Game of Thrones and Philosophy Read online

  “If the Wicked Do Not Fear the King’s Justice Then You Have Put the Wrong Man in Office”3

  The metaphor is rather obvious: the king of the Seven Kingdoms sits upon a throne made of the melted swords of the kings of the realms brought to heel under Aegon the Conqueror. The throne represents both the danger of the position and the monopoly over force that the king possesses. His is the ultimate authority in the kingdom, and the sole possessor of the ability to make war. That power defines the sovereign; and while there are other duties, such as “counting coppers,” it is the authority over force that is of prime importance. Philosophically, the reason for this is found in the nature of a state and how it comes to be.

  If we were to make Thomas Hobbes a character in A Song of Ice and Fire, he would undoubtedly be a maester.4 A scholar by trade, he was the tutor to Charles II of England. Like Robert Baratheon, he saw a kingdom ripped apart by civil war, as Charles I waged war against the Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell. This civil war shaped Hobbes’s political thought as he witnessed what happens when the rule of law is suspended.

  Hobbes believed that all men seek after their own desires. Not that we are all chasing wine and women like King Robert, but the point is rather that, for example, Arya does not get taught the Water Dance unless her instructor gets paid. Likewise Ned isn’t taking the promotion to Hand of the King unless he sees something in it for him. The “Dance Master” needs his payment before he will teach; that much is obvious. Ned’s case, however, is a little more complicated. While he desires to stay in Winterfell, his sense of honor and duty compel him to do otherwise. It is the fulfillment of honor and duty that Ned receives as his bonus for accepting the position as Hand of the King and relocating to a place where he clearly does not want to be. Hobbes believed that every action has an underlying selfish motivation. Even actions that seem altruistic—feeding the peasantry, for instance—are driven by selfish motivations. It may be the sense of satisfaction one gets from helping the less fortunate, or assuaging the guilt of watching them suffer on the King’s Road.

  As Hobbes sees it, this selfish motivation actually brings about both the state and the institution of justice. Hobbes asks us to imagine the “state of nature,” a state without any rule of law or any government whatsoever. The danger to each individual in this state is obvious: people lack security and are at odds with one another. If I want the food the farmer harvests, I can just take it. Of course, he will want to keep it as well, which puts us at war, or as Hobbes explains, “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in their way to their End, endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another.”5

  This war endures as long as the state of nature exists. People will fight one another for more than just food, though. They will fight to gain more valuable things. For example, Viserys Targaryen hopes to gain the Dothraki hordes in order to take the Iron Throne. People will also fight for reasons of defense, to protect what they already have. Just consider the acts of building the great Wall and then keeping constant vigil with the Night’s Watch. Lastly, people will fight for reputation. A person (or family) with a solid reputation of being ruthless to enemies can usually forgo having to fight for other reasons. As Tywin Lannister explains to Jaime Lannister regarding the consequences of the kidnapping of Tyrion, “Every day that he remains a prisoner the less our name commands respect. . . . if another house can seize one of our own and hold him with impunity we are no longer a house to be feared” (“You Win or You Die”).

  In a constant state of war, society cannot develop, and progress grinds to a halt: “there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth,” which reduces men’s life to one that is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”6 Because of this pathetic and miserable life, the people are willing to lay down their swords and submit to a single authority. They will generate a thing that will “keep them in awe, and tye them by feare of punishment of their Covenants, and observation of these Lawes of Nature set down.”7

  Hobbesian fear and logic led to the unification of the Seven Kingdoms. True, it was not a mutual disdain for war, but rather the threat of annihilation from the dragons of Aegon that motivated the people of Westeros. Still, the ultimate desire to end the war created (literally in this case) the throne of the king. Six of the kingdoms (the North being a special case) laid down their arms and created a leviathan in the person of the king. “Leviathan” is Hobbes’s word for the sovereign power, named after a mythical sea monster of great power. The idea is that it is better to submit to the power of the king, the leviathan, than to be subject to the state of nature, a state in which we have a war of all against all.

  The king’s ability to physically exercise his authority is important because only through that authority can the state’s security be guaranteed. The laws established are meaningless unless there is some force to back them. And this illustrates the first of Lord Stark’s mistakes. When he confronted Queen Cersei with his knowledge of Joffrey’s incestuous origin, he had no power to back up the accusations. It seems that he assumed that Cersei’s allegiance to the Kingdom would be enough. This assumption was well founded as long as Robert lived; Cersei wasn’t willing to cross him because of the force of Robert. But once it was apparent that Robert was going to die, there was no reason to believe that her allegiance would continue.

  Her words of allegiance were supposed to be sufficient. Words, however, derive their strength not “from their own nature (for nothing is more easily broken than a man’s word) but from feare of some evill consequence upon the rupture.”8 Cersei demonstrates this and highlights Ned’s naiveté when she rips up the will, asking, “Is this meant to be your shield, Lord Stark?” (“You Win or You Die”). Ned’s mistake was that he believed he could enforce the King’s Justice (or the Regent’s Justice, as it were) with words, and that Cersei would surrender to the exile that she calls a “bitter cup to drink from” without the express threat of violence.9 Of course Ned thought he had the city guard on his side—but we can’t blame him for how that turned out.

  “The Day Will Come When You Need Them to Respect You, Even Fear You a Little”10

  If we were to place Niccolò Machiavelli into A Song of Ice and Fire, he would probably be serving as a member of the king’s advisory council. During his life, Machiavelli, unlike most political philosophers, actually served in politics. He held the position of secretary to the Ten of Florence, which in modern times would be something analogous to the U.S. secretary of state. Machiavelli also served as ambassador to both the king of France and the pope, and formed the Republic of Florence’s first militia. Unlike Hobbes, Machiavelli limited his conclusions to what he observed. There are no thought experiments about the state of nature or anything else in Machiavelli. Like Tyrion Lannister, Machiavelli derived his knowledge from books and firsthand experience.

  History has unfairly made Machiavelli’s name into an eponym for a cynical view of politics in which the pursuit of power justifies whatever means are used to achieve that power. The unfair portrayal is based on certain conclusions in Machiavelli’s famous book The Prince in which he remarks that fear is better than love for a ruler.11 Machiavelli is not saying that fear is more desirable than love, but rather that it is easier to maintain, and, once lost, it is easier to reestablish. Love, on the other hand, is both more difficult to maintain and almost impossible to force. Therefore, a ruler ought not to worry so much about whether his subjects love him. Rather, he should inspire fear that he will punish them if they break the rules.

  Power is not to be sought for its own sake. Rather, power is to be sought for the sake of the state. Indeed, the security of the state is the highest goal for a Machiavellian. While this is often missed, Machiavelli’s writing across four major works shows an approach that balances the will of the rulers with the will of the people. In fact, it is only in The Prince that he writes in favor of monarchy, while he
gives more attention to a republic-style rule in the much longer Discourses.12 In either case, while the security of the Seven Kingdoms can rest upon Machiavelli’s ideas, our problem regarding Lord Stark is that he acts, in several instances, specifically as Machiavelli advises not to do.

  “Most Men Would Rather Deny a Hard Truth Than Face It”13

  As Robert’s Hand, Lord Stark is charged with running the state’s day-to-day affairs. While Robert is off chasing wine and women, Ned has to settle disputes, count coppers, and manage affairs. While the king will have the final say, Ned’s decisions are in fact the king’s decisions. This presents the major difficulty with Ned Stark: he makes these decisions not as the king, but as Ned Stark, and Ned Stark is an idealist. Idealism, briefly, is adherence to a system of ideas or principles that make up the law and serve as a guide to forming a system of justice. Idealism can be based on a philosophy or a religion, but in either case there is a set of core rules that will not be broken. Idealism has its place in politics, as it can direct the formation of laws or give a government a sense of purpose. In the real world, though, political ideals must oftentimes be transgressed out of necessity, especially in cases where the security of the state and its citizens would be put in peril.

  For example, nearly all political entities have the law that no person shall kill another or compel another person to do so. It’s a rule that is necessary for any society if it wishes to exist. Now, if there’s an uprising in one of the realms of a kingdom and the king sends in a troop of knights to quell it, technically he has broken the rule. He has ordered the deaths of those rebelling, but practically speaking, it is necessary, for the security of the state, to break the rule. The hard truth is that sometimes the Hand must get dirty in order to maintain the security of the Seven Kingdoms. Ned, though, is usually unwilling to do this.

  Just think of what happens when the news arrives that Daenerys Targaryen has wed the most powerful of the Dothraki Khals, Drogo, and that (even worse) she is pregnant. The situation is dire, as the Targaryens, descended from Aegon the Conqueror, are the true heirs to the throne. If Daenerys were to have a son, the Dothraki hordes could sweep through the Seven Kingdoms and take the Iron Throne. Thus the council recommends Daenerys’s assassination.

  Ned balks at the advice. It is unimaginable to him that King Robert would consider having a teenage girl killed. Moreover, he reasons that the Dothraki fear the ocean, because their horses cannot drink from it. So they will never cross the “the black water.” Robert and the council, not willing to rely on this reasoning, have already decided that Daenerys must die. Varys explains to Lord Stark, “I understand your qualms, Lord Eddard, truly I do. It gave me no joy to bring this news to council. It is a terrible thing we contemplate, a vile thing. Yet we who presume to rule must do vile things for the good of the realm however much it pains us.”14

  Machiavelli would tell Ned that “a blunder ought never to be perpetrated to avoid war, because it is not to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage.”15 Ned’s second objection, the one of practicality, can’t be relied upon. It requires that the Dothraki never change their customs, or that their desire for glory will never overcome their fear of the sea. Although the king could command a strengthening of naval defenses and begin an earnest preparation for a possible war, this would severely tax an already bankrupt kingdom. The king and his council are being practical. If war can be avoided with one action, no matter how vile, that action ought to be undertaken. The burden of war on the kingdom, the cost of life, and the security of the state all point to the necessity of assassinating the Dothraki queen.

  Concerning Ned’s ethical objection, Machiavelli would remark that “it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.”16 Ned isn’t stupid; he just doesn’t see the necessity of the action. The threat is years down the line, but a strong kingdom does not make decisions with the king’s head on the chopping block. A weak government, on the other hand, is one in which “all choices they make, they are forced to make: and if they should happen to do the right thing, it is force, not their own good sense that makes them do it.”17

  Ned’s idealism shapes his worldview. He doesn’t see Daenerys as the queen of a ruthless and warlike people; he sees her as a teenage girl. While she is that, she is not just that. She’s the queen of an army that could take the Seven Kingdoms. Thus, Ned’s idealism in this case is incredibly dangerous to the security of the realm.

  Threats to the Realm

  “Who do you truly serve?”

  “The realm, my lord, someone must.”

  —Lord Stark and Varys (“The Pointy End”)

  The Dothraki are an external and long-term threat to the kingdom. But there is also an immediate internal threat in the form of a conspiracy by the Lannister family to take the throne. In order to achieve their goal, the family has already done a number of things. The first is that they have wedded Cersei to King Robert. While this on its own represents nothing, Cersei’s contempt for Robert certainly poisons the well.18 The second thing is that Jaime Lannister, the Kingslayer, is the chief of the Kingsguard in charge of his security. These first two were rewards for the Lannisters’ assistance in rising up against the Mad King, and Jaime’s assassination of him. The third is a matter of policy, as the king likes to party and has put the entire kingdom into the debt of one family. This danger, while not as obvious as an opposing army, places undue power into the hands of a family with questionable loyalty. All three together are not necessarily dangerous, but the evidence of the Lannisters’ disloyalty is quite striking.

  When Ned entered the throne room after the end of the civil war, he found Jaime sitting on the Iron Throne. Thus, the Lannisters’ motives should be obvious. Machiavelli warns all princes (and kings) that “they can never live secure in their principality so long as those live who have been despoiled of it.”19 While it’s not exactly clear that the Lannister family has been robbed of the throne, they clearly think they deserve it. Furthermore, it’s explicitly clear that the Targaryens have been robbed of it. The Seven Kingdoms thus face two threats: the external threat of the Dothraki-Targaryen alliance, and the internal threat of the Lannister conspiracy.

  Ned’s adherence to his virtue is admirable, but it is a hindrance in his role as Hand of the King. Littlefinger makes this explicit. When he is called to advise Eddard on what to do with Cersei and the Lannisters, he says, “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.”20 Littlefinger knows what needs to be done. So does Stark, but “it’s not honorable, so the words stick in your throat.”21 Lord Stark can’t ask Littlefinger to help him overthrow the Lannister family; he also can’t abide anyone but Stannis Baratheon as king, even though Renly is the better choice and Stannis’s ascent will mean war with the Lannisters. Stannis is the true heir, being the next of kin to Robert. It’s a poor choice, though, and civil war follows.

  “The Madness of Mercy”22

  What should Ned have done? “For when the safety of one’s country wholly depends on the decision to be taken, no attention should be paid either to justice or injustice, kindness or cruelty, or to its being praiseworthy or ignominious,” advises Machiavelli.23 For the security of the state, Ned had a couple of options, both of which were presented to him by Littlefinger. The first option would be to keep quiet and serve the kingdom as regent until Joffrey comes of age. This course of action would preserve the unity of the state. It could also give Joffrey some positive guidance, maybe tempering that sociopathic side that we see evident in the few brief glimpses we have of him on the throne. Ned would be constrained, though, as the queen would undoubtedly not let him run the kingdom without her say-so.

  The second option is the more treasonous route, but, as Littlefinger says, “only if we lose.”24 They could promote Renly to the throne while at the same time dealing with the Lannister fam
ily. According to Machiavelli, Ned would have three options for dealing with them: “either kill them as the [Roman] consuls did; or expel them from the city; or to force them to make peace with one another. Of these three methods the last is the most hurtful, least reliable, and the most futile.”25 The last method must be ruled out, as Machiavelli says, especially here, because Cersei isn’t one to keep her word. So the only real options are to either exile or execute them. While both will guarantee that they are out of the kingdom, the first would only be temporary; the Lannisters are too rich and too powerful not to attempt a return. In order to effectively get rid of the Lannisters they all must go, everyone from Jaime to Joffrey to Tywin. Their property must be confiscated, along with any other assets.

  The real difficulty in this course is how to promote Renly without having Stannis raise his sword. The danger of Stannis is that he has not forgotten the old enemies of his family that Robert had forgiven in exchange for oaths of fealty. Would the people care? Probably not; as Jorah comments, “It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace.”26 The people desire justice and peace, which they so rarely get. If a war could be prevented with one stroke, is it not the more virtuous decision to make that stroke despite the apparent injustice of the decision?

  It would be unjust to promote Renly to the throne, and it would be cruel to have the Lannisters killed or imprisoned. But either would have prevented the state from falling into civil war, while also preserving Stark’s life. Ultimately, Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell died not for honor, but because of honor. His unwillingness to do what was necessary to preserve the Seven Kingdoms not only cost him his life, but plunged the entire nation into civil war.27