Why did Jon Snow kill Daenerys?
The following is a reflection by St Augustine of Hippo on Jon Snow’s decision to kill Daenerys and how it fits within a just war framework.
In the annals of history and the realm of fiction, one finds countless tales of valor, heroism, and war. A particular episode that merits our attention is the act of Jon Snow, a noble character in the acclaimed television series, Game of Thrones, who took it upon himself to end the life of Daenerys Targaryen, a figure of great power and authority. As St. Augustine, I wish to explore the moral implications of this act, employing my principles of just war theory to assess the righteousness of Jon Snow's decision.
The just war theory, as expounded by me in my works, is a doctrine that seeks to delineate the circumstances under which war and acts of violence may be morally justified. It comprises two essential components: jus ad bellum, which pertains to the justness of going to war, and jus in bello, which governs the conduct of war. A just act of war must satisfy the criteria of both components.
First, let us consider jus ad bellum. Among its core tenets are a just cause, rightful intention, and the declaration of war by a legitimate authority. In the case of Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen, the just cause for Jon's action may be argued as the prevention of further harm and tyranny. Daenerys, driven by her ambition to conquer, had razed the city of King's Landing to ashes, killing countless innocents in the process. Her actions demonstrated a clear threat to the lives and liberties of others, warranting a response to safeguard the greater good.
The rightful intention is evident in Jon's reluctance and profound emotional turmoil leading up to the act. His primary motivation was not personal gain or ambition, but rather the protection of the people and the realm from Daenerys' tyrannical rule. However, the question of legitimate authority remains a point of contention. Though Jon was the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, he had not been officially recognized as such by the ruling powers. Nonetheless, given the dire circumstances and the urgency of the situation, one may argue that Jon's status as a respected and honorable leader endowed him with sufficient authority to act.
Turning now to jus in bello, two key principles must be examined: discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination demands that combatants avoid targeting non-combatants and focus their violence solely on those who pose a genuine threat. Jon's act of killing Daenerys was highly targeted and discriminate, as he directed his violence exclusively towards the source of the threat, sparing the lives of her followers and innocent bystanders.
Proportionality, on the other hand, dictates that the violence employed in war must be proportional to the harm being prevented or redressed. In the case at hand, Jon's killing of Daenerys, while a grave act, was ultimately a single act of violence aimed at averting the continuation of a destructive and merciless rule. Given the magnitude of the threat Daenerys posed, Jon's actions may be deemed proportional to the harm he sought to prevent.
In conclusion, Jon Snow's killing of Daenerys Targaryen, when scrutinized through the lens of my just war theory, appears to largely satisfy the necessary criteria for a just act of war. While questions of legitimate authority may persist, the gravity of the situation and the urgent need for intervention offer a compelling counterargument. Ultimately, Jon's actions were driven by a desire to protect the innocent and restore peace to a realm beleaguered by war and suffering. In light of these considerations, we may cautiously conclude that his act was indeed just.
