size of that we would expect them to become seriously dangerous and capable of killing thousands, it's still quite a ways off. Right now those dragons wouldn't be difficult to handle with even 2-3 capable men.
|
On June 07 2013 09:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:
sc4k: My argument isn't about morality at all. It's the practical, political nature of it all. The actions she takes are not sustainable. What happens to Astapor after she finishes razing the city? Depending on how prevalent slavery is, you've indiscriminately killed a large percentage of the free population and skilled laborers (at the very least, gutted the political and merchant classes), and she doesn't even stay to sort out the mess that she creates. The complete decapitation of (at least) the ruling class and its institutions, customs, norms, etc, means that the city. For a modern example, think of Iraq or Afghanistan. Indeed, you could argue that the US intervened for good, moral reasons: except that the road to hell is paved on good intentions. She's effectively done the same thing as the US in Astapor and Yunkai in miniature, except she isn't even staying to rebuild those institutions, and enforce and cultivate the social change she wishes to occur. The short/long term effects of her incredibly impulsive action will probably mean that the slaves she freed, and who stayed in Astapor (not even speaking of the free population) will live worse.
She's as naive and rash as the Starks (except she's also a proud Targaryen with dragons).
I simply repeat, what would YOU do?
She made the only realistic and good choice. And I still can't believe people like you are failing to call it good. She had the SLAVE MASTERS killed, people who raised soldiers to kill babies in front of their mothers. I don't give a fuck if it fed everyone, find a new way to feed! It's not impossible! What Danaerys did is not in any way comparable to what the US did in the middle east. And even if what she did was not the most politically stable or long term rational choice, with the exception of taking a large amount of time to install a stable prison system which imprisoned the slavers, it was by far the most compassionate choice (granting the slaves the release of killing their masters). Danaerys does make choices from an ideological place and that's what makes her a GOOD character and not necessarily a most-likely-to-win character. But that's what supporting good guys is all about.
It's like some people in this thread have been conditioned to see slavery as not one of the most absolutely worse thing ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/971021_135598723303970_2130573940_n.jpg)
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.picstation.net/pictures/c1aca71ebd5171f284c05ff844d207cb.[/spoiler]gif)
