Game of Thrones and Philosophy Read online

  In the case of Robb, he has many motivations for waging war, but the desire that actually leads him to action must be to see his just cause fulfilled. In theory, this should prevent the possibility of ulterior motives ultimately undermining the ethical standing of the war. For example, if he has accomplished the just cause, he should not further pursue the war in order to punish those who unjustly executed his father. However, there are difficulties in establishing whether any particular war has a right intention. There can be big differences between what a state declares as its intention when going to war and what its actual intention is. So what are Robb’s true motivations for going to war? He may be suffering from cognitive dissonance, the discomfort of holding two conflicting motivations at the same time. Robb seems to want both vengeance and a free kingdom in the North.

  Proper Authority

  A state is justified in going to war only if the decision is made by the legitimate authority according to legal and political processes established in the state. The citizens of the state must then be notified by the authority, as must the citizens of the rival state. If the state is governed by a tyrannical leader who rules with impunity, then that state lacks the legitimacy to wage a just war. Thus Joffrey does not have the ability to wage a just war, given the nature of his reign and the atrocities that he has committed against his own people. As the leader of an emerging state, Robb has been elected to the position of king by his kinsmen, and this lends legitimacy to his authority. The established norm in the Seven Kingdoms is that when a rightful king declares war, it is the duty of his lords to field their armies in his support. Although there is no formal declaration of war at the beginning of the hostilities that lead to the War of the Five Kings, the effective intention is made obvious through the declarations of fealty by the lords on the opposing sides.

  Last Resort

  If a war is to be considered just, then all other reasonable and peaceful avenues of conflict resolution must be exhausted before the state resorts to military confrontation. Failure to engage in diplomatic negotiation in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion means that the state has not expended sufficient effort in attempting to preserve the peace. War is a devastating enterprise that wreaks havoc on the lives of ordinary people. For a war to be just, every attempt must be made to ensure that bloodshed is avoided and that physical aggression is an absolute last resort. Joffrey is an arrogant king who believes that it is his right as sovereign to do as he pleases. He views Robb Stark as a Northern rebel who deserves to be crushed by his armies. He does not enter into negotiation, as he believes that it is beneath him to do so, and he often pays little heed to his advisers—although he is reliant on the military strength of his grandfather Tywin. From the perspective of the Northern alliance, under the kingship of Robb, there appears to be little option but to use all necessary force to ensure that Joffrey renounces his claim to the North.

  In A Clash of Kings, Robb does offer some terms for peace, which are rejected out of hand.1 One might question, however, whether Robb has in fact done everything possible to avoid an armed conflict. Should he have sent further emissaries? Should he have offered better terms? Still, as a legitimate authority, Robb gets to decide when he has done all that is reasonable to preserve the peace.

  Probability of Success

  War must not result in the pointless waste of human life. If it is anticipated that there is little likelihood of success in the proposed war, then it is futile to engage in the process. This idea may appear intuitively correct, but one must then ask whether small states ever have the legitimate right to go to war with larger aggressors who have superior military resources. If one should begin a war campaign only if there is a high chance of success, then Daenerys should never have begun to raise an army following the desertion of the Khalasar after Khal Drogo could no longer ride.

  All sides in the War of the Five Kings believe that they have a possibility of achieving success. However, it is the probability of success that matters. For example, approximately nine years before the start of A Game of Thrones, Balon Greyjoy announced himself king of the Iron Isles in a rebellion against King Robert. His forces, however, were outnumbered ten-to-one and were ultimately slaughtered (“Cripples, Bastards and Broken Things”). The probability of success in this endeavor would have been insufficient to justify it. By contrast, the initial successes of Robb’s troops indicate that he does in fact have a good chance of victory.

  Proportionality of Loss versus Gain

  It is the responsibility of a state to consider objectively whether the good that is to be secured through waging a war is justified in terms of the costs that it will exact. This is a theoretical calculation that must take into account the universal (or complete) cost of the proposed armed conflict. When assessing the cost-versus-gain ratio, the state must consider not only its own potential losses and gains, but also those of the enemy. The good to be achieved will usually be considered in light of the just cause, and the cost or evils will include inevitable outcomes such as casualties, loss of property, and so forth. If, after careful consideration, the securing of the just cause is deemed to be worthwhile even in light of potential loss, then the war is justified and should proceed. We must wonder, then, whether Robb has truly considered the possible overall cost to both his own people and the rest of Westeros.

  Justness in Conducting War

  The next concern relates to justifiable conduct in the actual execution of battle. It is up to the state to ensure that its armed forces adhere to the principles of right conduct when engaging with the enemy. In order to do so, the state appoints military officials to oversee the strategic planning of its campaigns and to ensure that regular soldiers do not participate in inappropriate behavior. Under just war theory there is a moral limitation to what is permitted in battle, and this ultimately means that all soldiers should refrain from unnecessary or excessive uses of violence and should not inflict needless pain and suffering on innocents who are not actually fighting in the war. During military engagements between the forces of Robb and Joffrey, some forces act immorally. For example, Joffrey’s knight Ser Gregor Clegane kills the Lord Darry, who is only eight years old, and after defeating Jonos Bracken at Stone Hedge, Ser Gregor burns the harvest and rapes Bracken’s daughter.2

  Discrimination between Combatants and Noncombatants

  Soldiers are permitted to attempt to kill only targets that are actively engaged in the military campaign. The function of war, so understood, is to kill enemy combatants and not to indiscriminately slaughter all members of the opposing state. The Dothraki openly reject anything akin to this idea in the rape and pillage that they think is their due after being victorious in battle. One such example involves the atrocities committed on the Lhazareen “Sheep People” when Khal Drogo sacks their town (even though this was not in fact a war—as it was an isolated battle) (“Baelor”).

  It is legitimate, however, to pursue any target that is intentionally engaged in inflicting harm, either directly or indirectly, on the state’s forces. Therefore, one may legitimately attack military personnel, equipment and installations, political adversaries who promote the war, and individuals and industries that manufacture goods and items that will be employed with the purpose of producing harm. Civilians who are not actively engaged in harming one’s combatants should be exempted from intentional attack. Once again, think of Gregor Clegane’s campaign of murder and terror and that of the troops of Tywin Lannister (“Fire and Blood”). Of course, in any armed conflict there will be unavoidable civilian casualties as the indirect result of conflict. Such collateral damage may be excused, providing that such deaths are not deliberate. For example, when Robert Baratheon was in the process of gaining the throne and laid siege to Storm’s End, it was not his primary intention to kill the civilians who had taken refuge there, but it is likely that many were killed in securing the castle.

  Appropriate Treatment of Prisoners of War

  According to just war theory, hostages and
prisoners of war must be treated in a humane way. It is not permissible to torture them physically or mentally (even to extract vital information), to use them as human shields, or to deny them basic human rights. This is one of the most contentious of the just war conditions, as theoretically it applies to any of the enemy’s personnel, irrespective of their rank or knowledge. When Robb’s troops capture Jaime Lannister at the Battle of Whispering Wood, he is imprisoned in Riverrun, where he is treated in a humane fashion (“Fire and Blood”). The earlier capture of Tyrion Lannister and his incarceration in the Eyrie by Catelyn Stark and her sister Lysa Arren cannot be considered in light of the justness of the war that follows, as it predated the actual announcement of war. Sansa is effectively a prisoner of Joffrey, but she fares much worse than Jaime, and is subjected to continual beatings at the whim of the king. One can also garner an indication of how well prisoners fare in the dungeons of King’s Landing by considering the treatment of Ned Stark while he is awaiting trial for treason.

  No Reprisals

  “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” So reprisals are not permissible. That is, one may not violate the principles of just war to punish an enemy for having previously violated those same principles. Reprisals do not serve to restore equilibrium, and they do not ensure that future engagements in the war will conform to the principles of justness. Rather, history has shown that such reprisals often escalate the level of violence and lead to indiscriminate carnage. The idea of the just war is to ensure that the greatest good is served and that the aggression used to achieve the just cause is tempered and appropriate. Rather than debasing the state by emulating the activities of the enemy, a just state should take the higher moral ground so that if they are victorious, they will know that they won in the best possible fashion. Thus, it is better for Robb to ensure that his men do not rape and pillage than to allow them to do so as a reprisal for the activities of some of the followers of Joffrey. A marked difference in the degree of the nobility of the two opposing sides is evident throughout the conflict. The Northerners are prepared to fight for their just cause, but they refuse to employ strategies that would call the honor of their houses into question. In contrast, many of the followers of Joffrey are motivated by self-promotion, greed, and fear, and are prepared to do whatever it takes to be victorious.

  Respect the Rights of the State’s Own Citizens

  While engaging in a war, the state may be tempted to temporarily suspend the human rights of its own citizens in order to facilitate the war effort. This is contrary to just war theory, which holds that the rights of the individual must be upheld to the greatest degree possible, given the situation in which the state finds itself. The individual is still entitled to legal due process as established by the state in a time of peace. Such high ideals have not always been upheld in times of conflict, and civil liberties have been compromised under the banner of increasing national security.

  Joffrey egregiously violates this principle, imposing punishments on a whim—often just to entertain himself. He has knights duel to the death, heads and hands cut off, all with no real concern for the justness of his actions. The authority of the state under his reign is cruel and capricious, and Joffrey is likened by the inhabitants of the Red Keep to the Mad King Aerys II.

  A Just War?

  So the question that we are ultimately left to answer is whether either side in the war between Robb Stark and Joffrey Baratheon conforms to the principles of just war theory. Joffrey, along with his representatives and his soldiers, is clearly guilty of many injustices in conducting their war effort—against both the enemy and their own people. Robb, by contrast, is a legitimate authority and conducts warfare in noble fashion—treating prisoners humanely, not engaging in excessive violence, showing consideration for civilians and for his own people. His intention, however, is suspect. Robb and his bannermen profess a just cause, freedom in the North—a Northern king for a Northern kingdom free from tyranny. But is this the ultimate reason that Robb goes to war? Indeed, would the idea of a war for a free North be something he would’ve seriously considered had his honorable father not been executed? One must wonder whether the greater motivating influence involves avenging his father and punishing those responsible for his death.

  We want Robb to be victorious, we think of him as generally justified in his undertakings, and we desire an end to the corrupt, capricious, and spoiled Joffrey. We believe Robb would be a far better ruler and establish and govern a more equitable state that is dedicated to higher ideals. However, having a noble spirit and a concern for one’s kinsmen and one’s people does not necessarily mean that one is waging a just war—even if the reasons for going to war are very persuasive. The requirements of a just war are difficult to satisfy in totality, and unfortunately, Robb appears lacking in one area—his right intention is not pure enough; or perhaps we should say that his dominant intention was not the right one. Although he is devoted to commendable ideals, his prevailing motivation is vengeance for his father, especially in his earlier military engagements. Therefore, we must ultimately conclude that although we might support his war, we cannot truly call it just.

  NOTES

  1. George R. R. Martin, A Clash of Kings (New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), pp. 110–111.

  2. Ibid., p. 118.

  PART TWO

  “THE THINGS I DO FOR LOVE”

  Chapter 5

  WINTER IS COMING!: THE BLEAK QUEST FOR HAPPINESS IN WESTEROS

  Eric J. Silverman

  A Game of Thrones raises an important philosophical question: Is a life of virtue and justice the way to achieve happiness, or does a willingness to reject traditional moral rules result in happiness? Plato (424–348 BCE) advocates the view that the life of virtue and justice is the happy life, claiming, “surely anyone who lives well [justly] is blessed and happy and anyone who doesn’t is the opposite. . . . Therefore, a just person is happy, and an unjust one wretched.”1 This view identifying the virtuous life of justice as the happy life, and the vicious life of injustice as an unhappy life, underlies many of the epic stories in our culture, such as those written by J. R. R. Tolkien, Victor Hugo, J. K. Rowling, and C. S. Lewis. As we’ll see, George R. R. Martin’s epic presents things differently.

  “Is the Honorable Person Happy?”

  “You wear your honor like a suit of armor, Stark. You think it keeps you safe, but all it does is weigh you down and make it hard for you to move.”

  —Littlefinger2

  A Game of Thrones initially seems like it will illustrate this traditional view connecting virtue and happiness. As in many epic stories, we are presented with a classic hero who is the epitome of virtue. Eddard Stark is fiercely loyal to his family, friends, and kingdom. He has a history of courage in battle. He has a deep sense of duty, which causes him to abandon his personal safety and comfort for the sake of the good of the kingdom and his friends, as he accepts the unenviable role of acting as the King’s Hand. As Maester Aemon suggests, he appears to be an extraordinarily virtuous man; “Lord Eddard is one man in ten thousand.”3 However, while the traditional view leads us to believe he will ultimately overcome all barriers and live happily ever after, he is instead betrayed, slandered, and executed while trying to resolve the political intrigues at King’s Landing. In what appears to be a repudiation of the Platonic view, virtue and justice do not bring happiness for Eddard.

  Yet, perhaps, “living happily ever after” was not the kind of happiness Plato was referring to when he claimed that the just person is happy. Plato was well aware that virtuous people do not always live happily ever after in this earthly material world. An obvious example of how earthly happiness is independent of virtue would have been evident in the life of his mentor Socrates (469–399 BCE), who was unjustly condemned to death. So when Plato claims that the just man is happy, he cannot mean that the virtuous person is guaranteed a successful life in terms of material earthly happiness.

  Instead, Plato argues for a sharp division between the materi
al world and the immaterial world and claims that the real self and real happiness are immaterial. Accordingly, in the Apology, after Socrates is unjustly condemned to death he insists, “a good man cannot be harmed either in life or in death, and that his affairs are not neglected by the gods.”4 Therefore, when Plato claims that the just man is happy, it is clear that he does not mean that the just person is guaranteed to flourish in the material sense. He knows that tragedy in the physical world is common, and that virtuous men can be stricken by bad luck, disease, or treachery.

  Plato claims that real happiness has to do with the immaterial self, not the material body. The virtuous person’s immaterial soul functions ideally. Plato identifies three distinct parts of the soul: appetite, spirit, and intellect. “Appetite” consists of our desires for pleasure, bodily satisfaction, and other material wants. “Spirit” refers to our emotions and especially to our desire to be honored in the eyes of others. “Intellect” refers to the best part of the self, the rational capacities that desire wisdom and knowledge over physical desires or social fulfillment.

  Plato claims the virtuous person’s soul functions ideally in that it is ruled by its best parts: reason rules, spirit is trained to reinforce the wise judgments of reason, and appetite submits to reason and spirit. To see the advantages of Plato’s view, reflect upon the question “How does one identify the ideal diet that would enable the longest, healthiest life?” A person driven by appetite would simply indulge himself, would tend to overeat, and would choose a diet based on tastiness rather than healthiness. A person controlled by spirit would choose a diet based upon emotion. In contrast, a person driven by intellect would carefully formulate a diet based on the actual needs of health rather than appetite or emotion.