Clarifications and corrections:

This is not an argument against nuance or giving characters complexity and depth. I actively promote writing morally complex characters and agree with Martin that good and evil exist within all of us.

I'm not claiming that Martin personally believes good and evil do not exist - my intention was showing how his contextualising becomes justification, and by the end conclude he concedes the heroic ideal by writing Dunk and others in contrast to the currents underpinning most of his work.

Having re read GoT, I hinged the essay on the real world parallel of Ned’s death demonstrating the death of honour in a world of deceit, and then watched the HBO series in full which I thought upheld most of what I thought .

Many who know the novels better than I recall them have corrected me about his intentions there. And that’s fine.

What this essay examines is something more specific: how certain philosophical assumptions which have informed Martin's writing and modern storytelling overall — particularly around judgement, power, and moral responsibility — play out when applied beyond fiction and into the real world.

Martin’s characters are compelling precisely because they are understandable. But when understanding is venerated to the point it becomes a substitute for judgement, verdicts are endlessly deferred. Actions become explainable, then excusable, and finally unenforceable. That is the danger being examined.

So the claim at the heart of the essay is that avoiding judgement has consequences, and societies that outsource moral responsibility to systems, procedures, or abstractions alone struggle to confront wrongdoing when doing so carries real personal cost: precisely when it's often the most important.


- Moral Objectivism & Relativism -

Re Moral Relativism, I said it dissolves the ability to make moral judgements completely because of the context it gives. This isn’t definitionally correct for Moral Relativism.

While the context and explanation becoming justification/excuse angle may be true for Game of Thrones, what I should have clarified is the distinction between Moral Relativism's acknowledgement of moral subjectivity and how that is warped in real life discourse to disqualify judgements, leading to paralysis. This is what I meant, and I think that has been understood by the reception so far because it’s what we experience IRL, but the definition matters.  

The intended takeaway from this re morality is not moral objectivism but that if you concede moral relativism and accept morality being subjective, determined by one's paradigm, in doing so you must concede people think differently and value different things.

The point I gave re Khomeni was therefore linked directly to the definition for evil given shortly before re human suffering and death, while acknowledging that my claim is a paradigm judgement in of itself. And that's why defending a moral code matters because if we excuse others simply because they have different ideas then actions like Khomeni's, justifiable from his POV, get a pass. We have to be willing to say what we stand against and actually do something about that claim at a certain point, regardless of subjective POVs.

Additionally, if we concede that Moral Relativism is true it cannot also be claimed all people are all the same,  yet modern discourse and entertainment attempts this sleight of hand.

This is the train on which it is used to do that disqualifying/justifying when discussing claims of good or evil IRL:

1. Moral relativism adds context to moral judgement, and that context is then treated as conferring legitimacy to each paradigm  
2. Because those paradigms are different rather than hierarchically comparable, difference is rhetorically converted into equality, and judgement from any one position is disqualified - the common use I see.
3. With enough contextual explanation, understanding becomes excuse, positions are abdicated, and moral reasoning collapses into practical paralysis - the stance wrecking the west from my POV.


- Christianity & Two Swords "Are Enough" -

I compressed the below for expediency and meant no offence:

In Luke 22:36–38, the disciples say they have two swords and Christ replies, “It is enough”, not as a command to wage violence, but as an acknowledgement of a fallen, dangerous world.

Historically, the medieval Church interpreted this as a distinction between spiritual and physical defence, not as Christ endorsing war.

That interpretation later underpinned the creation of the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller, to defend pilgrims and Christian lands after Islamic conquest.


- My Muddied Statement re. Martin Finishing -

My comment about Martin's philosophical currents ultimately endorsing a world where evil can triumph, which were meant as social commentary at that point, can easily be interpreted as me saying "only good guys should win in stories", which was not my intention. I should have clarified that in the script.

This was my first essay.
I’ll strive to do better with the next.
✌

As i was told once by an elder, " people think being good will bring  a reward, they don't know that being good is already a reward "

"we mock honor and are surprised when we find cowards in our midst."

“To yield before Evil is to embrace it in all of its murderous gloom.”

I think you missed something important about Ned Starks character.
Yes, Neds actions led to his death but, although it did not happen in his lifetime, his way of life did bear fruit.
Throughout the remainder of the story we see the powerful house of Lannister disintegrate more or less the moment Ned dies on the scaffold.
The Lannister family is disfunctional, the cannot cooperate with each other and the moment they cannot enforce their will through brute force or bribery everyone who could potentially turn on them does so.
The Starks on the other hand retain loyalty even when they are out of power. Northerners rally behind their banner, their word is seen as trustworthy. Ned instilled the qualities in his children (and nephew) that enable them to build real friendships, alliances and bonds of trust.
I feel that essentially the show made Ned out to be a fool,but the question of who was ultimately right about what really matters in the world seems to play out in the fates of the houses of Stark and Lannister.

So, Duncan the Tall cuts through, because he forces us to confront something we all secretly already know, but rarely admit: that morality without enforcement is just sentiment, compassion without conviction collapses into complicity, and that any goodness which cannot defend or enforce itself simply will not survive

I do like it when stories acknowledge while a villain or antagonist can have understandable reasons for what they're doing, that it doesn't often justify their actions

It is shame, that LOTR movies left out the "Cleaning out the Shire" part in the end. It showed, what may happen, when malice and bad intentions are left unchecked by those who choose inaction when bad things starts to happen. But even "good" and peacefull may find courage to stand for their home, when few of those, who are morali stronger, show up to say: "Thats enough, no more!" (a specially if they went through literal hell, to protect their home in the first place)

A mantra I came up with over a decade ago is that “being good” is not a passive or given for any person. It is an active and on going process that we make everyday in small decisions: giving help when a stranger asks, soaking up when a bully is targeting someone, picking up trash, volunteering….

It’s thousands of small actions that you take everyday. If you stop doing the things then you can’t say you are good. When I don’t give the homeless man my walk to the gym a dollar but acknowledge him as a person I still feel as if I stopped being good in that moment

This makes the whole Epstein thing make more sense to me. We have a clear moral evil going on. But no one seems to have the courage to actually step up and do anything about it. Everyone's just kind of shrugging their shoulders and being outraged.

"A person is the stories they tell themselves"
I love that.

This is frightening.
My story was finished, but now I found, I must re-write it.

For Duncan to ask "Are there no true knights among you?", Baelor coming up to fight on his side and what happened to Baelor after, it will be sad indeed.

You’re absolutely correct about judgement. Nothing makes me more angry than when people say, “don’t judge.” Judgement is not only a requirement of moral clarity, it’s a requirement of survival. When I look at any act that I’m ashamed of, do I put it in context of my circumstances at the time? Yes, I do. But does that make me any less culpable? No, it does not. The ultimate call of morality is to act morally regardless of consequences to oneself.

This is why Jon Snow (more so in the books) is one of my favorite characters in all of fiction. George whether intentionally or not, created a character who still embodies honor and duty to a higher moral ideal while also being faced with how to enact that ideal in a flawed world. Altshiftx has a great video about it and I think he does a really good job of predicting a natural arc for his characters in the remaining books that provides true moral triumph (like talked about in this video) but also maintains some of Martin's brutality and realism

Explaining evil acts is completely different than excusing them.

There is definitely good and evil in a song of ice and fire.  Brienne, Sam, and Davos are good.  Ramsey, Joffrey, and Euron are evil.  But for many characters, you have a point that it is hard to tell.  But that is not because there is no good and evil, it's because the battle between good and evil is happening within them.  Their struggle through their inner conflicts is one of the main points of the whole series, I think. My impression is that the reader is not being discouraged from judging the evil within the characters. For the Hound, good is currently winning. For Tyrion, evil has the edge right now.  I hope these stories reach their conclusions!

As a Nigerian who loves fantasy fiction and grew up with a lot of western media, this show and the book, is a breath of fresh air😊 It's so nice to see a return to unabashed heroism and none of the cynicism, toxic identity politics and subversion nonsense that has been so dominant in western media. Even George R.R. Martin couldn't completely keep these hopeful archetypes and tropes away from his books forever. They may be cliche but they are more realistic than grim morose cynicism and that's why they have universal appeal👍 Even here in my part of the world, we love media and characters that promote positivity and hope. It's why Superman is one of the most popular characters here. Times are tough and there's plenty of reasons for us to be hopeless but most of us refuse to do that. Life goes on. Might as well face it and help each other out and smile😊

This is the most helpful, and densely packed video about our cultural problems right now. And you dont just complain, but also offer solutions and such a deep understanding of each subject. Every good citizen should understand these things. Thank you so much, God bless you!

4:35 so we learned all the wrong leasons and didn't even hold to those