Game of Thrones S07E03 Discussion Thread (WARNING: Episode 4 Leaked. SPOILERS will be BANNED)

[Aegon Spengler]

No you did not read my question properly.

nothing changes in Jamie's motivations for actions or how he acts upon them.

We all accept he will kill to protect the secret of him and his sisters incestuous sex and some say that is ok or understandable or not a clear bad or evil since he is protecting his family from a certain death after


So if that is his moral framework and you accept it then simply adding quantity DOES NOT change anything.

If Jamie and Cersei are not careful lovers and get caught out often and Jamie simply follows the above moral framework he is doing nothing different than he did the first time. It is not OK if only one or two times but wrong in 3+.

If it is the number that determines someone's moral judgement of the act then they do not understand how moral's or logic work.

Fun conversation...

and, here's the kicker - I only accept the underlined under certain conditions - one of those conditions is rarity. All I have to do is add that caveat, and this line of reasoning goes up in smoke. And quantity always matters. There is a moral difference between killing one boy and massacring an entire kingdom, for example.

I accept he will kill to protect the secret of him and his sisters incestuous sex, so long as he takes precautions to ensure killing is a last resort (which he did, by hiding in a high tower). It is understandable or not a clear bad or evil since he is protecting his family from a certain death after, and is not doing this with malice in his heart or with the intention of having to kill to protect his secret.

In another example, I could accept a person killing someone in self defense once, but if it becomes an ongoing trend I have to start asking what the hell is going on that this person is continually seeking out situations where they have to kill someone to protect themselves.

And for the record Jamie never did kill anyone to protect his secret with his sister.

 

[Jon Stark]

It's funny how this show has yet to show Davos fight. Not a real knight.

Please excuse his flea bottom accent.

 

[Jon Stark]

1. If I write a book tomorrow I do not get to decide for the readers what is morally consistent or not in their view simply because I wrote the book. We are judging the characters based on our moral framework developed thru our experiences.

2. Paul Bernardo was never mindless. Go read about him. And I never said they were comparable so a lot of points are going over your head. The point was 'good actions after do not redeem what was done prior'.

If you do not agree with the above then you are in the same camp as Petey where if I tell you what Jamie or Paul Bernardo did exactly in their heinous acts, you both say 'wait I cannot judge the person until you tell me if they did anything good in the years to follow'.

It is clear the above is the crux of your position and one we won't agree upon.

3. I've already said I can like and root for Jamie and don't care if others do. I am simply pointing out how 'liking' someone leads many (you) to rationalize and excuse and accept their horrible acts. You want to like him so you NEED to see him as not bad as you and many others cannot rationalize you might like someone bad.

@LEWIS540 @Peteyandjia and others just don't have the intellect to understand your point brother. It's like talking to a brick wall. You're 100% right.

 

[Jon Stark]

I feel like Jamie Lannister admiration or hate debates have been hijacking every thread this season.

 

[Shael]

You should tell GRRM then because he is on record as saying that is not how the character was written.

Unless you have completely missed the point of the character, as unlikely as that would seem.

TBF the show seemingly took a different direction after the Riverlands.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Fun conversation...

and, here's the kicker - I only accept the underlined under certain conditions - one of those conditions is rarity. All I have to do is add that caveat, and this line of reasoning goes up in smoke. And quantity always matters. There is a moral difference between killing one boy and massacring an entire kingdom, for example....

There is actually not but it clear you do not understand the logical underpinnings of morals. If you took a university class on debate you would fail based on the above reasoning. And if you do not understand that I cannot help you.

But the questions would be framed in absolutes to see if you even understand your position.

You either believe an act is wrong or moral or not based on the decision tree and quantity will never be considered in that. quantity may affect how harshly you judge the person but it should never change the under lying reasons for your judgement.

Again you may continue to argue against that but you are simply doing so because you do not understand why.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

I feel like Jamie Lannister admiration or hate debates have been hijacking every thread this season.

I haven't really participated in these debates before and I am really enjoying it. I don't mean to hijack the thread though and I will stop talking if it's bugging people.

For the record I preferred Jamie before he changed into a character seeking redemption. Don't really like him much now. I find him frustrating. Liked him more as an arrogant villain.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Prosecutor : This action is being put to you for judgement.

- An innocent person(s) is killed by another for the sole reason to cover up that the other was committing what was considered a serious crime, and it being revealed would almost certainly lead to the death of the other and his family. Do you think it ok or wrong for that other person to kill the innocent to cover his crime. Do you think they are of good or ambiguous moral character.

Aegon - Well I really can't judge with this info. First off I need to know if he simply killed one or two under this reasoning or whether it is 3 or more as quantity alone is a key qualifier for me. The exact same act done to 2 is perfectly acceptable. Done to 3 is reprehensible.

Please clarify and only then can I judge.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

There is actually not but it clear you do not understand the logical underpinnings of morals. If you took a university class on debate you would fail based on the above reasoning. And if you do not understand that I cannot help you.

But the questions would be framed in absolutes to see if you even understand your position.

You either believe an act is wrong or moral or not based on the decision tree and quantity will never be considered in that. quantity may affect how harshly you judge the person but it should never change the under lying reasons for your judgement.

Again you may continue to argue against that but you are simply doing so because you do not understand why.

I've taught university classes lmao

You've lost this argument and you're trying to change the subject. I've seen it before.

 

[Jon Stark]

Fun conversation...

and, here's the kicker - I only accept the underlined under certain conditions - one of those conditions is rarity. All I have to do is add that caveat, and this line of reasoning goes up in smoke. And quantity always matters. There is a moral difference between killing one boy and massacring an entire kingdom, for example.

I accept he will kill to protect the secret of him and his sisters incestuous sex, so long as he takes precautions to ensure killing is a last resort (which he did, by hiding in a high tower). It is understandable or not a clear bad or evil since he is protecting his family from a certain death after, and is not doing this with malice in his heart or with the intention of having to kill to protect his secret.

In another example, I could accept a person killing someone in self defense once, but if it becomes an ongoing trend I have to start asking what the hell is going on that this person is continually seeking out situations where they have to kill someone to protect themselves.

And for the record Jamie never did kill anyone to protect his secret with his sister.

Jamie has threatened people and is obsessed with power. Power his family currently and arguably never deserved. He just robbed and killed a formal ally (Tyrell) to help secure his and Cerci power. Hitler did everything he could do to keep power too. He does evil stuff most episodes. He views Jon Snow and the north as traitors despite him knowing very well Ned Stark NEVER lied about what he knew. Will Jamie ever acknowledge this? Nope. Instead, he continues to DIVIDE Westeros to support his narrative while arguably Jon and Dany (to less of an extent) are trying to bring the people together to stop the walkers which is more important! Not the incest twins and their fake crown.

 

[Jon Stark]

I haven't really participated in these debates before and I am really enjoying it. I don't mean to hijack the thread though and I will stop talking if it's bugging people.

For the record I preferred Jamie before he changed into a character seeking redemption. Don't really like him much now. I find him frustrating. Liked him more as an arrogant villain.

He still is an arrogant villain just a handicapped one who has to do more scheming and manipulating opposed to physical villainy.

 

[brokenjaw]

I stopped watching the show around Joffries death and picked it up again with the lastest ep last week when I was at a friend's house. Few thoughts...

1. I feel like i haven't missed anything important
2. Jon Snow isn't an annoying shithead anymore...good for him
3. How come Khaleesi is sitting on her ass all this time while she has three full grown dragons that can melt stone? Why isn't she running shit by now?
4. Poor Theon, his character really can't catch a break
5. Why is the hot ginger witch that gave birth to Venom now a good guy?
6. Cersie is stone fucking cold. Holy shit that poisoning scene was brutal
7. Should I even bother with eariler seasons?

 

[MikeMcMann]

I feel like Jamie Lannister admiration or hate debates have been hijacking every thread this season.

He is definitely one of the most contentious characters on the show. And as I said in my first comment a perfect example of why they say good looking and charming defendants are far more likely to receive leniency in a court than rougher looking ones are.

Jamie shows how 'like' of someone leads others to all sorts of rationalizing to try and forgive and excuse what he did.

He and Joffrey I think inspired the most passion in fans of the show due to being so compelling in their acting.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I've taught university classes lmao

You've lost this argument and you're trying to change the subject. I've seen it before.

You would get laughed out of the class room if they posited a moral dilemma question to you ere a situation in which someone did a heinous murder and you said I need to know how many times they did in a year or across many years before you could judge. Sorry.

Quantity NEVER is a consideration of right or wrong. It is either right or wrong on its merits and reasons for the ACTIONS and quantity can only affect the level of revulsion.

 

[Jon Stark]

I stopped watching the show around Joffries death and picked it up again with the lastest ep last week when I was at a friend's house. Few thoughts...

1. I feel like i haven't missed anything important
2. Jon Snow isn't an annoying shithead...good for him
3. How come Khaleesi is sitting on her ass all this time while she has three full grown dragons that can melt stone? Why isn't she running shit by now?
4. Poor Theon, his character really can't catch a break
5. Why is the hot ginger witch that gave birth to Venom now a good guy?
6. Cersie is stone fucking cold. Holy shit that poisoning scene was brutal
7. Should I even bother with eariler seasons?

Yes watch them. Season 5 dragged but last season was awesome especially episode SE06EP09

 

[LEWIS540]

You would get laughed out of the class room if they posited a moral dilemma question to you ere a situation in which someone did a heinous murder and you said I need to know how many times they did in a year or across many years before you could judge. Sorry.

Quantity NEVER is a consideration of right or wrong. It is either right or wrong on its merits and reasons for the ACTIONS and quantity can only affect the level of revulsion.

Yet you can forgive the murdering, thieving, deserting Hound because you like him.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Prosecutor : This action is being put to you for judgement.

- An innocent person(s) is killed by another for the sole reason to cover up hat the other was committing what was considered a serious crime and it being revealed would almost certainly lead to the death of the other and his family. Do you think it ok or wrong for that other person to kill the innocent to cover his crime. Do you think they are of good or ambiguous moral character.

Aegon - Well I really can't judge with this info. First off I need to know if he simply killed one or two under this reasoning or whether it is 3 or more as quantity alone is a key qualifier for me. The exact same act done to 2 is perfectly acceptable. Done to 3 is reprehensible.

Please clarify and only then can I judge.

Once again under these conditions Jon Snow murdered a child solider who was too young to be held accountable for his actions.

This is not a court of law and the debate we're having is about the moral righteousness of a character within that society, this is a debate more akin to something Socrates would conjure up to teach Phaedo a lesson than to something that could be presented like a legal argument. This discussion just won't fit into that framework. We have more understanding and "god like" knowledge of Jamie's actions and true motives than any jury could. We have access to the inner workings of his mind and a top down view of his life.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

You would get laughed out of the class room if they posited a moral dilemma question to you ere a situation in which someone did a heinous murder and you said I need to know how many times they did in a year or across many years before you could judge. Sorry.

Quantity NEVER is a consideration of right or wrong. It is either right or wrong on its merits and reasons for the ACTIONS and quantity can only affect the level of revulsion.

Quantity is the very crux of the trolley problem and comes up quite a bit in discussions on utilitarian ethics

I don't think you've read your Michael Sandell (who they teach in first year, lmao)

 

[Jon Stark]

Yet you can forgive the murdering, thieving, deserting Hound because you like him.

Hound was mainly evil in taking and following orders. I wouldn't hate a solider for taking orders from an evil leader. Jamie, based on his status throughout this story, has always been in more of a leadership/leader role not solider.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I stopped watching the show around Joffries death and picked it up again with the lastest ep last week when I was at a friend's house. Few thoughts...

1. I feel like i haven't missed anything important
2. Jon Snow isn't an annoying shithead anymore...good for him
3. How come Khaleesi is sitting on her ass all this time while she has three full grown dragons that can melt stone? Why isn't she running shit by now?
4. Poor Theon, his character really can't catch a break
5. Why is the hot ginger witch that gave birth to Venom now a good guy?
6. Cersie is stone fucking cold. Holy shit that poisoning scene was brutal
7. Should I even bother with eariler seasons?

Honestly not every show is for everyone and if around the time of Joffrey's death you found the show as disappointing as it seems you did then I doubt anything that comes after will jazz you.

As a betting man I would bet huge money you will be no more pleased with what comes after as that Joffrey run was one of the better ones in the show even if we all wanted a little more suffering for the little twat before he went.