The dilemma of ST. George.

[Bronzeage]

So, using the same line of thinking, your position is that if you put a gun to a woman's head and say that she has to have sex with you or you'll shoot her and she chooses the sex, you're not a rapist because she chose the option of having sex with you?

The rape charge seems to be introduced solely to denigrate George's accomplishment and create an insurmountable obstacle to the hall of heros.

No, because being a hero means that you're a paradigm who's actions should be things for others to emulate because they represent the best qualities of humanity. While George was the guy to get the job done in this situation, he didn't do it heroically.

By the same line of thinking, it would be immoral to amputate the foot of a person trapped in a burning building, when cutting off their foot is the only practical way to allow them to escape the flames. By your standard of heroics, a hero would be the person who stands close and beats back the flames with a wet towel until the ceiling collapses on both of them. The victim gets to die a horrible death, secure in the knowledge their body(what remains of it) expires intact, and the hero can console himself by saying, "I didn't hurt anyone today."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

By the same line of thinking, it would be immoral to amputate the foot of a person trapped in a burning building, when cutting off their foot is the only practical way to allow them to escape the flames. By your standard of heroics, a hero would be the person who stands close and beats back the flames with a wet towel until the ceiling collapses on both of them. The victim gets to die a horrible death, secure in the knowledge their body(what remains of it) expires intact, and the hero can console himself by saying, "I didn't hurt anyone today."

While one can do bad things to get a good result and still be heroic, there is a limit to that. While it may be a grey area on where that limit actually is located, it's definitely on the "don't rape people" side of the decision whether or not to rape somebody.

If you save a city from a nuclear explosion by raping a terrorist's girlfriend until he tells you where it is, you're still the guy who saved a city ... but you're not any kind of hero.

 

[Bronzeage]

By the same line of thinking, it would be immoral to amputate the foot of a person trapped in a burning building, when cutting off their foot is the only practical way to allow them to escape the flames. By your standard of heroics, a hero would be the person who stands close and beats back the flames with a wet towel until the ceiling collapses on both of them. The victim gets to die a horrible death, secure in the knowledge their body(what remains of it) expires intact, and the hero can console himself by saying, "I didn't hurt anyone today."

While one can do bad things to get a good result and still be heroic, there is a limit to that. While it may be a grey area on where that limit actually is located, it's definitely on the "don't rape people" side of the decision whether or not to rape somebody.

If you save a city from a nuclear explosion by raping a terrorist's girlfriend until he tells you where it is, you're still the guy who saved a city ... but you're not any kind of hero.

I don't see any comparison in your latest scenario.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Whether virgins are capable of making a decision about the wisdom of chastity, given their relative circumstances is another discussion.

It's not about the wisdom of chastity, but about whether to get raped or very probably killed (in this case, perhaps betting on unlikely George's killing the dragon before she gets eaten). And despite the circumstances.

For example, let's say that Jack points a gun at the heads of his hostages, and credibly (we may add stipulations to make it credible) tells Bob that either he rapes Alice, or he will shoot Alice in the head.
If Alice says that she would rather be shot in the head than raped by Bob, I would say that Bob would be acting immorally (all other things equal) if he rapes her anyway. It might be questioned whether she's capable of making that decision in such circumstances, but while that depends on the specific scenario, generally I don't think he would be justified in making the decision for her and raping her anyway if she says no. The "all other things equal" part covers potential exceptions, but in general, I would regard his actions as immoral.

On the other hand, if Alice tells Bob she'd rather be raped by him than shot in the head (or if, say, she's unconscious), she's still getting raped, but Bob is not acting immorally if his motivation is to save her life and he has no other way (all other things equal, as usual), and only Jack deserves to be blamed for the rape - even if Bob did it, he's not at fault.

 

[Bronzeage]

George, being a student of chivalry, would have passed over any virgin who said, "Thanks all the same, but I'd rather be eaten by a dragon."

Doing that would seem to have been a violation of the agreement with Kandran, which apparently stipulated a specific order. Would he have done that?

I'm sure he would have. He knew that only a limited number of virgins could be saved in this manner, so whether he skipped one or two in the order would not affect the final total.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

George, being a student of chivalry, would have passed over any virgin who said, "Thanks all the same, but I'd rather be eaten by a dragon."

Doing that would seem to have been a violation of the agreement with Kandran, which apparently stipulated a specific order. Would he have done that?

I'm sure he would have. He knew that only a limited number of virgins could be saved in this manner, so whether he skipped one or two in the order would not affect the final total.

Unless that actually results in an earlier strike by the dragon or some other stuff.
But granting he knew what you say, my point is that he would have been violating the agreement.
Now, I don't see anything wrong in general in violationg agreements one makes while a gun is pointed at one's head or the heads of innocent victims by a thug (though there may be other considerations at play here, like Dragons potentially no longer abiding by agreements), but he was a Knight and he would stick to their code, which may well have stipulated he must stick to the rules of any agreements he makes with a dragon.