I think you’re confusing “self defense” with “self preservation”.
If I’m a burglar who murders people because “I don’t believe in leaving witnesses” that’s not self defense even though I’m doing it to prevent myself from going to jail.
If you want to take a descriptive approach, then you can defend whatever form is commonly used. And that’s fine if you set that out as your standard. But if you’re following formal grammar, this is simply wrong.
Sure, but I don’t like your analogy. I’d suggest finding a situation in which covering up an ambiguous moral situation rather than piling immorality on immorality.
Protecting three innocent children is still a valid reason either way.
This is a really old thing but I don’t know a better place to post it.
In the episode where Sam and Jon find out Craster is giving his male children to the white walkers, Jon in shock and disgust goes and tells the Night’s Watch leader and he tells him he knows all about it and blows it off, telling Jon they overlook this cuz Craster’s house is a needed outpost.
:eek:
The leader of the NW knows that white walkers are real and active, and knows Craster is giving babies to them for who knows what nefarious purpose and he has no issue or problem with this?!?
This is absolutely bizarre and in retrospect a kind of bombshell, remembering that at the time most of the NW believe the WW are mythical.
So what was up with that?
He says he knows that Craster leaves them out for the dark spirits of the forest; he didn’t know that the WW were taking them. He probably just assumed they were dying of exposure. As far as he was concerned, Craster was just a superstitious nutbag who was trying to get rid of any potential male competition.
OTOH the very first episode of the series made abundantly clear to the NW that the White Walkers were back, or at least a phenomenon historically directly linked with them (i.e. the dead coming back to life).
Mormont wasn’t an idiot, you’d think he’d have put two and two together.
My memory is a little fuzzy. Did anyone actually make it back to the NW to tell them what happened? Best I can remember, there was one sole survivor and he hightailed it as far away from the NW as he could. Then Ned chopped his head off.
From the perspective of the NW, was it simply that a patrol went out and never came back?
There was one dead Crow that rose up in the middle of the night and attacked Mormont himself. It happened while Tyrion was there. Jon killed the deader, that’s even what got him a spot on the patrol.
To whom it may concern is correct since the “whom it may concern” is the object.
I’m not talking real-world justification, but in-story.
One of Robb Stark’s bannermen - I forget his name - also killed two little boys, and Robb Stark beheaded him for it, but many people were arguing against him doing so. The arguments were mainly about keeping whatsisface onside, but whatsisface also had better justification for killing the boys.
We’ve seen quite a few other little boys being killed, two of whom were Arya’s friends. She is (justifably) pissed off about this and seeking revenge for their deaths, but I don’t think in Westeros they’d be seen as unjustified killings. The Hound was acually ordered to kill the butcher’s boy, for example, because he’d “attacked” the heir to the throne.
Theon’s child murders seem to be less justifiable in the GoT world, even though nearly everyone thinks it was a different pair of boys he had killed. He’s been abandoned to his horrible fate partly because of them.
In the real world it would still be possible to see someone killing children as justified if they were physically attacking you - or, especially, you and your children - and that genuinely was the only way to stop them. There’d be a lot of debate about it, but it wouldn’t all be “kiling kids bad, even if to directly save other kids.” So it’s not like there’s absolutely no grey line in the real world either.
There’s also the murder of the Mad King’s kids during the Sack of King’s Landing, to (try to) ensure that his dynastic line was ended and that there would be no future Targaryen claimants to the throne.
And we all know how well that worked out.
Lord Karstark, I think. And he killed the boys simply because they were Lannisters, not because they were any threat to anybody. I don’t know if that’s much more justification than Theon’s wanting the Winterfellians to think that Bran and Rickon were dead, which at least furthered his cause of claiming Winterfell by right of conquest. The Lannister boys would have been much more useful as live hostages, which is part of why Robb beheaded him.
His grandchildren.