by blade » Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:53 am
It is a question of whether what Jon was doing was in the best interests of the greater good, of the realm. That I would agree with andrew and believe it was. Another question to consider is whether the ends justify the means.. To Jon they did but maybe they didn't for the ones that killed Jon..
Keep in mind that the vows were intended to ensure the members of the black brothers understood what was at stake (the realm and its people). Initially, it did not comprise of killers, rapists, and other criminals. I read that when they built the wall, it was considered honorable to take the black. Oath was not originally to keep the brothers in check but it over time has become that as only criminals and the banished mostly become brothers nowadays. So I would say that the oath was meant more of a compass for guidance than anything else. Jon and even Mormont realized that.
Think of the US constitution (or Canada). They kept the words flexible without forcing you to govern a specific way down to the exact laws. In a similar manner, the words of the oath are kept somewhat flexible that you are not forced to govern the brothers a certain way.. There is some leeway - they certainly don't say anything about the wildlings so you know what? I don't see how Jon is in the wrong. He put saving the realm over everything.
Another thing to consider.. To me, protecting the realm is more important than any vows, but how would the few black brothers protect the realm on their own? The realm itself forced Jon's hand.
As for the purpose of the wall..
We never found out yet who the white walkers are, where they exactly come from, and why they come. Only then will we find out the true purpose of the wall. We also need to know how the first men were able to fight off the walkers before the wall was put up. Was there some sort of agreement between the walkers and the first men? Raises more questions than answers
Hope. Inspire. Dream. Live.