Role Of Ethics In Pop Culture
Pop Culture Ethics: With Great Power Comes…Great Responsibility?
Clement A Barnes III
Abstract
Comic books are a staple of American culture, a long standing series of colorful glimpses into the human imagination. For nearly a century, artists, writers, and the like have documented a universe of vibrant heroes, dastardly villains, futuristic technology, and moral dilemmas. The truth is, comic books are a pastel pastiche of philosophical and ethical debate. They are pulpy pages of philosophical postulations. They are creative classical conundrums, calibrated collectively in order to question culture. Comic books are artful studies into the very nature of good and evil, and of right and wrong. In short, comic books are the modern …show more content…
equivalent of the ancient myths found in Rome or Greece, and as such it can be said that Lee, Kirby, Moore, Miller, Johns and their ilk are the modern day successors to Aristotle, Socrates, Homer, Kant, and the rest; great philosophers and ethicists whose artful questions and colorful ethical passion plays give context, life, and a platform for debate. This is the premise behind the collection of essays found in both Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth Justice and The Socratic Way and Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes, Evil Is Its Own Reward.
“With great power comes great responsibility” (Stan Lee/ Uncle Ben). This is a famous quote that has served as the basis and moral foundation of one of the all-time legendary heroes, Spiderman. Is it true however? Does great power truly beget great responsibility? To answer this is to take an ethical journey through the world of comics; of heroes and villains; and to exam the essays contained in the aforementioned texts.
A Critique of Cristopher Robichaud, With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On the Moral Duties of the Super Powerful and the Super Heroic.
Does Peter Parker, due to having attained super human abilities, have a responsibility to become and remain Spider-man? If so, what duties come with this responsibility? These are the basic questions that Robichaud explores in this essay. Using the concepts of utilitarianism and non-consequentialist ethics, Robichaud first takes on the subject of Peter’s responsibility to become a hero. He determines that the Utilitarian view would argue that Peter must become and remain Spider-man, as it would produce the most overall good, though non-consequentialist ethics argues that choosing to hang up the tights goes against no negative duties and therefore is a viable alternative. Robichaud goes on to determine that if Peter chooses to take on the responsibility of being Spider-man, he must also then handle the duties that arise from this decision. He determines that both utilitarian and non-consequentialists would have Spider-man respect authority, such as the law, whenever appropriate. These same theories, when applied to the idea of protecting loved ones through the use of a secret identity is akin to lying. This is in direct violation of the absolute negative duty not to lie, and as such should be avoided.
The main question posed in With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On the Moral Duties of the Super Powerful and the Super Heroic, is the essential question at the very core of the comic book mythos. Does the attainment of true power; super or otherwise, automatically burden one with the responsibility to use those powers for the good of others? Robichaud determines that great power does not, in fact, come with great responsibility. This seems to go against the very fabric of comic book heroes however. How can it be that the heroes that have existed since the 1930’s have gotten it so wrong? Every major superhero seems to feel some sort of responsibility to use the power that they have been given to do some form of good, to protect others, or to keep the peace. Even the utilitarian theory of ethics seems to argue this point.
Classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions: (a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing else matters. (b) An action’s consequences matter insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. (c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets “equal consideration”. (Rachels, 2012)
Robichaud deals with this argument head on, defining utilitarianism and then describing at length the utilitarian viewpoint on the responsibility embodied by Peter Parker.
You are obligated to adopt a particular role in life if and only if doing so will bring about the greatest overall good. Needless to say, this suggests that folks with superpowers have a duty to become superheroes, since it’s the very business of superheroes to promote the overall good of all. So now we have an answer to Peter Parker’s query from Spider-Man 2. According to utilitarianism he’s obligated to remain our friendly neighborhood superhero. (Robichaud, 2005)
Robichaud deftly breaks down this theory by pointing out the flaws in the ideas of utilitarianism. He argues that this theory can lead to “unintuitive” actions, hypocritical actions, and be disallowing of supererogatory actions (actions that are “good to do but not bad to do”. (Robichaud, 2005)). He uses an example of Wonder Woman having to decide to kill a child in order to prevent a massacre to show utilitarianism forcing actions that go against the core of a character’s being. Clearly, the most good would come from preventing the massacre, but are we really promoting killing a child? The essay shows utilitarian actions being unjust, in a story that has the Joker sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit. Killing him would save future lives, but it would be unjust. Robichaud even argues that utilitarianism focuses too …show more content…
much on the consequences of an action, instead of the intention. The crux of Robichaud’s view can be found within “the main alternative available to us in moral theory, a broadly non-consequentialist ethical stance”. (Robichaud, 2005). The most popular of these non- consequential theories is the categorical imperative created by Immanuel Kant.
Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. (Rachels, 2012).
The basic idea that Robichaud uses here is that non-consequentialists follow a very basic criteria for morally ethical decisions. They essentially will act to fulfill “positive duties” so long as they do not violate the stronger “negative duties”. This means that an action can fulfill an obligation to aid people as long as it does not violate a duty to avoid doing something malicious or harmful. This means that Peter Parker has the right to choose to be Spider-man or the right to choose to stop being Spider-man provided that he is in no way being malicious or purposefully harmful with his choice. The Kantian argument would be that forcing Peter Parker to be Spider-man solely because of the good his powers could do, would be to use Peter Parker as a means to an end; a violating a negative duty. In short, the choice to carry the responsibility belongs to the person who has been granted the great power.
A Critique of C. Stephen Layman, Why Be a Superhero? Why Be Moral? C. Stephen Layman posits the question, “why be moral?” as a way of analyzing the motivations for becoming a superhero. Using the world of Spider-man as a window into the ethical and moral choices of a superhero, Layman derives five basic answers: avoiding negative consequences, simply doing what is right because it is right, harmony of soul, virtue is its own reward, and morality always pays in the long run. In looking to figure out why somebody with great power would become a hero, Layman investigates what it means to be moral in a world of comic book clarity, and in the end comes up with an answer with a theological bent. The answer to why be moral is relative to the person asking the question. More importantly it can be linked to the bigger questions of life, death, and creation.
C. Stephen Layman tackles the question of superhero responsibility and moral ethical responsibility in his essay Why Be a Superhero? Why Be Moral? Do you want to be a superhero? This sounds like a simple question with a simple answer. Yes, I want super powers. Yes, I want to wear a crazy costume and fight evil. Yes, I want to be loved around the globe. Is that all there is to it? This is the crux of Layman’s essay. The truth, as Layman discovers, is that this question becomes one of great moral depth and complexity. His analysis is based off the morally clear world of the first Spiderman movie. This is a world where good and evil are pretty easily delineated, and right and wrong are pretty well defined. The foundation of Layman’s argument is that the saying, “with great power comes great responsibility” creates an ideal, one that presumes that if you are gifted with some form of power you are responsible for doing good with it. So, “why be a super hero?” becomes “why be moral?”. There are five reasons suggested by the movie for being moral. Layman explores each of these reasons and gives a philosophical argument for or against each of them. Reason one postulates that failure to do your moral duty ends with a negative consequence. He argues that in some cases this has validity but in others, the opposite is true. It is possible to ignore moral duty and pay no consequence or even gain a positive outcome. I think he has a valid point but I would argue that this point is weak from the perspective that it shouldn’t be the outcome that defines the morality of a situation but the intent of the action going in. Reason two postulates that moral duty should be done because it is right.
This a staple of the theories espoused by both Immanuel Kant and F.H. Bradley.
The basic idea is this: we cannot get people to do their moral duty by appealing to their self-interest, since if they do the right thing for merely self-interested reasons, they are not acting morally at all. We must do the right thing because it is right. (Layman, 2005).
The problem he has with this is that is possible to be put in a situation where one will be forced to do the right thing because it’s right even though it may not be the rational thing to do. This creates the paradigm where the right thing to do is irrational and therefore demoralizing. I feel that this is a convoluted argument. Kant would argue that we have a responsibility to do the right, moral thing and utilitarians would argue to do the thing that has the most positive outcome for the most people. I would also ask the question, “what if I am more motivated to do something morally wrong?” If I have a better reason to do wrong than to do the right thing, why would I choose the moral
action? Reason three is that doing your duty I the only way you can have harmony in your soul. (Piece of mind.) This reason is using a derivative of Plato’s philosophy to derive a take on Peter Parker. That is to say that morally strong people have a strength of soul that doesn’t allow peace if they attempt to shirk moral duties. His issue here is that this rule only applies to the spiritual among us. The less spiritual or those raised without some major moral compass would never truly follow a rule like this. It would simply not apply. Aristotle’s theories on guilt and responsibility may hold a bit of a stronger argument.
From Aristotle’s point of view, the good life for a human being is a life lived in accordance with virtue. (Layman, 2005), Reason four is basically virtue is its own reward. Layman basically argues that it is possible to be virtuous with a horrible life and that the virtue does not reward enough to overcome the misery. He also say that it is possible to live a life free from virtue and remain a happy person.
The final reason is that being moral always pays in the long run where “the long run” includes life after death. Basically this is a religious or theological argument for morality. As such this is a reason that will be accepted by many. I would make the argument that this theory falls apart with a single question. What if there is only death? This question basically says if you aren’t religious or if there is no god, there is no “long run”.
It seems that the conclusion of the essay from Layman’s standpoint is that the answer to why be a superhero is dependent on the person asking the question. Overall, there seems to be far more support for the idea that being morally good is naturally more beneficial than the alternative. However, great power doesn’t always lead to great responsibility. Why be moral indeed…
A Critique of Jeff Brenzel, Why Are Superheroes Good? Comics and the Rings of Gyges. Jeff Brenzel, like the essays before his, questions the most basic idea of gaining power; why be good? After addressing the inadequacy of simply stating that superheroes “must” be good by definition, addressing the conceit that superheroes are nothing more than fantasy fulfillment for young boys, and addressing the use of the “origin story” to fully explain the motivations of superheroes, Brenzel turns to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Glaucon, and the tale of the “The Rings of Gyges”, to explain. The argument becomes a simple question about the nature of man. Glaucon argues that man is about self and as such, that man makes laws to protect the weak form the strong. Plato and Socrates argue that a man can only find true happiness when the animal needs are fulfilled by a balance between our emotions and our reason. Aristotle believed that man, in order to fully feel at peace, must strive to fulfill the full potential that each individual possesses. Jeff Brenzel, uses this essay to posit that a hero would do good with his powers, would be a superhero, because these powers are simply too big to be ignored and that most of these characters will always strive to determine what they can best do with the power they possess. A great deal of Brenzel’s debate of human nature as reason for humans with power to become “good” or heroes lies in an ethical field called virtue ethics. This essentially a field of ethics pioneered by Aristotle who asked, “What is the good of man?” and answered with, “An activity of the soul in conformity with virtue.” (Rachels, 2012). In short, Aristotle believed that it was certain traits of man, “virtues” that defined a man as good.
Many will recognize the tale of Gyges, if not as students of Plato, then as readers of Tolkien, or maybe from lesser known tails, as it is a tail that has been recounted over the years.
Plato’s Republic (lines 359c-360d) gives a brief description of an “ancestor of Gyges of Lydia” who found a magic ring that made him invisible when he turned it inward on his finger. Using the ring, the man got into the king’s palace, seduced the king’s wife, and with the aid of the wife, murdered the king and took his place as ruler. (Evans, 2005)
The lesson Glaucon delivers from this story boils down to the idea that if there were to rings, one worn by a totally just man and the other by a totally unjust man, neither would be incorruptible and both would eventually succumb to the power of human nature. Socrates believes that human nature is best served when man attempts to balance reason and emotion in order to sate our more animal appetites.
Justice in the soul comes about when the emotions are properly trained and support reason in the governance of our desires and appetites…no one would be reasonable in ruining the health of their souls for the sake of material gains or social status. (Brenzel, 2005)
Like Socrates, Aristotle thought that human nature was best served by attaining good. He felt that was best done through chasing virtues such as bravery, courage, and compassion. All of this leads to the conclusions of Brenzel, who posits that superpowers are akin to possessing a ring of Gyges. It is impossible to ignore the gifts as they are immensely powerful and attractive, yet it is human nature, therefore superhuman nature to question how best to use these powers. In the end this inevitably leads to virtuous undertakings. I agree with the concept of virtue insomuch as I believe that if all things are equal, the easiest path to happiness in life is in chasing virtue. I would argue that the idea that humanity takes the long view is skewed. I think that virtue ethics speak to the nature of humanity and therefore help to explain what man (or superhuman) would do with great power, but that modern human nature has been raised to favor quick and easy satisfaction over substance. Nurture has created a world where the arguments of virtue ethics can’t overcome the attention deficit mentality and therefore, morality, so that people tend to take the short view. In other words, I feel that this particular explanation is incomplete, and needs to take into consideration the idea that virtue isn’t always gratifying.
A Critique of C. Stephen Evans, Why Should Superheroes Be Good? Spider-Man, The X-Men, and Kierkegaard’s Double Danger “If Kierkegaard is right, then we humans do have an excellent reason for caring about the good.” (Evans, 2005). Why Should Superheroes Be Good? Spider-Man, The X-Men, and Kierkegaard’s Double Danger, takes a slightly different angle at the very same question the first three essays posed; why should superheroes be good? Once again, The Ring of Gyges is described in depth, but this is used as an entry point into Kierkegaard and his philosophy of double danger, which states that humans are “called by God to love thy neighbor” and that this leads to the double danger of man; An inner obstacle to goodness, and an external resistance to the same good. Evans investigates this concept through its use in the actions of Spider-Man and the X-Men. By looking through the existences of these two entities, Evans concludes that the reason for good, as Kierkegaard defines it and as it is constituted in the comic world is essentially a religious one. He states that the path to the good is a path toward a religious sensibility; essentially love thy neighbor. This essay introduces the work of Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) who was a Danish philosopher who became known as the “father of existentialism”. He was a huge fan of Socrates and continued on in the same ethical and philosophical vein with his theories of the nature of man and the concept of “double danger”. In the Republic, Plato recounts the tale of the ring of Gyges. He continues on with a challenge from Glaucon to Socrates that essentially says that a just man would have to be stripped of everything unjustly, lashed with a whip, branded in the eyes, and crucified to see if he truly holds on to his love of the just. Plato uses this challenge as a metaphor for the struggles of man to do right or good. Kierkegaard sees this as being a very real plight. Kierkegaard describes this plight as the “double danger” of human nature.
“Give up your self-loving desires and cravings, give up your self-seeking plans and purposes so that you truly work unselfishly for the good- and then, for that very reason, put up with being abominated almost as a criminal, insulted, and ridiculed.” (Evans, 2005)
To Evans, this concept of “double danger” is evident in many comic books. He uses Spider-Man and the X-Men as examples. In the case of Spider-Man, the first danger is very evident in Peter Parker’s struggle to sacrifice his own love of Mary Jane, his own ability to follow through on his life as Peter Parker, in order to become Spider-man. I agree that he seems to struggle with the toll sacrifice puts on his life. I also agree that the second danger is also prevalent in his story. After all the sacrifice, Spider-man is constantly rebuked and insulted by the Daily Bugle, specifically the editor, J. Jonah Jameson. Evans also uses the X-Men to show these dangers. In the case of these heroes, they are genetically different than humanity and as such struggle greatly with loving themselves and tolerance for those that hate them. They are feared and constantly treated badly by many of the very people that they protect. Both dangers are clearly present in this story of extreme racism.
In using these examples, Evans belies a belief that Humans tend to the good because not because of self-interest, nor because they were nurtured as children (although he does give a lot of credence to this theory as it has some merit), but because the universe itself has some deeper, truer character that we reflect in our human morality. This is a belief of Plato. Kierkegaard argues this as the need for relationships. The relationships between people, are such that there is a need to tend towards morality and ethical behavior; to tend toward the good, to build and maintain these relationships. He goes so far as to describe some of these behaviors as duty. It isn’t a far jump from these thoughts to Evan’s conclusion, that there is a purpose to the universe, a morality, a religious bent, that pushes human nature toward the good, even when faced with Kierkegaard’s “double danger”. If mortal men feel he pull, then the paths of those with great power surely tend towards great responsibility. This is the argument that I found myself most drawn to because it is the one that I would typically argue with the most. The idea that a superhero would tend toward the good because god told him to seems a stretch to me, mostly because comics are inhabited with insanely powerful beings, as well as extremely broken characters. For some single God to be the epicenter of all of it seems like a no go. What about atheist characters, aliens out of parallel universes, deities such as Thor? There are androids, demons, and hell-spirits that turn into superheroes. That said, I kept coming back to the theories of Plato and Kierkegaard and I will admit, in some abstract way, I get the view they espouse. Humanity does seem to fight itself, its nature, and its flaws. It does face persecution, abominable behavior, and in the end it does always seem to still strive toward the good.
Utilitarianism and Superheroes
Classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions: (a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing else matters. (b) An action’s consequences matter insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. (c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets “equal consideration”. (Rachels, 2012) This is the basic premise of the utilitarian theory; everything is a calculation to determine what actions are the best actions for determining the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure or utility. What if we applied this theory to the super hero community? What would we discover? What if we applied it to the main question of why be a hero? Spider-Man is a world renowned superhero, a cinematic icon, and a beloved idol for many. His story has been heard many a time and it is one that allows for easy utilitarian analysis. Let’s start with his origin story. On a school field trip, Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider. The next day he wakes up to discover that he has a litany of new abilities that he quickly attributes to that spider bite. He is super strong, has inhuman stamina, has inhuman flexibility, sticks to walls with his hands and feet, has inhuman agility, and has extremely fast reflexes. Peter is a science nerd who has been bullied for most of his life. He is an orphan who lives with his elderly aunt and uncle, and as such has little money to his name. He has a crush on a girl named Gwen who he thinks hardly notices him. Suppose you were Peter Parker; what choice would you make? Would become a superhero even make the top ten choices on your list? If you are a utilitarian it just might.
The creed which accepts…The Greatest Happiness Principle…holds that actions are right…as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. (Mills, 1861) (Rachels, 2012)
From a utilitarian point of view, donning bright spandex, and heading out to save the world definitely begets a lot of happiness. In Peter’s case, his eventual assumption of the Spider-Man identity directly resulted in countless lives saved. Putting it another way, Spider-Man has created an incalculable amount of happiness by directly or indirectly saving every life on the planet at least once. He has stopped robberies, shootings, ended high speed chases, and been responsible for countless arrests of other crimes. On a larger scale, he has taken on mega maniacal madmen with mechanical tentacles, billionaires in goblin costumes with pumpkin bombs, men made of sand, men made of water, men with the power of a rhinoceros, living electricity, and alien symbiotic beings. Larger still, he has taken on world dominating terrorist organizations such as AIM, Hydra, and the Maggia. He has helped stop planetary invasions from the Kree, the Skrulls, the Chitauri, and countless others. The stakes don’t stop there. He has been cloned, kidnapped, time travelled, and been involved in secret wars that held the fate of the world in thrall. It is literally incalculable how much happiness, pleasure, and utility Peter Parker has created by donning a garish costume and simply giving up everything else in his life as a secondary pursuit. There have been several occasions where Peter Parker resisted Spider-man. The most famous of these actually constitutes the moral fabric of the Spider-Man legacy. Peter refused to use his gifts to stop a man from robbing the crooked owner of a wrestling scam. That crook ended up killing Peter’s Uncle Ben during his rush to evade the law. This is the man who took Peter in as a child and raised him as his own, who taught him right from wrong, and who loved him immeasurably. His is also the man whose dying words would forge a hero; “with great power comes great responsibility.” This saying has come to not only represent spider-man but is sort of the unofficial mantra of the Marvel Universe. Eventually, Spider-man hunted down and captured the crook but the damage was done. From a utilitarian viewpoint this sacrifice matters, as does all suffering because the actions taken are supposed to beget the most happiness, pleasure, and utility. My challenge to utilitarianism, and as a whole to the use of utilitarianism to answer the question why be a hero is the fact that there is no way of knowing all the variables when one makes the decision. Peter Parker put on the costume originally to hide his identity when he went out to wrestle for money. When he made the calculation to allow the robber to escape he had no way of knowing the cost to himself that was going to result. At best he was forced to decide if the possibility of the criminal robbing someone else was worth the risk to himself and the pleasure he was going to receive from watching a crooked scam artist get his comeuppance.
According to utilitarianism, he’s obligated to remain our friendly neighborhood superhero. Doing so may cause him great personal pain, but this pain is outweighed by the overall good that his superhero activities bring to the world. (Robichaud, 2005).
This may be true in retrospect but I would argue that there is no way that a burgeoning super-powered being can make that calculation. It is all too possible that someone with untested powers and a bright suit will get themselves killed their very first time out. This would change the equation drastically because in this case utilitarianism would state that the happiness gained by living is probably going to outweigh that gained by your death. The analysis of utilitarianism, to me, illustrates that it is a blunt ethical tool at best for making obvious or general decisions. It is in accurate and sometimes hypocritical when put to a true moral test. As for answering the conceit as to why become a superhero; utilitarianism gives in incomplete answer at best.
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Ethical Credo or Moral Conundrum
I have been a fan of comic books for as long as I have been able to read. I have always been a fan of the colorful costumes, the bright splash panels, the action that literally jumps off the page, and the over-arching stories. I found in them a sense of escapism as a kid. I wanted to be the next great hero, embarking on some adventure, wearing a cool costume, and fighting some wild evil. It was pure fantasy and as a child, I couldn’t get enough. As a teenager, I started to recognize the storytelling for what they were, stories of morality, of dark questions, of hard choices, and of deep humanity. Writers like Alan Moore and Frank Miller took my heroes and deconstructed them in a way that laid bare many questions that I had never thought to ask. The largest of which was always, why would anyone want to be a superhero? So that is what I am here to discover; why choose the path of the superhero? To answer this question honestly, we must first look at a scenario where it would be likely that we would be forced to make this choice. Let’s say you work as an engineer at a government laboratory, where you are helping with the build out of some sort of particle accelerator, which runs on an experimental energy source. The day that the accelerator is set to go online has arrived and no one notices that an energy coupling has been tampered with. The accelerator starts up and everything seems to be running smoothly when suddenly, alarms sound and the accelerator begins to malfunction. Everyone panics as the accelerator begins to fire off gouts of coruscating blue energy. You turn to run but you are knocked to the ground by your overweight co-worker in his mad dash to escape. As you topple, your head careens off the corner of the machine, knocking you nearly unconscious. Blood pours down your face and into your eyes as the screams start coming. You hear a terrible rending noise and you begin to fade into darkness. The last thing you see is the blood in your eyes and the accelerator buckle inward briefly just before it explodes. Sometime later, you awaken to the sounds of heavy machinery tearing away rubble and twisted metal. The muffled sound of voices serenade you in the dark as you adjust to your barely lit surroundings. All around you are the remnants of the lab, charred rubble, rent and torqued steel beams, and charred remains that can only be unlucky coworkers. You stand slowly, waiting for pain or dizziness to impede your efforts but neither come. You look around you, devastated by the horror that you have managed to survive. The ceiling shifts ever so slightly and a piece of pan deck tumbles loose. You react by throwing your hand up over your head and ducking away but the piece of crumpled metal passes right through you, clattering harmlessly to the floor. The shock of this is too much to handle and you faint away. Congratulations, you now have super powers. In short, the particle accelerator explosion has imbued you with the ability to alter the atomic cohesion of your body’s molecular structure. This means you can speed them up or slow them down at will. This allows you to phase through solid objects, become nearly invisible, become so light as to float on the energy particles around you, become incredibly dense and impermeable, as well as effect the molecular structure of items directly around you. You now have to decide what to do with these gifts. What choices will you make; what ideals define you? Are you, like Bentham and Mills, a classic utilitarian, guided by the principle that it is the imperative of humanity to do what is right because it begets the most happiness, pleasure, and utility in aggregate? Do you believe that the use of your powers must be “determined by the amount of goodness” (Robichaud, 2005) they can produce? Consider the following.
If utilitarianism is correct, we must be prepared to make difficult personal sacrifices in order to fulfill our moral duties…Doing so may cause…great personal pain, but this pain is outweighed by the overall good. (Robichaud, 2005).
Does this sound like a moral balance that you feel you can strike? For many this is a deeply flawed philosophy. For example, let’s assume you choose to become a hero because you decide to be a utilitarian. Are you prepared to decide, in a life or death situation, whether your life or the life of various others are worth sacrificing in the name of the greater good? Do you even have the knowledge base and the moral compass to make that decision? This is a loaded question? If utilitarianism says we must always decide to take the action that leads to the greater good, then could you choose to be a supervillian? This is a question of ethical relativity is it not?
Our actions are ultimately guided by our view of the good, and this is true…for supervillains, superheroes, and everyone else as well. This is especially clear when we think about the motivations and ends of some of the most compelling supervillains. Magneto wants to build a world where his fellow mutants can live free of fear. Ra’s al Ghul wants to cleanse the Earth and return it to a pristine state. Apocalypse wants to help mutants evolve. All of these goals are, as they stand, laudable. (Poon, 2009).
If this is true then utilitarianism may espouse the good, but it can be used to seemingly evil ends, including justifying death, and encouraging supervillian behavior. Are you more like Thomas Hobbes, the father of the social contract theory, who tried to show that “morality should be understood as a solution to a practical problem that arises for self- interested human beings?” (Rachels, 2012). Do you subscribe to the social contract?
Morality exists in the set of rules governing behavior, that rational people will accept, on the condition that others will accept them as well. (Rachels, 2012)
Are you obligated to do for others so that all can benefit? Do you believe that the only way society can thrive is by adopting rules that all can and will adhere to? Or, do you feel like the philosopher Glaucon from Plato’s Republic?
The many who are weak pass laws and whip up sufficient social-disapproval to keep the few who are strong from completely taking over. (Brenzel, 2005).
Glaucon believed that the nature of man was to do for himself and that anyone who said or behaved otherwise was a fool to be pitied. By this logic, you should make use of your new found powers to dominate the society around you as opposed to working within its constraints as Hobbes and the social contract theory would suggest. Heck, you can phase through walls and turn invisible to the naked eye. Perhaps you should engage in your own personal Rings of Gyges scenario. Still haven’t decided on a path for these new gifts? Maybe Immanuel Kant is your guy. After all Kant “maintained that our fundamental duty is to act in a way that satisfies what he called “the categorical imperative,” one formulation of which states that we are always to treat persons as ends in themselves and not merely as means.” (Robichaud, 2005). Do you believe that we, as humans are intrinsically valuable? Do you believe that we have the ability to reason, such that, unlike any other creature on the planet, we define what is moral? These are the core ideas of Kant. The categorical imperative would dictate that you have a duty to use your superpowers for the good, and that it is crucial that you do this because it is the “right” thing to do. This means that you use your powers to help others because they need help, not because you need something from them. The point is that there are many moral justifications and theories in existence; many explanations as to why one should choose to do good. Choosing what to do with your new powers can seem to be a monumental task. Why be a superhero? Why be good? Why be moral? Why not do a little evil? These are all essentially the same question. Have you determined an answer that works for you? I have and part of it can be found in the wording of the last question…an answer that works for you. Moral ethics have many theories, many fields of debate and study, and may philosophies. The truth is there is no one answer to the question why be a superhero. There are simply many. The truth is all philosophical answers are relative and subjective in nature. They are relative to your culture, your environment, and your education. They are subjective in translation, comprehension, and substance. I would choose to be a superhero because it is what I believe in. Doing good for the sake of good. Moral duty, the utility of society, the social contract, these are ideas that all have substantive and effective uses, despite their flaws. I was raised to care for others, to help those in need, and to stand up for what is obviously and intrinsically right. I have a deep and abiding love for all things heroic from Hercules to Batman and all those mythologies that stem their creation. I am spiritual and believe in a universe that is governed with some natural purpose. In truth, I sort of think I was born to be a superhero, but this is not truly the intent of this exercise. I chose this topic as an interesting way to do something else I love…exploring human nature. In discovering why one would choose to be a superhero in a fictional world where the fantastical is possible, I have been able to see real human answers to why we, as people choose to be humane, choose to sacrifice of ourselves, and choose to continue to fight in the face of adversity.
So I turn it to you, the reader to determine your philosophical answer…Why choose to be a hero?
[Word Count: 6241]
References
Brenzel, Jeff. “Why are Superheroes Good? Comics and the Rings of Gyges.” Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way. 13. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2005. 147-160. Print.
Evans, C. Stephen. “Why Should Superheroes Be Good? Spider-Man, the X-Men, and Kierkegaard’s Double Danger.” Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way. 13. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2005. 161-176. Print. Layman, C. Stephen. "Why Be a Superhero? Why Be Moral?" Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way. 13. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2005. 194-207. Print.
Moseley, Joseph. "The Joker’s Comedy of Existence." Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes Evil is Its Own Reward. 42. Chicago: Open Books Publishing, 2009. 127-136. Print.
Poon, Jared. "What Magneto Cannot Choose." Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes Evil is Its Own Reward. 42. Chicago: Open Books Publishing, 2009. 53-60. Print.
Rachels, James, R., & S. (2012). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (Seventh Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc...
Robichaud, Cristopher. "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On the Moral Duty of the Super Powerful and Super-Heroic." Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way. 13. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2005. 177-193. Print.
-------------------------------------------------
Top of Form
Clement A Barnes III
Abstract
Comic books are a staple of American culture, a long standing series of colorful glimpses into the human imagination. For nearly a century, artists, writers, and the like have documented a universe of vibrant heroes, dastardly villains, futuristic technology, and moral dilemmas. The truth is, comic books are a pastel pastiche of philosophical and ethical debate. They are pulpy pages of philosophical postulations. They are creative classical conundrums, calibrated collectively in order to question culture. Comic books are artful studies into the very nature of good and evil, and of right and wrong. In short, comic books are the modern …show more content…
equivalent of the ancient myths found in Rome or Greece, and as such it can be said that Lee, Kirby, Moore, Miller, Johns and their ilk are the modern day successors to Aristotle, Socrates, Homer, Kant, and the rest; great philosophers and ethicists whose artful questions and colorful ethical passion plays give context, life, and a platform for debate. This is the premise behind the collection of essays found in both Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth Justice and The Socratic Way and Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes, Evil Is Its Own Reward.
“With great power comes great responsibility” (Stan Lee/ Uncle Ben). This is a famous quote that has served as the basis and moral foundation of one of the all-time legendary heroes, Spiderman. Is it true however? Does great power truly beget great responsibility? To answer this is to take an ethical journey through the world of comics; of heroes and villains; and to exam the essays contained in the aforementioned texts.
A Critique of Cristopher Robichaud, With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On the Moral Duties of the Super Powerful and the Super Heroic.
Does Peter Parker, due to having attained super human abilities, have a responsibility to become and remain Spider-man? If so, what duties come with this responsibility? These are the basic questions that Robichaud explores in this essay. Using the concepts of utilitarianism and non-consequentialist ethics, Robichaud first takes on the subject of Peter’s responsibility to become a hero. He determines that the Utilitarian view would argue that Peter must become and remain Spider-man, as it would produce the most overall good, though non-consequentialist ethics argues that choosing to hang up the tights goes against no negative duties and therefore is a viable alternative. Robichaud goes on to determine that if Peter chooses to take on the responsibility of being Spider-man, he must also then handle the duties that arise from this decision. He determines that both utilitarian and non-consequentialists would have Spider-man respect authority, such as the law, whenever appropriate. These same theories, when applied to the idea of protecting loved ones through the use of a secret identity is akin to lying. This is in direct violation of the absolute negative duty not to lie, and as such should be avoided.
The main question posed in With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On the Moral Duties of the Super Powerful and the Super Heroic, is the essential question at the very core of the comic book mythos. Does the attainment of true power; super or otherwise, automatically burden one with the responsibility to use those powers for the good of others? Robichaud determines that great power does not, in fact, come with great responsibility. This seems to go against the very fabric of comic book heroes however. How can it be that the heroes that have existed since the 1930’s have gotten it so wrong? Every major superhero seems to feel some sort of responsibility to use the power that they have been given to do some form of good, to protect others, or to keep the peace. Even the utilitarian theory of ethics seems to argue this point.
Classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions: (a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing else matters. (b) An action’s consequences matter insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. (c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets “equal consideration”. (Rachels, 2012)
Robichaud deals with this argument head on, defining utilitarianism and then describing at length the utilitarian viewpoint on the responsibility embodied by Peter Parker.
You are obligated to adopt a particular role in life if and only if doing so will bring about the greatest overall good. Needless to say, this suggests that folks with superpowers have a duty to become superheroes, since it’s the very business of superheroes to promote the overall good of all. So now we have an answer to Peter Parker’s query from Spider-Man 2. According to utilitarianism he’s obligated to remain our friendly neighborhood superhero. (Robichaud, 2005)
Robichaud deftly breaks down this theory by pointing out the flaws in the ideas of utilitarianism. He argues that this theory can lead to “unintuitive” actions, hypocritical actions, and be disallowing of supererogatory actions (actions that are “good to do but not bad to do”. (Robichaud, 2005)). He uses an example of Wonder Woman having to decide to kill a child in order to prevent a massacre to show utilitarianism forcing actions that go against the core of a character’s being. Clearly, the most good would come from preventing the massacre, but are we really promoting killing a child? The essay shows utilitarian actions being unjust, in a story that has the Joker sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit. Killing him would save future lives, but it would be unjust. Robichaud even argues that utilitarianism focuses too …show more content…
much on the consequences of an action, instead of the intention. The crux of Robichaud’s view can be found within “the main alternative available to us in moral theory, a broadly non-consequentialist ethical stance”. (Robichaud, 2005). The most popular of these non- consequential theories is the categorical imperative created by Immanuel Kant.
Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. (Rachels, 2012).
The basic idea that Robichaud uses here is that non-consequentialists follow a very basic criteria for morally ethical decisions. They essentially will act to fulfill “positive duties” so long as they do not violate the stronger “negative duties”. This means that an action can fulfill an obligation to aid people as long as it does not violate a duty to avoid doing something malicious or harmful. This means that Peter Parker has the right to choose to be Spider-man or the right to choose to stop being Spider-man provided that he is in no way being malicious or purposefully harmful with his choice. The Kantian argument would be that forcing Peter Parker to be Spider-man solely because of the good his powers could do, would be to use Peter Parker as a means to an end; a violating a negative duty. In short, the choice to carry the responsibility belongs to the person who has been granted the great power.
A Critique of C. Stephen Layman, Why Be a Superhero? Why Be Moral? C. Stephen Layman posits the question, “why be moral?” as a way of analyzing the motivations for becoming a superhero. Using the world of Spider-man as a window into the ethical and moral choices of a superhero, Layman derives five basic answers: avoiding negative consequences, simply doing what is right because it is right, harmony of soul, virtue is its own reward, and morality always pays in the long run. In looking to figure out why somebody with great power would become a hero, Layman investigates what it means to be moral in a world of comic book clarity, and in the end comes up with an answer with a theological bent. The answer to why be moral is relative to the person asking the question. More importantly it can be linked to the bigger questions of life, death, and creation.
C. Stephen Layman tackles the question of superhero responsibility and moral ethical responsibility in his essay Why Be a Superhero? Why Be Moral? Do you want to be a superhero? This sounds like a simple question with a simple answer. Yes, I want super powers. Yes, I want to wear a crazy costume and fight evil. Yes, I want to be loved around the globe. Is that all there is to it? This is the crux of Layman’s essay. The truth, as Layman discovers, is that this question becomes one of great moral depth and complexity. His analysis is based off the morally clear world of the first Spiderman movie. This is a world where good and evil are pretty easily delineated, and right and wrong are pretty well defined. The foundation of Layman’s argument is that the saying, “with great power comes great responsibility” creates an ideal, one that presumes that if you are gifted with some form of power you are responsible for doing good with it. So, “why be a super hero?” becomes “why be moral?”. There are five reasons suggested by the movie for being moral. Layman explores each of these reasons and gives a philosophical argument for or against each of them. Reason one postulates that failure to do your moral duty ends with a negative consequence. He argues that in some cases this has validity but in others, the opposite is true. It is possible to ignore moral duty and pay no consequence or even gain a positive outcome. I think he has a valid point but I would argue that this point is weak from the perspective that it shouldn’t be the outcome that defines the morality of a situation but the intent of the action going in. Reason two postulates that moral duty should be done because it is right.
This a staple of the theories espoused by both Immanuel Kant and F.H. Bradley.
The basic idea is this: we cannot get people to do their moral duty by appealing to their self-interest, since if they do the right thing for merely self-interested reasons, they are not acting morally at all. We must do the right thing because it is right. (Layman, 2005).
The problem he has with this is that is possible to be put in a situation where one will be forced to do the right thing because it’s right even though it may not be the rational thing to do. This creates the paradigm where the right thing to do is irrational and therefore demoralizing. I feel that this is a convoluted argument. Kant would argue that we have a responsibility to do the right, moral thing and utilitarians would argue to do the thing that has the most positive outcome for the most people. I would also ask the question, “what if I am more motivated to do something morally wrong?” If I have a better reason to do wrong than to do the right thing, why would I choose the moral
action? Reason three is that doing your duty I the only way you can have harmony in your soul. (Piece of mind.) This reason is using a derivative of Plato’s philosophy to derive a take on Peter Parker. That is to say that morally strong people have a strength of soul that doesn’t allow peace if they attempt to shirk moral duties. His issue here is that this rule only applies to the spiritual among us. The less spiritual or those raised without some major moral compass would never truly follow a rule like this. It would simply not apply. Aristotle’s theories on guilt and responsibility may hold a bit of a stronger argument.
From Aristotle’s point of view, the good life for a human being is a life lived in accordance with virtue. (Layman, 2005), Reason four is basically virtue is its own reward. Layman basically argues that it is possible to be virtuous with a horrible life and that the virtue does not reward enough to overcome the misery. He also say that it is possible to live a life free from virtue and remain a happy person.
The final reason is that being moral always pays in the long run where “the long run” includes life after death. Basically this is a religious or theological argument for morality. As such this is a reason that will be accepted by many. I would make the argument that this theory falls apart with a single question. What if there is only death? This question basically says if you aren’t religious or if there is no god, there is no “long run”.
It seems that the conclusion of the essay from Layman’s standpoint is that the answer to why be a superhero is dependent on the person asking the question. Overall, there seems to be far more support for the idea that being morally good is naturally more beneficial than the alternative. However, great power doesn’t always lead to great responsibility. Why be moral indeed…
A Critique of Jeff Brenzel, Why Are Superheroes Good? Comics and the Rings of Gyges. Jeff Brenzel, like the essays before his, questions the most basic idea of gaining power; why be good? After addressing the inadequacy of simply stating that superheroes “must” be good by definition, addressing the conceit that superheroes are nothing more than fantasy fulfillment for young boys, and addressing the use of the “origin story” to fully explain the motivations of superheroes, Brenzel turns to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Glaucon, and the tale of the “The Rings of Gyges”, to explain. The argument becomes a simple question about the nature of man. Glaucon argues that man is about self and as such, that man makes laws to protect the weak form the strong. Plato and Socrates argue that a man can only find true happiness when the animal needs are fulfilled by a balance between our emotions and our reason. Aristotle believed that man, in order to fully feel at peace, must strive to fulfill the full potential that each individual possesses. Jeff Brenzel, uses this essay to posit that a hero would do good with his powers, would be a superhero, because these powers are simply too big to be ignored and that most of these characters will always strive to determine what they can best do with the power they possess. A great deal of Brenzel’s debate of human nature as reason for humans with power to become “good” or heroes lies in an ethical field called virtue ethics. This essentially a field of ethics pioneered by Aristotle who asked, “What is the good of man?” and answered with, “An activity of the soul in conformity with virtue.” (Rachels, 2012). In short, Aristotle believed that it was certain traits of man, “virtues” that defined a man as good.
Many will recognize the tale of Gyges, if not as students of Plato, then as readers of Tolkien, or maybe from lesser known tails, as it is a tail that has been recounted over the years.
Plato’s Republic (lines 359c-360d) gives a brief description of an “ancestor of Gyges of Lydia” who found a magic ring that made him invisible when he turned it inward on his finger. Using the ring, the man got into the king’s palace, seduced the king’s wife, and with the aid of the wife, murdered the king and took his place as ruler. (Evans, 2005)
The lesson Glaucon delivers from this story boils down to the idea that if there were to rings, one worn by a totally just man and the other by a totally unjust man, neither would be incorruptible and both would eventually succumb to the power of human nature. Socrates believes that human nature is best served when man attempts to balance reason and emotion in order to sate our more animal appetites.
Justice in the soul comes about when the emotions are properly trained and support reason in the governance of our desires and appetites…no one would be reasonable in ruining the health of their souls for the sake of material gains or social status. (Brenzel, 2005)
Like Socrates, Aristotle thought that human nature was best served by attaining good. He felt that was best done through chasing virtues such as bravery, courage, and compassion. All of this leads to the conclusions of Brenzel, who posits that superpowers are akin to possessing a ring of Gyges. It is impossible to ignore the gifts as they are immensely powerful and attractive, yet it is human nature, therefore superhuman nature to question how best to use these powers. In the end this inevitably leads to virtuous undertakings. I agree with the concept of virtue insomuch as I believe that if all things are equal, the easiest path to happiness in life is in chasing virtue. I would argue that the idea that humanity takes the long view is skewed. I think that virtue ethics speak to the nature of humanity and therefore help to explain what man (or superhuman) would do with great power, but that modern human nature has been raised to favor quick and easy satisfaction over substance. Nurture has created a world where the arguments of virtue ethics can’t overcome the attention deficit mentality and therefore, morality, so that people tend to take the short view. In other words, I feel that this particular explanation is incomplete, and needs to take into consideration the idea that virtue isn’t always gratifying.
A Critique of C. Stephen Evans, Why Should Superheroes Be Good? Spider-Man, The X-Men, and Kierkegaard’s Double Danger “If Kierkegaard is right, then we humans do have an excellent reason for caring about the good.” (Evans, 2005). Why Should Superheroes Be Good? Spider-Man, The X-Men, and Kierkegaard’s Double Danger, takes a slightly different angle at the very same question the first three essays posed; why should superheroes be good? Once again, The Ring of Gyges is described in depth, but this is used as an entry point into Kierkegaard and his philosophy of double danger, which states that humans are “called by God to love thy neighbor” and that this leads to the double danger of man; An inner obstacle to goodness, and an external resistance to the same good. Evans investigates this concept through its use in the actions of Spider-Man and the X-Men. By looking through the existences of these two entities, Evans concludes that the reason for good, as Kierkegaard defines it and as it is constituted in the comic world is essentially a religious one. He states that the path to the good is a path toward a religious sensibility; essentially love thy neighbor. This essay introduces the work of Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) who was a Danish philosopher who became known as the “father of existentialism”. He was a huge fan of Socrates and continued on in the same ethical and philosophical vein with his theories of the nature of man and the concept of “double danger”. In the Republic, Plato recounts the tale of the ring of Gyges. He continues on with a challenge from Glaucon to Socrates that essentially says that a just man would have to be stripped of everything unjustly, lashed with a whip, branded in the eyes, and crucified to see if he truly holds on to his love of the just. Plato uses this challenge as a metaphor for the struggles of man to do right or good. Kierkegaard sees this as being a very real plight. Kierkegaard describes this plight as the “double danger” of human nature.
“Give up your self-loving desires and cravings, give up your self-seeking plans and purposes so that you truly work unselfishly for the good- and then, for that very reason, put up with being abominated almost as a criminal, insulted, and ridiculed.” (Evans, 2005)
To Evans, this concept of “double danger” is evident in many comic books. He uses Spider-Man and the X-Men as examples. In the case of Spider-Man, the first danger is very evident in Peter Parker’s struggle to sacrifice his own love of Mary Jane, his own ability to follow through on his life as Peter Parker, in order to become Spider-man. I agree that he seems to struggle with the toll sacrifice puts on his life. I also agree that the second danger is also prevalent in his story. After all the sacrifice, Spider-man is constantly rebuked and insulted by the Daily Bugle, specifically the editor, J. Jonah Jameson. Evans also uses the X-Men to show these dangers. In the case of these heroes, they are genetically different than humanity and as such struggle greatly with loving themselves and tolerance for those that hate them. They are feared and constantly treated badly by many of the very people that they protect. Both dangers are clearly present in this story of extreme racism.
In using these examples, Evans belies a belief that Humans tend to the good because not because of self-interest, nor because they were nurtured as children (although he does give a lot of credence to this theory as it has some merit), but because the universe itself has some deeper, truer character that we reflect in our human morality. This is a belief of Plato. Kierkegaard argues this as the need for relationships. The relationships between people, are such that there is a need to tend towards morality and ethical behavior; to tend toward the good, to build and maintain these relationships. He goes so far as to describe some of these behaviors as duty. It isn’t a far jump from these thoughts to Evan’s conclusion, that there is a purpose to the universe, a morality, a religious bent, that pushes human nature toward the good, even when faced with Kierkegaard’s “double danger”. If mortal men feel he pull, then the paths of those with great power surely tend towards great responsibility. This is the argument that I found myself most drawn to because it is the one that I would typically argue with the most. The idea that a superhero would tend toward the good because god told him to seems a stretch to me, mostly because comics are inhabited with insanely powerful beings, as well as extremely broken characters. For some single God to be the epicenter of all of it seems like a no go. What about atheist characters, aliens out of parallel universes, deities such as Thor? There are androids, demons, and hell-spirits that turn into superheroes. That said, I kept coming back to the theories of Plato and Kierkegaard and I will admit, in some abstract way, I get the view they espouse. Humanity does seem to fight itself, its nature, and its flaws. It does face persecution, abominable behavior, and in the end it does always seem to still strive toward the good.
Utilitarianism and Superheroes
Classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions: (a) The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing else matters. (b) An action’s consequences matter insofar as they involve the greater or lesser happiness of individuals. (c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s happiness gets “equal consideration”. (Rachels, 2012) This is the basic premise of the utilitarian theory; everything is a calculation to determine what actions are the best actions for determining the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure or utility. What if we applied this theory to the super hero community? What would we discover? What if we applied it to the main question of why be a hero? Spider-Man is a world renowned superhero, a cinematic icon, and a beloved idol for many. His story has been heard many a time and it is one that allows for easy utilitarian analysis. Let’s start with his origin story. On a school field trip, Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider. The next day he wakes up to discover that he has a litany of new abilities that he quickly attributes to that spider bite. He is super strong, has inhuman stamina, has inhuman flexibility, sticks to walls with his hands and feet, has inhuman agility, and has extremely fast reflexes. Peter is a science nerd who has been bullied for most of his life. He is an orphan who lives with his elderly aunt and uncle, and as such has little money to his name. He has a crush on a girl named Gwen who he thinks hardly notices him. Suppose you were Peter Parker; what choice would you make? Would become a superhero even make the top ten choices on your list? If you are a utilitarian it just might.
The creed which accepts…The Greatest Happiness Principle…holds that actions are right…as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. (Mills, 1861) (Rachels, 2012)
From a utilitarian point of view, donning bright spandex, and heading out to save the world definitely begets a lot of happiness. In Peter’s case, his eventual assumption of the Spider-Man identity directly resulted in countless lives saved. Putting it another way, Spider-Man has created an incalculable amount of happiness by directly or indirectly saving every life on the planet at least once. He has stopped robberies, shootings, ended high speed chases, and been responsible for countless arrests of other crimes. On a larger scale, he has taken on mega maniacal madmen with mechanical tentacles, billionaires in goblin costumes with pumpkin bombs, men made of sand, men made of water, men with the power of a rhinoceros, living electricity, and alien symbiotic beings. Larger still, he has taken on world dominating terrorist organizations such as AIM, Hydra, and the Maggia. He has helped stop planetary invasions from the Kree, the Skrulls, the Chitauri, and countless others. The stakes don’t stop there. He has been cloned, kidnapped, time travelled, and been involved in secret wars that held the fate of the world in thrall. It is literally incalculable how much happiness, pleasure, and utility Peter Parker has created by donning a garish costume and simply giving up everything else in his life as a secondary pursuit. There have been several occasions where Peter Parker resisted Spider-man. The most famous of these actually constitutes the moral fabric of the Spider-Man legacy. Peter refused to use his gifts to stop a man from robbing the crooked owner of a wrestling scam. That crook ended up killing Peter’s Uncle Ben during his rush to evade the law. This is the man who took Peter in as a child and raised him as his own, who taught him right from wrong, and who loved him immeasurably. His is also the man whose dying words would forge a hero; “with great power comes great responsibility.” This saying has come to not only represent spider-man but is sort of the unofficial mantra of the Marvel Universe. Eventually, Spider-man hunted down and captured the crook but the damage was done. From a utilitarian viewpoint this sacrifice matters, as does all suffering because the actions taken are supposed to beget the most happiness, pleasure, and utility. My challenge to utilitarianism, and as a whole to the use of utilitarianism to answer the question why be a hero is the fact that there is no way of knowing all the variables when one makes the decision. Peter Parker put on the costume originally to hide his identity when he went out to wrestle for money. When he made the calculation to allow the robber to escape he had no way of knowing the cost to himself that was going to result. At best he was forced to decide if the possibility of the criminal robbing someone else was worth the risk to himself and the pleasure he was going to receive from watching a crooked scam artist get his comeuppance.
According to utilitarianism, he’s obligated to remain our friendly neighborhood superhero. Doing so may cause him great personal pain, but this pain is outweighed by the overall good that his superhero activities bring to the world. (Robichaud, 2005).
This may be true in retrospect but I would argue that there is no way that a burgeoning super-powered being can make that calculation. It is all too possible that someone with untested powers and a bright suit will get themselves killed their very first time out. This would change the equation drastically because in this case utilitarianism would state that the happiness gained by living is probably going to outweigh that gained by your death. The analysis of utilitarianism, to me, illustrates that it is a blunt ethical tool at best for making obvious or general decisions. It is in accurate and sometimes hypocritical when put to a true moral test. As for answering the conceit as to why become a superhero; utilitarianism gives in incomplete answer at best.
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Ethical Credo or Moral Conundrum
I have been a fan of comic books for as long as I have been able to read. I have always been a fan of the colorful costumes, the bright splash panels, the action that literally jumps off the page, and the over-arching stories. I found in them a sense of escapism as a kid. I wanted to be the next great hero, embarking on some adventure, wearing a cool costume, and fighting some wild evil. It was pure fantasy and as a child, I couldn’t get enough. As a teenager, I started to recognize the storytelling for what they were, stories of morality, of dark questions, of hard choices, and of deep humanity. Writers like Alan Moore and Frank Miller took my heroes and deconstructed them in a way that laid bare many questions that I had never thought to ask. The largest of which was always, why would anyone want to be a superhero? So that is what I am here to discover; why choose the path of the superhero? To answer this question honestly, we must first look at a scenario where it would be likely that we would be forced to make this choice. Let’s say you work as an engineer at a government laboratory, where you are helping with the build out of some sort of particle accelerator, which runs on an experimental energy source. The day that the accelerator is set to go online has arrived and no one notices that an energy coupling has been tampered with. The accelerator starts up and everything seems to be running smoothly when suddenly, alarms sound and the accelerator begins to malfunction. Everyone panics as the accelerator begins to fire off gouts of coruscating blue energy. You turn to run but you are knocked to the ground by your overweight co-worker in his mad dash to escape. As you topple, your head careens off the corner of the machine, knocking you nearly unconscious. Blood pours down your face and into your eyes as the screams start coming. You hear a terrible rending noise and you begin to fade into darkness. The last thing you see is the blood in your eyes and the accelerator buckle inward briefly just before it explodes. Sometime later, you awaken to the sounds of heavy machinery tearing away rubble and twisted metal. The muffled sound of voices serenade you in the dark as you adjust to your barely lit surroundings. All around you are the remnants of the lab, charred rubble, rent and torqued steel beams, and charred remains that can only be unlucky coworkers. You stand slowly, waiting for pain or dizziness to impede your efforts but neither come. You look around you, devastated by the horror that you have managed to survive. The ceiling shifts ever so slightly and a piece of pan deck tumbles loose. You react by throwing your hand up over your head and ducking away but the piece of crumpled metal passes right through you, clattering harmlessly to the floor. The shock of this is too much to handle and you faint away. Congratulations, you now have super powers. In short, the particle accelerator explosion has imbued you with the ability to alter the atomic cohesion of your body’s molecular structure. This means you can speed them up or slow them down at will. This allows you to phase through solid objects, become nearly invisible, become so light as to float on the energy particles around you, become incredibly dense and impermeable, as well as effect the molecular structure of items directly around you. You now have to decide what to do with these gifts. What choices will you make; what ideals define you? Are you, like Bentham and Mills, a classic utilitarian, guided by the principle that it is the imperative of humanity to do what is right because it begets the most happiness, pleasure, and utility in aggregate? Do you believe that the use of your powers must be “determined by the amount of goodness” (Robichaud, 2005) they can produce? Consider the following.
If utilitarianism is correct, we must be prepared to make difficult personal sacrifices in order to fulfill our moral duties…Doing so may cause…great personal pain, but this pain is outweighed by the overall good. (Robichaud, 2005).
Does this sound like a moral balance that you feel you can strike? For many this is a deeply flawed philosophy. For example, let’s assume you choose to become a hero because you decide to be a utilitarian. Are you prepared to decide, in a life or death situation, whether your life or the life of various others are worth sacrificing in the name of the greater good? Do you even have the knowledge base and the moral compass to make that decision? This is a loaded question? If utilitarianism says we must always decide to take the action that leads to the greater good, then could you choose to be a supervillian? This is a question of ethical relativity is it not?
Our actions are ultimately guided by our view of the good, and this is true…for supervillains, superheroes, and everyone else as well. This is especially clear when we think about the motivations and ends of some of the most compelling supervillains. Magneto wants to build a world where his fellow mutants can live free of fear. Ra’s al Ghul wants to cleanse the Earth and return it to a pristine state. Apocalypse wants to help mutants evolve. All of these goals are, as they stand, laudable. (Poon, 2009).
If this is true then utilitarianism may espouse the good, but it can be used to seemingly evil ends, including justifying death, and encouraging supervillian behavior. Are you more like Thomas Hobbes, the father of the social contract theory, who tried to show that “morality should be understood as a solution to a practical problem that arises for self- interested human beings?” (Rachels, 2012). Do you subscribe to the social contract?
Morality exists in the set of rules governing behavior, that rational people will accept, on the condition that others will accept them as well. (Rachels, 2012)
Are you obligated to do for others so that all can benefit? Do you believe that the only way society can thrive is by adopting rules that all can and will adhere to? Or, do you feel like the philosopher Glaucon from Plato’s Republic?
The many who are weak pass laws and whip up sufficient social-disapproval to keep the few who are strong from completely taking over. (Brenzel, 2005).
Glaucon believed that the nature of man was to do for himself and that anyone who said or behaved otherwise was a fool to be pitied. By this logic, you should make use of your new found powers to dominate the society around you as opposed to working within its constraints as Hobbes and the social contract theory would suggest. Heck, you can phase through walls and turn invisible to the naked eye. Perhaps you should engage in your own personal Rings of Gyges scenario. Still haven’t decided on a path for these new gifts? Maybe Immanuel Kant is your guy. After all Kant “maintained that our fundamental duty is to act in a way that satisfies what he called “the categorical imperative,” one formulation of which states that we are always to treat persons as ends in themselves and not merely as means.” (Robichaud, 2005). Do you believe that we, as humans are intrinsically valuable? Do you believe that we have the ability to reason, such that, unlike any other creature on the planet, we define what is moral? These are the core ideas of Kant. The categorical imperative would dictate that you have a duty to use your superpowers for the good, and that it is crucial that you do this because it is the “right” thing to do. This means that you use your powers to help others because they need help, not because you need something from them. The point is that there are many moral justifications and theories in existence; many explanations as to why one should choose to do good. Choosing what to do with your new powers can seem to be a monumental task. Why be a superhero? Why be good? Why be moral? Why not do a little evil? These are all essentially the same question. Have you determined an answer that works for you? I have and part of it can be found in the wording of the last question…an answer that works for you. Moral ethics have many theories, many fields of debate and study, and may philosophies. The truth is there is no one answer to the question why be a superhero. There are simply many. The truth is all philosophical answers are relative and subjective in nature. They are relative to your culture, your environment, and your education. They are subjective in translation, comprehension, and substance. I would choose to be a superhero because it is what I believe in. Doing good for the sake of good. Moral duty, the utility of society, the social contract, these are ideas that all have substantive and effective uses, despite their flaws. I was raised to care for others, to help those in need, and to stand up for what is obviously and intrinsically right. I have a deep and abiding love for all things heroic from Hercules to Batman and all those mythologies that stem their creation. I am spiritual and believe in a universe that is governed with some natural purpose. In truth, I sort of think I was born to be a superhero, but this is not truly the intent of this exercise. I chose this topic as an interesting way to do something else I love…exploring human nature. In discovering why one would choose to be a superhero in a fictional world where the fantastical is possible, I have been able to see real human answers to why we, as people choose to be humane, choose to sacrifice of ourselves, and choose to continue to fight in the face of adversity.
So I turn it to you, the reader to determine your philosophical answer…Why choose to be a hero?
[Word Count: 6241]
References
Brenzel, Jeff. “Why are Superheroes Good? Comics and the Rings of Gyges.” Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way. 13. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2005. 147-160. Print.
Evans, C. Stephen. “Why Should Superheroes Be Good? Spider-Man, the X-Men, and Kierkegaard’s Double Danger.” Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way. 13. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2005. 161-176. Print. Layman, C. Stephen. "Why Be a Superhero? Why Be Moral?" Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way. 13. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2005. 194-207. Print.
Moseley, Joseph. "The Joker’s Comedy of Existence." Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes Evil is Its Own Reward. 42. Chicago: Open Books Publishing, 2009. 127-136. Print.
Poon, Jared. "What Magneto Cannot Choose." Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes Evil is Its Own Reward. 42. Chicago: Open Books Publishing, 2009. 53-60. Print.
Rachels, James, R., & S. (2012). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (Seventh Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc...
Robichaud, Cristopher. "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On the Moral Duty of the Super Powerful and Super-Heroic." Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way. 13. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2005. 177-193. Print.
-------------------------------------------------
Top of Form