inu-kun said:
Remember that being good in the series is different than being good this days, the values are different. In the general being good there is "not be a massive prick, and respect others"
I thought moral relativism was profound when I was a teenager. I've had more time to think about it since. All you actually need is just one single common premise, no matter how simple, for what defines
any moral system as a "moral system" in the broadest sense (i.e. you can agree X is a "moral system" even if you completely disagree with it
as a moral system, which is necessary in order for "morality" to even be a word), and with just that you can start extrapolating outward with logic. Not that modern morality does it that way, but at the same time, it's not really any less fair to, say, assert that the Romans were less socially advanced than modern societies for being slavers than it is to assert they were less technologically advanced for not smelting steel. Just 'cause these characters don't think they're assholes doesn't mean they aren't, it just means they don't have the tools to see what kind of asshole they're being.
Relativism is comfy, 'cause most people know they're not perfect, and it gives them an emergency ego parachute, and makes them feel pseudo-progressive at the same time. But it's not so logically fireproof as it first might seem, even in a solipsistic vacuum.
Regardless of any of that, movable goalposts in general make both debate and attempts at interpretation meaningless, as they allow one to stretch anything to fit any interpretation one wishes, so we're back to, as I said, "muddy unless you're cherry picking your examples and qualifications".
inu-kun said:
One important thing, Tyrion is not a very nice person, it might be different in the TV series but he isn't afraid to do terrible things for his gain, the only reason you could consider him "good" is because in comparison to the other rulers he's an okay guy and he can be empathic to other people.
I'll take your word for it in regards to the books. In the show he's played as pretty sympathetic, and one of the only characters who consistently shows empathy for others.
I stand by the rest though. There is no consistent pattern to support the interpretation of "good people make bad rulers", and even if there was, it'd IMO be a juvenile rather than mature theme.
I would suggest instead "foolish people make short lived rulers", but that's a bit too much of a no-brainer to be satisfying.
