Game of Thrones and Philosophy (4 page)

It might be better to deceive without lying because
even if
the responsibility that your audience bears does not lessen yours, you have at least preserved more of their autonomy.
29
A person is
autonomous
if she can freely make her own choices about what to do; and the more choices she has, the more autonomous she is. Both Kant in his
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
and the British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) in his
On Liberty
have emphasized the important moral value of autonomy.

As noted, if you lie to them, your audience has few options. For instance, they can believe what you say (or at least pretend to do so), or they can directly question your sincerity. Thus, they have very little autonomy. By contrast, if you simply imply something that you believe to be false, your audience has additional options and somewhat greater autonomy. For instance, without having to question the
maegi
’s sincerity, Daenerys could have easily clarified matters by asking, “Do you really mean that you can return Drogo to health and that only his horse will have to die?”

But do the victims of other forms of deception always have more options than the victims of lies? For instance, after he was “savaged by a boar whilst hunting in the kingswood,” Robert asks Eddard to take care of his children when he dies.
30

The words twisted in Ned’s belly like a knife. For a moment he was at a loss. He could not bring himself to lie. Then he remembered the bastards: little Barra at her mother’s breast, Mya in the Vale, Gendry at his forge, and all the others. “I shall . . . guard your children as if they were my own,” he said slowly.
31

In this case, while Eddard intends to convey something that he believes to be false, he believes what he actually says. So, he is not lying. But is Robert really going to think to ask, “Okay, but are we in agreement as to who my children are?” In other words, does the king really have more options than he would have had if Eddard had lied? In fact, since Robert has no choice but to believe that Eddard is going to take care of Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen, does he really bear any of the responsibility for having been deceived?

The Ruses of War

Whether or not deceiving is just as bad as lying, is it worse to lie to (or to deceive)
the king
than to lie to someone else? And Joffrey’s lie is not our only motivation for addressing this important issue. As noted, many people in the “game of thrones,” including Eddard and the queen, lie to the king or try to deceive him in other ways.

There are, of course, certain situations in which it is clearly acceptable to try to deceive a king. For instance, it is okay to bluff when you play poker with a king. Also, you can try to trick him on the battlefield when you are at war with him. As the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) wrote, “the general sense of mankind is that deceiving an enemy is both just and lawful.”
32
So, for instance, it is okay for Robb Stark to try to fool the Lannisters by splitting his forces. (Of course, according to Barristan the Bold, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, “there is small honor in tricks.”
33
So perhaps it would have been more honorable for Robb to follow the Dothraki practice and braid his hair with “bells so his enemies would hear him coming and grow weak with fear.”
34
)

But poker games and battles are special situations where deception is an accepted part of the strategy, in which even a king essentially gives people permission to lie to him. By contrast, in most situations, no such permission is granted. In fact, in many situations, such as when the king holds court—which is where Joffrey tells his lie—it is made quite explicit that lying will not be tolerated. Then again, maybe the king tacitly gives people permission to lie to him simply by virtue of playing the
game
of thrones?

By the way, I do not want to leave the impression that “
all
is fair in love and war.” Some types of deception are morally unjustified even in battle. For instance, in our world, the Geneva Conventions condemn “the feigning of civilian, noncombatant status.” Similarly, it is questionable practice for Ser Gregor Clegane, bannerman of House Lannister, to destroy villages in the Trident while masquerading as an outlaw raider. And while he definitely overreacts, Ser Gregor himself has some reason to be upset when Ser Loras Tyrell rides a mare in heat to distract the Mountain’s horse during the Hand’s tourney. Such ruses are not the accepted norm whether in battle and or in jousts.

Bad Consequences and Broken Oaths

Outside of poker games and battles, it is probably not morally acceptable to try to deceive the king. But is it worse to try to deceive
the king
rather than someone else? Traditional ethical theories provide some potential explanations for why this might be the case.

According to
consequentialism
, when deciding what to do, we should consider what the consequences of our actions are likely to be. And we should not do things that are likely to have bad consequences. Now, the consequences of misleading a person as powerful as the king can be extremely dire. For instance, King Robert Baratheon orders the deaths of an innocent person and an innocent animal as a result of Joffrey’s lie. The queen’s deception of the king arguably leads to the dissolution of the realm. So we will usually have more reason to avoid lying to the king than we have to avoid lying to the smallfolk.

However, consequentialist considerations do not show that it is
always
worse to lie to a king. For instance, Eddard deceives Robert about Joffrey’s parentage only when Robert is already on his deathbed. Since he is about to die, there is little opportunity for Robert to take any further unwise actions as a result of his false belief. Knowing the truth would just cause him additional pain. (“The agony was written too plainly across Robert’s face; he could not hurt him more.”
35
) So it seems that the benefits of deceiving Robert in this case were likely to outweigh the costs.
36

But we might also try to appeal to
nonconsequentialist
considerations to show that it is worse to lie to a king. Many philosophers, including Kant, think that we have an obligation to behave in certain ways—and an obligation
not
to behave in other ways—regardless of what the consequences might be. In particular, in
The Right and the Good
, W. D. Ross (1877–1971) claims that we have a duty of
fidelity
or
truthfulness
. In other words, we are obliged not to lie or to deceive people in other ways. Of course, this is a duty that we owe to everyone and not just to kings. However, subjects arguably have a special obligation not to deceive their king. Doing so would break an “oath of fealty” taken before the old and/or new gods.
37

Unfortunately, not everyone in Westeros has explicitly sworn an oath to the king. The lords and the knights certainly have, but the smallfolk probably have not. In addition, it is not clear that Joffrey—being only twelve years old—had yet sworn such an oath to Robert Baratheon. And in any event, as Lord Varys points out, “we all know what a Lannister’s oath is worth.”
38

But we might nevertheless argue that all subjects have this special obligation to their king by appealing to the doctrine of the “divine right of kings.” The idea is that a king has god-given authority over his subjects just like the authority that parents have over their children. And it would clearly be especially bad to try to deceive someone who legitimately has this sort of authority over you.

Admittedly, Robert Baratheon seized the Iron Throne in battle rather than inheriting it from his father. But this does not mean that he does not have the backing of the gods. In a similar vein, Tyrion is presumably found innocent in his “trial by combat” at the Eyrie—championed by the sellsword Bronn—because the gods really control the outcome.
39

But while the divine right of kings would explain why it is worse to lie to a king, it is by no means clear that there really is a divine right of kings. The English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) gave an influential argument against this doctrine in his
Two Treatises of Government
. As Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) wrote in the Declaration of Independence—which is cribbed from Locke—“all men are created equal” and political authority derives only from the “consent of the governed.” Or as a peasant in another medieval fantasy famously put it, “strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
40
Thus, nonconsequentialist considerations may not show that it is invariably worse to lie to a king either. So, while you may very well receive greater punishment for lying to the king than for lying to someone else, it is not clear that you have necessarily done something morally worse.
41

NOTES

1
. George R. R. Martin,
A Clash of Kings
(New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), pp. 241–242.

2
. George R. R. Martin,
A Game of Thrones
(New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), p. 155. Plato (429–347 BCE) claimed in
The Republic
that it is morally permissible for “philosopher kings” to tell “noble lies” to their subjects for the good of society. But according to King Robert, the opposite does not hold.

3
. Strictly speaking, this
maegi
is not a citizen of Westeros. She resides across the narrow sea from the Sunset Kingdoms.

4
. Bernard William,
Truth and Truthfulness
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 96. I actually don’t think that this definition is exactly right. See my essay “The Mendacity Bifurcation” in
The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy
, ed. Dean Kowalski (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, forthcoming). But my objections won’t matter for our purposes here.

5
. Martin,
A Game of Thrones
, p. 292.

6
. Ibid., p. 175.

7
. Ibid., p. 413.

8
. Ibid., p. 331.

9
. Ibid., p. 514.

10
. Ibid., p. 529.

11
. Ibid., p. 328.

12
. Ibid., p. 310.

13
. Ibid., p. 382.

14
. Ibid., p. 428.

15
. Ibid., p. 725.

16
. Ibid., p. 413.

17
. By contrast, when the Jedi master Obi-Wan Kenobi (from another fantasy world that you are probably familiar with) causes an Imperial Stormtrooper to utter the words “These aren’t the droids we’re looking for,” the Stormtrooper really has no choice.

18
. Of course, despite making different choices, Eddard and Sir Thomas both end up getting their heads chopped off.

19
. Martin,
A Game of Thrones
, p. 504.

20
. Mark Twain, “My First Lie, and How I Got Out of It,” in
The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 168.

21
. Thomas Carson,
Lying and Deception
(Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), pp. 53–54.

22
. Ibid., p. 56.

23
. Kant would never
lie
to his king because he thought that lying is always wrong. But interestingly, he did try to deceive his king on at least one occasion. See James Mahon’s “Kant on Lies, Candour and Reticence,”
Kantian Review
7 (2003), 102–133.

24
. Roderick Chisholm and Thomas Feehan, “The Intent to Deceive,”
Journal of Philosophy
74 (1977), pp. 143–159.

25
. Martin,
A Game of Thrones
, p. 651.

26
. Ibid., p. 710.

27
. Ibid., p. 757.

28
. Jennifer Saul,
Lying, Misleading, and What Is Said
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

29
. See Alan Strudler’s “The Distinctive Wrong in Lying,” in
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
13 (2010), pp. 171–179.

30
. Martin,
A Game of Thrones
, p. 506.

31
. Ibid., p. 506.

32
. Hugo Grotius,
On the Law of War and Peace
(Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2010), p. 232.

33
. Martin,
Game of Thrones
, p. 316.

34
. Ibid., p. 802.

35
. Ibid., p. 504.

36
. It might also be better to lie to a king if one thinks that it will keep him from doing something very bad. Eddard seems to think that Robert might just kill the queen and her children if he found out the truth. So it might be better to deceive him even if he were not about to die.

37
. Martin,
A Game of Thrones
, p. 527.

38
. Ibid., p. 322.

39
. Ibid., p. 421.

40
.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
(Python Pictures, 1975). For more on the doctrine of the divine right of kings in that medieval fantasy, see Patrick Croskery’s “Monty Python and the Search for the Meaning of Life,” in
Monty Python and Philosophy
, eds. Gary L. Hardcastle and George A. Reisch (Chicago: Open Court, 2006), pp. 166–167.

41
. I would like to thank Andrew Cohen, Tony Doyle, Henry Jacoby, Laura Lenhart, Kay Mathiesen, Jennifer Saul, and Dan Zelinski for helpful suggestions on this chapter.

Chapter 3

PLAYING THE GAME OF THRONES: SOME LESSONS FROM MACHIAVELLI

Marcus Schulzke

A Song of Ice and Fire is full of complex characters attempting to win the Iron Throne or at least to survive. Each employs his or her own strategy for reaching a particular goal, but over the course of the story it becomes clear that some of these strategies are far more successful than others. Some characters manage to escape even the most desperate circumstances, while others are outmaneuvered and killed. The philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) can help us understand why some characters succeed and others fail. Machiavelli was quite familiar with the struggle for power, and the word “Machiavellian” is still used to describe those who are adept at using force and cunning.

As Machiavelli explains, there are two different kinds of kingdoms, hereditary and new, which require two different kinds of rulers.
1
Hereditary rulers can maintain power by continuing the policies of their predecessors; they enjoy a secure position because they are part of an established dynasty that has built a secure power base. New rulers face a much greater challenge. By seizing control of a state from someone else, they not only make enemies, but in the process also show others how to capture the throne. Becoming a new ruler requires a great deal of skill and luck, and because only the former can be learned, it is important to emulate the skill of great rulers.

Machiavelli’s most famous book,
The Prince
, is full of advice for those aspiring to establish themselves as new rulers. To illustrate timeless lessons about how to become a new ruler and how to protect one’s self against challengers, Machiavelli tells stories of those who succeeded or failed in their quest for power. With its focus on the struggle to establish new kingdoms,
The Prince
is a perfect lens through which to view the events of A Song of Ice and Fire. As we’ll see, the War of the Five Kings follows the logic of the Machiavellian struggle for power and illustrates many of Machiavelli’s most important lessons.

Aerys Targaryen, the Mad King who ruled Westeros before Robert Baratheon, started from a position of strength, as he was part of a long line of Targaryen kings. He had all the advantages associated with a hereditary king, yet he squandered these by acting cruelly and irrationally. Once he was deposed, Westeros lost its ruling dynasty and the Iron Throne became an unstable seat of power controlled by new rulers who faced many of the difficulties Machiavelli describes. All surviving members of the Targaryen family, and all those who had supported the Targaryens, became Robert’s enemies. Those who helped Robert reach the throne were eager to call in favors in return for their support and to work to gain power in the new court. With the Mad King’s downfall, the contest to take firm control of the throne and to establish the next dynasty began.

Virtù
and
Fortuna

Machiavelli argues that two forces determine the battle for power:
virtù
and
fortuna
. Virtù is the skill one needs to take power and keep it, but what this skill actually consists of continually changes based on the circumstances. When going into battle against a rival, acting with virtù may be a matter of charging courageously forward to meet the threat, whereas in other circumstances, such as plotting an assassination, virtù may require caution and patience. Robb’s skill in battle and Littlefinger’s ability to manipulate others are very different ways of winning power, but each shows virtù.

Rather than giving a clear definition or a list of characteristics, Machiavelli illustrates the concept by telling a series of stories about those who had virtù and those who lacked it. The best way to learn it is by emulating great figures of the past, but one cannot follow their examples too rigidly, as this would make one predictable.
2
Instead of copying those with virtù, Machiavelli advises his readers to discover what general lessons can be learned from them and then to apply these lessons in novel ways to discover a unique path to the throne.

Despite his vagueness about the meaning of virtù, Machiavelli is very clear on one point: Virtù is not the same as virtue. Virtue is usually associated with moral qualities. A virtuous person is one who is honest, courageous, and loyal. A person with virtù can display each of these qualities, but only when they are useful. Those with virtù often
appear
to be virtuous only because this appearance makes it easier for them to take and hold power. Being morally virtuous can actually be a hindrance, as it may prevent one from doing what is necessary to gain an advantage over opponents.

A concern with morality makes strong characters like Ned Stark vulnerable, while those who know when to act immorally prevail. This point is made clear when Lysa accuses Bronn of not fighting with honor after he wins Tyrion’s trial by combat. Bronn points toward the hole his opponent fell into and tells her, “No . . . he did” (“A Golden Crown”). An aspiring king must therefore know when to be virtuous and when to be cruel. He must also know how to make his actions appear to be good or be able to blame others for misdeeds.
3
Machiavelli does not advise rulers to behave immorally, however. Rather, he advises them to avoid thinking in terms of morality at all. He says that actions are only good or bad to the extent that they increase or decrease one’s power. Terrorizing others is often counterproductive because rulers who make themselves hated often provoke rebellions.

Fortuna
can best be translated as luck. It encompasses whatever events are outside a person’s control, whether they are good or bad. Fortuna includes everything from how other people act to natural disasters. When it is favorable, fortuna can help a person out of even the most desperate circumstances, as when Tyrion had the good fortune of finding Bronn to defend him in a trial by combat. Fortuna, though, is an unreliable ally that can defect in an instant. For this reason, Machiavelli argues that one should leave nothing to chance; those with virtù usually succeed because they make their own luck. As he puts it, “Fortune is a woman, and if you wish to master her, you must strike and beat her, and you will see that she allows herself to be more easily vanquished by the rash and the violent than by those who proceed more slowly and coldly.”
4
Fortuna can be capricious, and thus it is essential to take precautions against it. In many of Machiavelli’s historical examples, fortuna is the force that brings even the greatest generals and rulers to ruin.

The best one can hope for is to avoid fortuna’s harmful consequences by planning for every contingency and adapting quickly to new events. Those who seek power must engage in a constant struggle to control fortuna by force and deception. They must have the virtù to control their circumstances, so that their circumstances cannot control them. Many of Machiavelli’s examples of virtù involve men who were successful partly because they were beneficiaries of good fortuna. As he points out, however, luck is rarely enough in itself. Many people have good luck, but greatness requires using it to one’s advantage. As Machiavelli says, “Opportunities, therefore, made these men fortunate, and it was their lofty virtue [virtù] that enabled them to recognize the opportunities by which their countries were made illustrious and most happy.”
5

The Downfall of Kings

The struggle for the Iron Throne is, as Machiavelli would have predicted, shaped by the same forces of virtù and fortuna that shaped the struggle for power in Renaissance Italy. In the game of thrones, players constantly struggle against fortuna by extending the range of their power and eliminating rivals. Ironically, some of the most powerful figures in the story are those who are least able to win the struggle against fortuna. Viserys Targaryen, Robert Baratheon, Joffrey Baratheon, Ned Stark, and Robb Stark illustrate some of the most basic mistakes one can make when attempting to take or keep power.

Viserys Targaryen is prideful, arrogant, and violent. He perfectly fits Machiavelli’s description of a deposed leader, as he thinks of nothing but claiming what he considers his place.
6
Viserys is willing to do anything, even sacrifice his own sister, in order to take the Iron Throne. However, he repeatedly makes serious mistakes that make him dependent on others. His decision to marry his sister to Khal Drogo is perhaps his greatest mistake, because it forces him to rely on both Drogo and his sister. His arrogance, of course, compounds this mistake.

Machiavelli argues that someone aspiring to power must either find support from average people or from the nobles.
7
The nobles may initially seem to be more attractive, as they have access to positions of power, the wealth needed to raise an army, and experience in politics. Machiavelli advises against aligning with the nobles, however, as they have one critical failing: they offer their support to a claimant to the throne only when it serves their purposes. Many lords, including Walder Frey and Roose Bolton, change their allegiances to gain an advantage. Had Viserys overcome his pride long enough to lead Khal Drogo’s army into Westeros to reclaim the throne, he might have found that Drogo or his sister would expect favors in return. He would have been left completely dependent on them and would have been forced to give in to all of their demands. Yet, he never even had the opportunity to learn this lesson. Drogo and his sister realized the power they had over the arrogant man, and they lost their patience with him long before Viserys had an opportunity to invade Westeros.

The masses are much easier to please than the nobles, Machiavelli argues, because their only wish is not to be oppressed.
8
Anyone who can promise them security and freedom will win their lasting support. Had Viserys sought support from average people, he might have found them more willing to indulge his arrogant habits.

King Robert Baratheon is a stark contrast to Viserys, but he too suffers from serious failings that make him a poor leader. Robert’s rise to power indicates that he was once a man of great virtù. He managed to seize control of Westeros, reorganize its government, and place loyal supporters in key positions. Even when he becomes lazy and incapable of managing the state’s finances, he has widespread support and is too powerful for any challengers to attack directly. Nevertheless, Robert is similar to Viserys in one important respect. He often allows his emotions to dictate his actions. For example, Robert is quick to turn on Ned in a moment of anger and dismiss him as Hand of the King when Ned insists that Daenerys not be assassinated—only to reverse his decision when the anger has passed.
9
These strong emotions render Robert capricious and incapable of removing himself from the conflicts in which he is embroiled. Without this ability, fortuna is able to sway his emotions and dictate his actions. Ultimately, Robert’s lack of control over his emotions leads him to be a poor judge of his advisers and friends. His anger drives away honorable men like Ned Stark, and his pride leads him to become dependent on duplicitous advisers who echo his opinions.

Robert’s heir, Joffrey, takes the throne when he is too young and immature to understand the consequences of his actions. Excited by his new power and eager to exert his will, at first his harsh actions are understandable. He must act violently to eliminate his enemies in King’s Landing and to mobilize an army to oppose rival kings. Joffrey acts mercilessly against friends and enemies alike, however, and commits the fatal mistake of making himself hated. Machiavelli admits that cruelty is often necessary, but says it must be used cautiously so that it does not create enemies. Advising that unpopular measures should be acted upon quickly, Machiavelli says, “Cruelties should be committed all at once, as in that way each separate one is less felt, and gives less offence; benefits, on the other hand, should be conferred one at a time, for in that way they will be more appreciated.”
10
Unfortunately, Joffrey is cruel not only when it is necessary but also whenever he feels like controlling someone.

In one of
The Prince
’s most famous passages, Machiavelli discusses whether it is better to be loved or feared. Not surprisingly, it is most desirable to be
both
loved and feared. But if one must choose one or the other, fear is much better than love because it is a more reliable emotion.

Men have less hesitation about offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared, for love is held together by a chain of obligation which, because men are sadly wicked, is broken at every opportunity to serve their self-interest, but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never abandons you.
11

Machiavelli, however, cautions those who would make themselves feared through terror, saying that the worst thing one can do is to be hated, as hatred can drive people to action even when they are afraid. Joffrey strikes fear into his friends and enemies, but by continually acting cruelly, he makes himself hated by members of the court, the residents of King’s Landing, and even his own brother. Luck saves him from being murdered by angry crowds when he and his companions ride through the streets of King’s Landing in
A Clash of Kings
, but the fact that luck alone preserves his life is evidence that Joffrey is a poor model of how a king should behave.
12

Morality and Dependency

Not all of the cautionary tales in A Song of Ice and Fire involve cruel or capricious kings. Some of the most admirable characters also display a lack of virtù. Although he never became a challenger to the Iron Throne, Ned Stark rose to a position of great power. A much different kind of leader than Viserys, Robert, or Joffrey, Ned always made decisions with justice and fairness in mind. A great warrior, and one of the story’s most honorable characters, Ned was also a skilled administrator, a good friend, and a virtuous person. Despite all of these strengths, however, he is a prime example of how disastrous morality can be to those who are involved in politics.