Jump to content

The (attempted) murder of Jon was legally justifiable.


Bedwyck

Recommended Posts

Anyone with brain cells would know that it was going to be next to impossible for Ramsay to get through that weather and actually attack the Wall. I think Jon was being impulsive there.

How would Jon have any idea what the weather is like at Winterfell..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting ridiculous. A part of the oath means a duty the oath entails. You apparently have no problem with saying some things are part of the oath that are not stated literally, such as 'do nothing to compromise the watch.' I think it is obvious there needs to be some interpretation so there is nothing obvious about something not literally stated not being in the oath.

You're being disingenuous about this. You are arguing that "hold no lands, wear no crowns, father no children, take no wife, win no glory" add up to the inevitable, unequivocal interpretation of "take no part." But it doesn't. Just as equally "do nothing to benefit personally from the system" and "do nothing that compromises your ability to perform your mission" actually follow from the words stated even more neatly. The point being, saying that "take no part" is an objective part of the vows is flawed.

For the express purpose of 'taking no part' though. I mean he even says this.

Actually they do though, especially when the alternative is to say they mean 'do nothing to compromise the watch.' As I explained, if the oath really didn't specifically require neutrality but allowed any action so long as it accorded with the mission there would no need for the prohibitions. Wearing a crown, or wielding the power a crown represents could serve to safeguard the realm. The fact is specific ways of engaging in feudal politics are prohibited which points towards taking no part being the objective, not the vaguer 'do not compromise,' given in some circumstances one could argue these acts didn't actually compromise the watch's mission at all.

Aemon's description doesn't relate to personal gain specifically, although that would be one concern. He really does say one of the prohibitions to there to ensure the watch takes no part. So saying they are about preventing personal gain doesn't really wash. Why are all but one of the prohibitions related to avoiding entanglements in realm politics if taking no part is not a duty?

I've seen you argue Mance was on watch business beyond the wall and so was not an oathbreaker (which he was given he fathered a son but anyhoo) but the watch's prohibitions would mean he couldn't forge alliances through marriage to strengthen his powerbase, or wield the power of a king which he needed to do (I assume the spirit of the oath requires one does more than not wearing the crown). So the prohibition are in specific conflict with 'do not compromise the watch' here. If we assume the real duty is 'take no part' they are not.

It seems obvious the oath is about a threat from the north but given no Others were in sight it must have been hard to conclude they were the actual the threat seeing as they weren't mentioned.

No it is not, seeing as Aemon is honestly not speaking to issues of neutrality or pragmatics wrt to fulfilling the mission when the watch is under attack or threatened in that speech. Literally nothing else he says is even related to how to navigate neutrality if it is made difficult to defend the realm and take no part. It is about the personal price nwman pay to keep their vows. It doesn't make a huge amount of sense to segue from 'sometimes you have to break your vows to fulfil the mission' (tacitly admitting 'take no part' is in the vow, btw) to 'the price of our duty here is non involvement but you have to decide whether you want to abandon your family or not.' These are two totally different arguments, it makes no sense to blend them, or state one very obliquely when it is not even the topic of discussion.

I explained the idea that self defence is needed is best understood as a metaphor for resisting temptation in the form of family ties, even if that means watching the destruction of one's family and putting aside love.

Aemon says the purpose of severing family ties is there to ensue the watch takes no part. He doesn't appeal to any general 'do not compromise rule,' he specifically connects family ties to 'taking no part.' The discussion doesn't get further than this, Aemon is just explaining the purpose of the prohibitions.

There have been civil wars in the north before, I imagine very similar situations must have arisen over 8,000 years.

Taking no part is part of the oath. Obviously it is there to ensure the watch can defend the realm and so is pragmatic in this sense. My point is that it is a policy that the LC is oathbound to adopt and is not supposed to be at his discretion.

Well they shouldn't have separated the Others from the vow obviously.

There are correct interpretations and wrong ones. The vow itself doesn't actually say the purpose of the watch is to fight the Others, that's an interpretation and if the duty was remembered and understood it would a non literal duty that explained the oath, placing it in the same boat as 'taking no part.' Call them both customs if you will.

There are actually clauses in the oath itself that do seem to relate to the Others being the main purpose of the watch, just as there are clauses that relate to neutrality, but an interpretative framework is required to get to the duties the oath requires.

I think the idea would be that an organization that needs to survive thousands of years can't afford to be politicized (the unavoidable long term consequences of taking part, even occasionally) and so 'taking no part' is an anti-self destruct clause. The watch wouldn't be in one piece if LCs weren't made to feel taking no part was not required.

Sometimes oaths conflict. If the watch is threatened with total destruction then taking part would be necessary but the LC is oathbound to do all he can to preserve the watch by actively maintaining neutrality. Jon failed at this in xiii.

Let's look at the passage.

Aemon points out that the Watch prefers ravens, which are ambiguous, misunderstood and "able to defend against hawks" in service to performing their mission. This would set up the idea that the Watch much do what it must to preserve itself and pragmatically perform its mission, no matter what. Aemon's following words are exactly in line with this-- he's setting up the idea that a Watchman must do nothing that interferes with his ability to perform that function. He goes through various situations that would compromise the Watch, framing this as a pragmatic issue-- not some idealistic one. The summary of Aemon's points is essentially that a Watchman must preserve the Watch and do nothing that would compromise its mission.

On the neutrality part itself, we have this: look at the difference in the way Aemon speaks of the prohibitions in the vow versus those not enumerated:

“Jon, did you ever wonder why the men of the Night’s Watch take no wives and father no children?” Maester Aemon asked.
and especially this
“The men who formed the Night’s Watch knew that only their courage shielded the realm from the darkness to the north. They knew they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve. So they vowed they would have no wives nor children.
versus
“Yet brothers they had, and sisters. Mothers who gave them birth, fathers who gave them names. They came from a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms, and they knew times may change, but men do not. So they pledged as well that the Night’s Watch would take no part in the battles of the realms it guarded.
Interestingly, Aemon remarks that the original brothers vowed to take no wives or children for the sake of not dividing loyalty, as something separate from this pledge (not "vow") to take no part (also explained by Aemon as a practical measure), that seems to have been added to the interpretation of the vow later. Meaning, a customary interpretation.
What's crucial about Aemon's explanation is that he presents all of these prohibitions as fundamentally pragmatic measures. These are important because they enable the Watchman to perform his mission, not because they are sacred in and of themselves. Which is what ties into the raven, hawk and dove anecdote at the beginning-- ravens do what they must, including be misunderstood, able to defend themselves and ambiguous, in order to carry out their mission. The mission is what's important, and everything else must serve that.
For thousands of years, the Watch could survive by not politicizing itself. I do not deny that. But the world's fundamentally changed now.
More specifically, once Stannis arrives at the Wall, he has politicized the Watch by virtue of his merely being there because this is how Stannis' enemies see the Watch from that point. Keeping neutral is just as much about how others perceive your actions as your actions themselves. If Stannis' enemies mark you down as an enemy for merely coexisting with him, then you are inherently politicized and no longer "neutral."
If you agree that in a situation where "taking no part" and the Watch's preservation to perform its mission are in conflict, and the mission is what needs to be prioritized, why do you continue to believe that the Watch must continue to adhere to neutrality as much as possible? Because it's a sacred part of the vow in your view? Or because it's a pragmatic measure to ensure the Watch's performance in its mission?
If we're talking about pragmatics, then it's rather faulty to assume that maintaining neutrality is the practical solution to every context. You seem to believe that Jon failed due to his failure to maintain neutrality. I think his failure was in his taking these half measures-- trying to maintain neutrality despite the necessity of getting involved that you just advocated-- that doomed him. He should have gone all the way with it.
That's to say, Jon did exactly what you are advocating: If the watch is threatened with total destruction then taking part would be necessary but the LC is oathbound to do all he can to preserve the watch by actively maintaining neutrality. You just disagree with the specific actions he got involved in.
ETA: about what I've written about Mance's oathbreaking--- you're taking this out of context here. I've argued that he seems to have continued pursuing the mission of the Watch. Which is most certainly the case, given that his Plan A was to fight the damn Others himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has a civil war in the North ever coincided with a Wildling invasion or, worse, an invasion of the Others though?

If the Others haven't invaded for 8,000 years then no. Wildling invasions we wouldn't know would we. But it is always the duty of the watch to be ready to face the Others.

Because I kind of think that's SeanF's point you're glossing over. Civil wars and shaky central authority in the North is almost definitely something the Watch has had to deal with before, and maybe even negatively impacted by. But it's kind of different if the Lord Commander has the luxury of having no dog in that fight (at least as far as the survival of his organisation/the Wall goes), and simply being content to sit on the sidelines to that the regional conflict sort itself out, even if that means a short term decrease in supplies and manpower.

He always has a dog in that fight given he has to be prepared for an attack at any time.

If you want to argue Stannis is the only man to lead the north through the long night perhaps that's right, but his leadership also comes with problems (opposition to the south/potential need to renew the war with the IT/potentially disloyal banners). Supporting him openly means certain reprisals if he loses (which was actually always more likely) while offering no real guarantee his victory would be beneficial in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said 13 pages ago (and got ignored), if it were legal, presumably they would have handled it by some other means than assassination.

I can't think of a single assassination by members of (ostensibly) one's own side that was justified as being legal at the time. Maybe in caveman days that was a legal way to handle it, but once there are actual laws and rules, laws and rules are how you handle something involving laws and rules.

The fact is, Marsh had dubious legal claim against Jon or anything he was doing. It is hardly a clear cut case of any breach of the rules, especially if the spirit of the rules is given precedence over the letter. Marsh's act is therefore an assassination. With all that connotes.

That's where I'm at. There was a lot going on and this was the most convenient time to stick a dagger in his back. I'm sure there are many cowards that were afraid of losing their neutrality, but the deed was done because certain people wanted him dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're being disingenuous about this. You are arguing that "hold no lands, wear no crowns, father no children, take no wife, win no glory" add up to the inevitable, unequivocal interpretation of "take no part." But it doesn't. Just as equally "do nothing to benefit personally from the system" and "do nothing that compromises your ability to perform your mission" actually follow from the words stated even more neatly. The point being, saying that "take no part" is an objective part of the vows is flawed.

How am I being disingenuous. I explained in my previous posts why I thought take no part was the ultimate duty pointed towards by the prohibitions. I also explained why the duties you ascribed to the phrases were unpersuasive.

The reason for my prior annoyance was the insistence that a nwman was not bound to anything not literally stated in the oath. As we appear to agree this is not the case, that is all settled.

Let's look at the passage.

Aemon points out that the Watch prefers ravens, which are ambiguous, misunderstood and "able to defend against hawks" in service to performing their mission. This would set up the idea that the Watch much do what it must to preserve itself and pragmatically perform its mission, no matter what. Aemon's following words are exactly in line with this-- he's setting up the idea that a Watchman must do nothing that interferes with his ability to perform that function. He goes through various situations that would compromise the Watch, framing this as a pragmatic issue-- not some idealistic one. The summary of Aemon's points is essentially that a Watchman must preserve the Watch and do nothing that would compromise its mission.

Yes, a watchman has to be strong and prepared to do dishonourable or unsavoury things if he hopes to complete his mission. So what. This isn't anything specifically to do with neutrality in situations like Jon finds himself in dwd, especially if, as you say, taking no part is not considered part of the vows by Aemon, and is mere pragmatism. Were that the case there would be no dishonour in not abiding by it, would there?

It is actually impossible for Aemon's talk of doves and ravens to mean that sometimes the nw should interfere and for him to simultaneously maintain neutrality is not sacred or part of the vows. There is no dishonour, dirty hands or dead eating if you're not breaking a vow. So the argument, even if it were true (and its not) is literally self refuting.

On the neutrality part itself, we have this: look at the difference in the way Aemon speaks of the prohibitions in the vow versus those not enumerated:

“Jon, did you ever wonder why the men of the Night’s Watch take no wives and father no children?” Maester Aemon asked.

and especially this

“The men who formed the Night’s Watch knew that only their courage shielded the realm from the darkness to the north. They knew they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve. So they vowed they would have no wives nor children.

versus

“Yet brothers they had, and sisters. Mothers who gave them birth, fathers who gave them names. They came from a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms, and they knew times may change, but men do not. So they pledged as well that the Night’s Watch would take no part in the battles of the realms it guarded.

Interestingly, Aemon remarks that the original brothers vowed to take no wives or children for the sake of not dividing loyalty, as something separate from this pledge (not "vow") to take no part (also explained by Aemon as a practical measure), that seems to have been added to the interpretation of the vow later. Meaning, a customary interpretation.

What's crucial about Aemon's explanation is that he presents all of these prohibitions as fundamentally pragmatic measures. These are important because they enable the Watchman to perform his mission, not because they are sacred in and of themselves. Which is what ties into the raven, hawk and dove anecdote at the beginning-- ravens do what they must, including be misunderstood, able to defend themselves and ambiguous, in order to carry out their mission. The mission is what's important, and everything else must serve that.

For thousands of years, the Watch could survive by not politicizing itself. I do not deny that. But the world's fundamentally changed now.

There isn't any doubt that taking no part pertains to pragmatism. But Aemon is saying that taking no part is one of the duties entailed by the vow itself, given he describes it as the purpose of taking no wives and children. I wouldn't make too much of the difference between vow and pledge, he is clear that non interference is the purpose of both the vow and the pledge. It is illogical to suggest the vow was supposed to be for something else given the pledge to take no part dealt with an identical problem, namely that of divided loyalties.

Aemon actually doesn't distinguish the pledgers from the original brothers, and regards the logic behind the vow and the pledge as identical so there aren't any grounds to say the pledge is just a customary interpretation that grew up later. Indeed, what Aemon says about the reason for the actual words of the vow could just as well be a customary interpretation too, given Aemon lives 8,000 after the founding of the nw (apparently). So again the distinction between duties of the oath and the custom isn't really there.

So not only would an LC consider neutrality pragmatic he is also oathbound to practice it, and he is oathbound because the nw considers neutrality the best way of preserving themselves. It is not something you have the right to drop any time your judgment tells you the policy no longer helps to protect the realm, or else it wouldn't be anything at all to do with the oath, it would be purely a matter of policy.

More specifically, once Stannis arrives at the Wall, he has politicized the Watch by virtue of his merely being there because this is how Stannis' enemies see the Watch from that point. Keeping neutral is just as much about how others perceive your actions as your actions themselves. If Stannis' enemies mark you down as an enemy for merely coexisting with him, then you are inherently politicized and no longer "neutral."

If you agree that in a situation where "taking no part" and the Watch's preservation to perform its mission are in conflict, and the mission is what needs to be prioritized, why do you continue to believe that the Watch must continue to adhere to neutrality as much as possible? Because it's a sacred part of the vow in your view? Or because it's a pragmatic measure to ensure the Watch's performance in its mission?

If we're talking about pragmatics, then it's rather faulty to assume that maintaining neutrality is the practical solution to every context. You seem to believe that Jon failed due to his failure to maintain neutrality. I think his failure was in his taking these half measures-- trying to maintain neutrality despite the necessity of getting involved that you just advocated-- that doomed him. He should have gone all the way with it.

That's to say, Jon did exactly what you are advocating: If the watch is threatened with total destruction then taking part would be necessary but the LC is oathbound to do all he can to preserve the watch by actively maintaining neutrality. You just disagree with the specific actions he got involved in.

It is both a sacred vow and a pragmatic measure (and in the oath because it is so strongly in the nw interest). I explained that the watch can actively pursue neutrality earlier, in order to guard against entanglements that could result from certain situations, like the presence of Stannis. I'm not saying neutrality is the best immediate solution to every situation. In fact I expect it is in the vow precisely because there are occasions when involvement might appear to serve the watch. Ultimately, the wisdom of the institution, enshrined in the vow, is that taking part is always a bad idea and no LC has to right to do it even if he thinks it best. Faced with imminent and total annihilation he will have no choice but that does not mean take no part is not in the vow, or that it is not sacred and is purely pragmatic.

Jon didn't do what I advocated at all, in xiii he failed to actively pursue neutrality and broke his oath and blew apart his command which could have been avoided if he'd actively pursued neutrality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Others haven't invaded for 8,000 years then no. Wildling invasions we wouldn't know would we. But it is always the duty of the watch to be ready to face the Others.

So then it's possible the problem Jon has faced hasn't come up before?

He always has a dog in that fight given he has to be prepared for an attack at any time.

If you want to argue Stannis is the only man to lead the north through the long night perhaps that's right, but his leadership also comes with problems (opposition to the south/potential need to renew the war with the IT/potentially disloyal banners). Supporting him openly means certain reprisals if he loses (which was actually always more likely) while offering no real guarantee his victory would be beneficial in the long run.

Well now we're in a more interesting discussion of weighing the pros and cons of how Jon should have taken part, rather than a rebuking of any attempt to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How am I being disingenuous. I explained in my previous posts why I thought take no part was the ultimate duty pointed towards by the prohibitions. I also explained why the duties you ascribed to the phrases were unpersuasive.

The reason for my prior annoyance was the insistence that a nwman was not bound to anything not literally stated in the oath. As we appear to agree this is not the case, that is all settled.

Yes, a watchman has to be strong and prepared to do dishonourable or unsavoury things if he hopes to complete his mission. So what. This isn't anything specifically to do with neutrality in situations like Jon finds himself in dwd, especially if, as you say, taking no part is not considered part of the vows by Aemon, and is mere pragmatism. Were that the case there would be no dishonour in not abiding by it, would there?

It would be dishonorable to not abide by it if "taking part" would damage the Watch's ability to perform its function. That is to say, when the situation calls for keeping neutral, then the Watchman must keep neutral. If the situation calls for taking part in order to enable the Watch serve its mission, then this is the right thing to do.

I'd actually look at Qhorin's beliefs on this matter-- "our "honor" means no more than our lives," and his words about doing whatever it takes it service to the larger mission.

It is actually impossible for Aemon's talk of doves and ravens to mean that sometimes the nw should interfere and for him to simultaneously maintain neutrality is not sacred or part of the vows. There is no dishonour, dirty hands or dead eating if you're not breaking a vow. So the argument, even if it were true (and its not) is literally self refuting.

There isn't any doubt that taking no part pertains to pragmatism. But Aemon is saying that taking no part is one of the duties entailed by the vow itself, given he describes it as the purpose of taking no wives and children. I wouldn't make too much of the difference between vow and pledge, he is clear that non interference is the purpose of both the vow and the pledge. It is illogical to suggest the vow was supposed to be for something else.

So not only would an LC consider neutrality pragmatic he is also oathbound to practice it, and he is oathbound because the nw considers neutrality the best way of preserving themselves. It is not something you have the right to drop any time your judgment tells you the policy no longer helps to protect the realm, or else it wouldn't be anything at all to do with the oath, it would be purely a matter of policy.

It is both a sacred vow and a pragmatic measure (and in the oath because it is so strongly in the nw interest). I explained that the watch can actively pursue neutrality earlier, in order to guard against entanglements that could result from certain situations, like the presence of Stannis. I'm not saying neutrality is the best immediate solution to every situation. In fact I expect it is in the vow precisely because there are occasions when involvement might appear to serve the watch. Ultimately, the wisdom of the institution, enshrined in the vow, is that taking part is always a bad idea and no LC has to right to do it even if he thinks it best. Faced with imminent and total annihilation he will have no choice but that does not mean take no part is not in the vow, or that it is not sacred and is purely pragmatic.

Jon didn't do what I advocated at all, in xiii he failed to actively pursue neutrality and broke his oath and blew apart his command which could have been avoided if he'd actively pursued neutrality.

Let me ask you something. The Watch has spent years fighting wildlings, yet they are covered under the vow as being one of the "realms of men" the Watch is supposed to protect. Do you believe that the Watch was wrong for defending the Wall against them throughout the series? That is, they are covered by the vow, but they also posed a challenge to the Wall's existence, correct? So the Watch needed to preserve the Wall, and in order to do this, fighting this "realm of men" was requisite, yes?

So why aren't you applying this logic to what's south of the Wall? If they can take up arms and involve themselves in the affairs of wildlings when wildling pose a threat to their mission-- and wildlings are covered by the very explicit words of the vow-- then why is protecting themselves against other "realms of men" who threaten the integrity of the Wall so egregious and counter to the vow?

Again, "take no part" is not the inevitable, indisputable meaning of the sum of the vows prohibitions. It's how the Watch has interpreted it for ages, but not a self-evident, divinely sacred part of the vow. It's not even remotely the only interpretation.

The "sanctity" of the neutrality custom derives from the fact that in the previous world order, this is what enabled the Watch to preserve itself and carry out its mission. When this no longer becomes a solution to preserving the Watch and performing its mission, then neutrality is no longer sacred. If that was the interpretation of the vow, put into custom for ages as a pragmatic method, but a time comes when it is no longer pragmatic, then going back to the core of the vow and analyzing it in relation to the current set of obstacles in relation to its mission is requisite. And in so doing, there is nothing in the vow that unequivocally yields an imperative to remain neutral.

If you're only referring to Jon's handling of the Letter in Jon XIII as an isolated issue, I think that's a different argument that what I was thinking about. I was referring to all of his actions prior to that, such that had he embraced a more critical view of the "take no part" custom, Jon XIII wouldn't have played out that way in the first place. I think Jon failed before that, precisely because he took half measures about this, and needed to get further on the "taking part" side. So maybe that aspect was just a miscommunication on my part in response to your assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...