Tags: Daredevil, Capital Punishment, Matt Murdock, Execution

In season 3 of Marvel’s “Daredevil”, it follows Matt Murdock’s important moral dilemma.  At the beginning of the season, Fisk’s release from prison causes Matt to realize that prison does not prevent or stop crime.  The antagonist from season 1 being released was enough proof for him. The season begins with Matt deciding to kill Fisk and ends with the contrary.  It depicts Matt’s eventual realization not to kill as “righteous” However, The Daredevil may have made the wrong choice. The morality of the death penalty towards criminals has been a topic of debate for a long time.  

Adverse to the Daredevil, it is wholly moral to kill criminals. Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.  Many leading criminologists and crime statistics show that the death penalty is a deterrent and is needed.

For example, Michael Summers, PhD, MBA, Professor of Management Science at Pepperdine University, wrote in his Nov. 2, 2007 article “Capital Punishment Works” in the Wall Street Journal:

“[O]ur recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year… The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources… There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase.”

Many studies have found the same outcome like when Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies.

Matt decided against capital punishment due to it seeming immoral. His deontological viewpoint that every life is valuable regardless of the circumstances is highly flawed. If Matt decided to institute capital punishment into his methods, he would have saved many lives in deterrence alone. This is shown in my evidence above.  This utilitarian point of view shows how at the expense of one live life many are saved.

In many shows and movies, it is a stereotype for them to show a deontological view as preferable and used by the protagonist and utilitarian as used by the antagonist. “Daredevil” is no exception to this.  When watching these type of shows, it is important to weigh actions on which saves more lives, and this case capital punishment does.

Tags: Black Mirror, Point of View, Nihilistic, Alex Lawther

The Black Mirror episode, “Shut Up and Dance”, tells the story of a teenage boy, Kenny (Alex Lawther), who is blackmailed into committing bizarre and criminal acts by a mysterious hacker possessing a video of him masturbating. The boy is joined by a middle-aged man (Jerome Flynn), whom the same hacker is blackmailing over infidelity.

The show introduces Kenny as a good guy and blames his unfortunate circumstances on others. The hacker group, Anonymous, was painted as the antagonist that was terrorizing Kenny for an embarrassing yet normal act. As the show progresses Kenny engages in more illegal acts in order to save face. Like robbing a bank and even killing a man. This leads to the audience question why he would go this far to cover this normal act. It, however, is shown that Kenny was a pedophile and was looking at pictures of younger kids. This sympathy built by shows was broken. You know that what he did was despicable yet you still pity him for his hapless situations.

I think this episode really changes the perspective we have on criminals. For the most part, despite his wrong-doing, Kenny was a good guy. The whole episode really tries to make you sympathetic towards him for the things he is being forced to do. Yet in a real-life situation, society would view Kenny as a disgusting individual. Also, the same thing goes for the hacker group (I’ll call them trolls.) The show depicts them as horrible, malicious hackers exploiting this seemingly innocent dude. Yet, once again in a real-life scenario, they’d probably be seen as a group like Anonymous, who targets bad individuals for their escapades.

It is hard to side with the main character but also with the hacker group. Anonymous’s nihilistic ideologies spread throughout all their actions. They want the criminals to feel pain and put them in situations that break them. They give a chance of hope but never deliver on their promises. Though their motives are justified, blackmailing individuals to do despicable actions is also not very moral.

5/2/2019

Tags: Anime, Deontology, alchemy, Law of equivalent exchange

Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood is the second adaptation of the original Fullmetal Alchemist manga, which was written by Hiromu Arakawa. The story follows two young alchemists, Edward and Alphonse Elric. When their mother passes away, the boys attempt to bring her back to life by performing human transmutation, a forbidden technique in alchemy. The two boys pay a terrible price for their actions: Edward loses his leg and Alphonse loses his physical body. Luckily, Edward is at least able to transplant Alphonse’s soul into a suit of armor by giving up his own arm, making them a mangled metal pair. The story follows the boys in their journey to acquire a philosopher’s stone, which would bypass the limitations of alchemy and allow Alphonse to get his body back. Brotherhood has many philosophical themes that drive most of the plot. These include the philosophers stone, homunculi, and alchemy, and more. However, today I will focus on the “Law of Equivalent Exchange”. Brotherhood revolves around one general principle, the “Law of Equivalent Exchange”. Alphonse’s definition of the law states, “Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return.” To obtain something of equal value must be lost. This could be compared to the scientific principle of the conservation of energy. Energy does not disappear but is transformed into some other substance. The “Law of Equivalent Exchange” can be examined as a philosophical way of viewing life. The show focuses on a general sense of sacrifice that is applicable to our own lives. Nothing can be attained without giving up something in return, whether it be time, money, or health. The value that we place on these things differs, but each is extremely important and can have adverse effects on our lives. This is shown perfectly when the protagonists try to bring back their mother. During this, they encounter a difficult question, “What is equivalent to human life?” This question is said at the beginning of each episode to show the complex scenarios equivalent exchange can create. Along with this theme, comes the philosopher’s stone that allows its wielder to bypass this “Law of Equivalent Exchange.” This stone, however, is shown to use human souls. This shows that it does follow this law as the souls were exchanged for this power. Edward and Alphonse’s moral good weighed over their ambitions in this and they chose not to use the stones. They possess a deontological viewpoint(I talked about this in my last blog) and choose not to use any of the stones. Like Kant, he believes people should not be used means to an end. Instead, he chooses to sacrifice his own powers for his bodies back. Like before, most of the protagonists have a deontological standpoint and usually win. This is shown once again in another TV show.

4/25/19

Tags: Avengers, Morals, Kant, deontology, Utilitarianism

The Marvel Cinematic Universe’s new movie, Avengers: Infinity War, shows a question many superhero stories have : how does of one life relate to the many? On one hand, you have Captain America’s deontological perspective, connected with the philosopher Immanuel Kant, it says that every human being is an end in themselves, not a means to other ends. Kant said that you should act toward others only in a way that you would be willing to make a universal principle for all moral beings. You can not make “sacrifice others for the greater good” a universal principle, or else everyone end up sacrificed.  He not only says you can’t kill one person to save two people, but he also says you can’t lie to one person to save two people. Captain America’s extreme kantist view is contrasted with Thanos’ utilitarian view. This battle between ideologies drives most of the plot. Captain America makes it a point to show that he does not “trade lives” (referring to vision) as he argues it’s an immoral approach to take because killing is always objectively wrong, even if it has a positive consequence. On the other side, you have Thanos’s utilitarian perspective,  which says that the goal should be the most good for the most people. The greater good, not the individual, is the most important thing. Both these positions is shown to be ludicrous if taken to their extremes. Some philosophers have been making people mad for a long time by showing utilitarianism to its limits, showing ways many find horrible (like saying that it is justifiable to kill babies with severe disabilities).This deontological vs utilitarian view is depicted in many shows and drives their major conflicts. The protagonist possessing the deontological and the antagonist possessing the utilitarian view. However, this is where Avengers dissociates from this. Most of these conflicts resolve with the hero and somehow saving everyone with the deontological. Most of the real-life cases this is not the case. In either scenario: both utililitarian and deonological lead to some lives lost. Avengers shows the effect of the antihero winning and the world with a utilitarian action. In the end, each member of the audience is left to wonder which philosophical perspective is needed to better humankind. I, however, side with Thanos rather than a deontological. To weigh one life over another like deontology does creates too many problems on how to define the worth of a human life. In order to gain something you must lose something; whether it be a life.

Photo from Marvel studios*******