I'm going to assume we are going on strictly TV show stuff here, since in the books, he got exactly that, and was chained in squallor after the escape attempt with the aid of Tyrion's team.

The fuck it ever is. The right to life supercedes anyone else's, unless it is directly endangering another's life, liberty or property. Jaime's duty is to protect his family and die for them if necessary. As it is, he is sort of an inconvenience, since he is not the heir to Casterly Rock and not the head of the family. By his oath as a kinght of the Kingsguard, he's pretty much outside the list of family assets. Arguably, it is more Jaime's duty to die so he can be replaced on the Kingsguard by a man who is actually in a position to, oh, I don't know, actually guard the king? And all that stuff about Jaime being invaluable and superior is disproved by the fact that he's a prisoner. His own ineptitude as a commander got him captured, and his shortcomings as a warrior contributed to that as well. Hell, he lacked the ability to fight hard enough to prevent his being taken alive! Alton, on the other hand, is a prisoner due to the failures of his own commanders for putting him in a position to be taken. If there is any Lannister duty issues between them, it is on Jaime to protect him from the situation their family has put him in, being the higher-ranking member of the House. Also, it was a shitty and failed escape plan, further undercutting that absurd argument about Jaime's inestimable value as a weapon. At the end of the military genuis' plan, there was one fewer Lannister and Jaime himself was in no position to effect any improvements on the situation. His kinsman, on the other hand, was far more likely to be allowed some liberties or be sent as a messenger, or even loosely guarded enough that he might have an opportunity to escape.

The exact same thing that goes for Jon Snow when he wanted to go help Robb, goes for Jaime. No one man is sufficiently good to turn the tide in a battle. However, the possibilities inherent in a single man's contribution are no worse for the cousin than for Jaime. In fact, they are rather better as far as the Lannisters are concerned, since the former's motivation is entirely on the good of the House, whereas Jaime himself is motivated largely by infantile impulses his combat skills have immunized him from learning any need to supress.

Bullshit, bullshit, toughshit, respectively. He loves playing the passive-aggressive, unconventional shock-value asshole. He loves pushing buttons and provoking people, because, like Cersei, he has never had to seriously contend with a consequence in his entire life, so his entire mentality is bent on pushing envelopes, and not only doing exactly what pleases him, but to go as far as he can to shock or provoke or outrage people. He didn't need to be as theatrical as possible with Aerys. The man was feeble and insane - has the concept of restraining anyone ever occurred to him? As Robert and Ned established in their own argument about his character, it's not like there was any shortage of people to kill Aerys, and Jaime had already severed the link in the arson chain by killing Rossart.

The only reason for the regret he shows regarding Aerys (we're back on the books now, BTW, since the show lacks insufficient character material to veer off) is because that is one of the first times in his life he truly faced consequences. Suddenly, among anyone who counted, anyone whose opinion on the subject was worth having, he was a piece of shit. No matter how good with his sword or how many heroic deeds he did, he would forever be the Kingslayer, and not for recognition of a difficult feat. Suddenly his word is suspect, his character is under scrutiny, and despite what he says about it being his finest act, he knows damn well it was just another impulsive act by a man-child too good with a sword before his time.

A bullshit false choice argument, as I explain above. He was alone in a room with a feeble old man, and the guy responsible for carrying out the orders was dead. How was the city going to burn? And how does he justify his deeds then in service to his family, who visited a Sack on the city that is bad enough that the Lannister name is still crap among the commoners of the city a decade and a half later.

Bullshit again. That's not anyone's fault but Jaime's & Cersei's for putting the kids in that position. Later on, well after his epiphany and change of heart (to the degree that he has one), he frankly admits to indifference where the kids are concerned. What he was doing when he shoved Bran was protecting his own conveniences. He did not want to be inconvenienced in his self-indulgences, so he tried to murder a child to make his own life easier.

That's nothing but motivation. Motivation does not alleviate guilt - to the contrary, motivation is an aspect of PROOF of guilt. All you are giving are emotional reasons for him to do what he wants, and reasons that are basically not applicable to Jaime, and as even his own sister, the woman he loves, later states, that was not the choice he faced. As in the case of Aerys, it was not a choice between Bran dying or the kids (by the argument under which you suggest it is better for him to murder a kinsman, would it not be better for them to die rather than create the succession issues their false claim arouses? ). Cersei was convinced that they could intimidate and mess with an eight year old boy's mind enough to keep their secret, and he would have been coming south with them and been under her eye (probably with her requesting he serve as a page to her or Jaime - an honor that no one would have understood Ned refusing, and if he did, she has a cover for any tales Bran might tell). The possibilities of bad outcomes do NOT justify Jaime's leaping to commit atrocious and horrifically wrong murders at the slightest opportunity before attempting any other solution.

It is a firmly established character trait that he could give less than two shits about anyone but the father who mentally dominates him, the sister he sticks his dick into, and the amusing little brother he feels a twinge of guilt over. All the people who know him best and care the most about him pretty much dismiss his long-range planning skills or tendencies toward considered action. Tywin, Kevan, Cersei & Tyrion, at various points in the series all express their doubts about his capacity for prudence or forethought. His Aunt Gemma is oblique about her own misgivings, but her in-depth and shrewd analysis of his character leaves little to contradict my interpretation of him as an overgrown child, governed by emotion and impulse and as cowed in Tywin's shadow as his uncles were.

Thrice bullshit, because A. he isn't that important, as discussed above; B. he couldn't care less about anything beyond his own impulses and desires; and C. that kind of calculation is way beyond him at this stage in his characterization.

He murdered his kinsman because he saw a useful opportunity, because he is so entirely selfish that such a death means nothing to him and because it was another chance to do something provocative and outrageous and get more attention. Jaime is to physical confrontation what internet trolls are to posting - even negative attention is better than nothing, so he'll do what gets him the most attention.

Because like most whom consciously embrace pacifism, you're a selfish shitbag. Because that is the only kind of person who could make such a choice.

Those kids are endangered only by a long string of utterly contemptible, selfish and unnatural behavior. Hell, their deaths are barely even murders: even many steadfast opponents of abortion would have been willing to make an exception in their cases! Just because there is suddenly someone who has no right to exist depending on his success does not justify his continued immoral actions. If they really wanted to live in health and safety, they could have bailed, as Ned suggests to Cersei. They stayed because they were greedy, and wanted to keep their power and position, andn because they were arrogant and probably thought they could get away with it. And again, Jaime has little or no concern about their lives and safety, operating mainly under the assessment of how much whining on his lover's part their danger or harm might force him to endure, if he even thinks that far ahead.

Then you DON'T try to usurp a throne in their name in order to aggrandize yourself! Cersei's version of "protecting" them is about as healthy and beneficial to their well-being as those parents who put their kids in those creepy beauty pageants or stage parents who are using their kids to vicariously live their own frustrated ambition. Parents who are truly concerned for their children do not put them in a position where their deaths might be necessary for the good of the kingdom.

And any parent who would commit overt and willful murder for their child's sake, is nothing more than a rabid dog who should be put down for the good of society and community. If they are willing to do that for their child, what WON'T they do, under the pretext of a threat to their children? That road goes both ways.

"Sorry, cousin. You have to die because of your other cousin's mental limitations and because his brother and father and sister don't care enough to obtain his release lawfully." There WERE options for getting Jaime released, but being able to claim dominion over a more-or-less foreign land that wanted nothing to do with them was more important to the Lannisters.

And to justify something that is morally wrong under normal circumstances, you need to be really, really sure it will succeed. How'd that go? What was the brilliant plan for getting out of the heart of the enemy camp after dispatching a single guard?


And that's why Jaime Lannister is an irredeemable little shit - that kind of childish thinking. Just kidding. That would only be true if Jaime possessed the kind of insight and reflective capabilities you attribute to him, which he does not. He doesn't even think that far ahead - he does stuff because he can.
Those are artificial and illegitimate dilemas that only confound those of limited mental capacity or moral faculties. There is no such thing as a moral dilema, only a dilema between what one should do, and what one really, really WANTS to do.
If this was remotely his mindset, it would not mean a damn thing, because all it does is give reasons why he should be kept in chains, or better yet, put down like a mad dog. However plausible such a mindset might be, it is not remotely correct or acceptable.

Since when? Quotes?
I love how you use the phrase "a bit" to describe like 50% of his character & motivation.
Yeah, way to stop all that fighting that took place in DWD... oh, wait... that didn't happen! He STARTED the fucking war by his own self-indulgent actions over a dozen years. He does NOT get credit for showing up and formally accepting surrenders, and wallowing in the spoils of treachery and murder.

The one attractive aspect of his character to make it into the books and show is his pragmatic view of warfare and his identification with and sympathy for the fighting men he encounters casually. He should long ago have learned the lesson everyone scoffs at Jon for not knowing at 14 - that no one man is sufficient a warrior to justify evil acts to get himself into the fight.

Start killing your own side, and what is the point of winning?

The people who talk about necessary sacrifices are always talking about someone else's sacrifice. Loyalty and Love are two traits Jaime does not understand in the least. He has a kind of Pavlovian response to the family Cause, and nothing but cruel and contemptuous thoughts about most of the actual members of that family. He lusts after his sister and has some affection for her and their brother, though it may be as much of a contrarian reaction to the rest of the world's rejection of Tyrion as anything else. That is certainly more in keeping with the other actions we see from him than any real or sincere fraternal love.

In any case, the impulse to satiate one's appetites does not elevate one's motives or justify actions.

Bullshit. It was the right thing to do for anyone but him, and there were other options available to him. One of the greatest dangers of an institution dedicated to the protection of a head of state is the possibility of that institution involving itself in the selection or removal of said head of state. Such was the reason why Emperor Constantine disbanded the Praetorian Guard. For a group like the Kingsguard, such an action would have been absolutely against their very purpose for existing, and they already had the counter-example of Criston Cole to warn them against a course of action as choosing whether or not a king should live or die. His duty was to protect the king's life with his own. That does not include allowing him to burn the city, but as I alluded to above, there were other options. All too many readers seem to think that the two choices a number of rather contemptible characters pose in order to justify their misdeeds are the only options.

For that matter, the crimes of Aerys (for which he certainly deserved death, except Jaime ensured he got it in the way that would serve the realm the worst and cause the most problems - Ned, Stannis & Ser Barristan were right: death or the Wall should have been the only options open to Jaime at that point) hardly justify the rest of the behavior of the Lannisters. There was no reason why they could not set up a regency for Aegon VI, or why Robert deserved to have the crown, that Aegon & his sister & aunt & uncle must die to keep Robert's crown secure, any more than anyone else should die to save Joffrey's crown, and all of that is irregardless of their qualities as rulers or human beings.

The sacrosanctity of a king's person was important because it was a key aspect of the unifying principles of a nation-state, particularly in an era when the technology did not exist to enable a central government to genuinely exert control. Greyjoy's Rebellion and the War of the Five Kings are mostly due to the murder of Aerys. Had he been deposed and then executed with some legal process, had his lawful successors been permitted to reign after him, the country would have retained its fragile unity. As it is, thanks to the character of his assumption of the throne, Robert's brother feels justified in defying the succession to seize the chance for himself, reasoning that since Robert's claim rested on brute force (and when it requires infanticide to make it happen, you cannot say anything else about it), why not take the throne himslf, since he had access to the greatest force? Had Joffrey been Robert's trueborn son, even with an indentically despicable character, he'd have had Ned & Stannis on his side, and that would have been an entirely different kettle of fish. Even a vainglorious tool like Mace Tyrell might have thought twice about going up against a king with three of the most successful military commanders alive (Ned, Stannis & Tywin) on his side, and only the Tyrells' hereditary enemies undeclared.

As Ned said in the first book, just because Aerys had to die does not make it right for Jaime to have killed him, and the circumstances and surrounding events all combined to disastrously undermine the stability of the realm.

Obi Wan was full of shit, and so is that last sentence. Shades of gray describes people's character, because they do good things and bad things, and very few people are all one or another. It NEVER describes the morality of a situation. There is always a right and wrong course. "Shades of gray" is simply a cowardly equivocation in the face of how attractive that wrong course often can be.

He was impulsive, emotional and self-serving, doing what occurred to him at the moment, and as likely for a petty reason as any of the absurd rationalizations you present.

Indeed.