The Philosophy of Civil War

Part 1: Tony Stark and

Utilitarianism

One thing I have always enjoyed about pop culture is how it can express lofty ideals in
unique, accessible ways. Several books and movies have helped shape my world-view,
and several others have at least helped me understand things I otherwise would not
have known. This week I want to take a look at Marvel’s epic crossover event Civil War,
and how two opposing ethical views help shape the conflict that arises between Captain
America and Iron Man.

Since this post was originally way too long, I decided to break it into two sections so you
would actually have time to read it. In this first section, we will look at how the
philosophy of utilitarianism fits in perfectly with Iron Man’s decisions in Civil War.
Tomorrow we will see how Captain America’s deontological outlook colors the
decisions he makes. But first, let’s look at a brief synopsis of Civil War.

Please note: this synopsis does not include any major spoilers.

Civil War centers on the events surrounding the implementation of the Superhuman
Registration Act (SRA). After a group of young, rash superheroes (who happen to star in
a reality TV show) attempt to apprehend a group of supervillains goes horribly wrong,
and an elementary school is destroyed, public outcry leads the US government to pass a
bill requiring all super-powered individuals to register their secret identities and powers
with the government and act as a sort of super police force.

The pro-registration side (led by Iron Man) feels that this is a natural progression of
things and it is pointless to oppose that level of public uproar. Those who oppose the
bill (led by Captain America) think that this is a gross violation of their rights and will
take away any chance of them being able to both use their powers for good and allow
them to live a normal life/protect their loved ones. The tension between the two groups
eventually escalates into full-blown battle as Iron Man’s forces attempt to apprehend
those who oppose the SRA, and Captain America and his Secret Avengers are trying to
both carry on with their heroic activities and counter Iron Man’s attacks.

As the fight wages on, Iron Man obtains funds from Congress to build a giant prison in
the Negative Zone. The purpose of this prison is to indefinitely house those superheroes
that refuse to register without trial. This leads to an escalation in the conflict, which in
turn leads to a no holds barred fight between the two sides.

Now that we have an extremely brief, mostly spoiler-free synopsis of Civil War I want to
look at the two philosophies that I think best represent both sides. By understanding
these two different ethical outlooks we might better understand why each side thinks
they are making a moral choice. First up: Utilitarianism!

There are several different variations of utilitarianism but generally speaking, utilitarians
believe that no action or choice is inherently right or wrong. Instead, what makes a
particular action right or wrong is judged by the amount of good (e.g. happiness,
pleasure, satisfaction, etc.) it brings to the greatest number of people. To make it even
simpler, the end justifies the means. When we first looked at utilitarianism, we saw how
from a purely utilitarian point of view Lando Calrissian’s betrayal of Han Solo could have
been considered a just decision. Utilitarianism would also be the ethical philosophy
used to justify Tony Stark’s actions in Civil War.

We see hints at Tony’s utilitarian outlook in the move Avengers: Age of Ultron as well.
Tony believes that using artificial intelligence will eventually lead to the greatest amount
of good/happiness for the greatest amount of people. He is so set and so focused on
this being the moral choice that he ignores the other Avengers and develops the
technology in secret ultimately leading to Ultron, an enemy set on eradicating the human
race. Obviously, this was an unforeseen consequence, but that’s kind of the thing — it’s
impossible to know all of the potential outcomes of a particular decision. Perhaps the
real problem of utilitarianism, at least when it comes to Tony and Civil War, is that the
calculation of the greatest good for the greatest number is subject to the person
working the equation. Tony is a narcissist, which inherently leads to narcissistic
utilitarianism, meaning he might not see the greatest good the same way someone with
a different starting point would.

The greatest good for the greatest number sounds pretty great in theory, but (like
Communism) there are definitely some flaws with this philosophical stance, and these
deficiencies are clearly seen in real life and in the story of Civil War. For instance,
utilitarianism could be used to justify the slavery of a small group because it could bring
happiness and economic stability to a greater number; or it could be used to justify
imprisoning superheroes in the Negative Zone without a trial. Both of these actions
(especially the one that actually exists in the real world) would be considered wrong by
most, but could be justified using a utilitarian point of view.

Now that we have taken a look at Tony’s particular brand of narcissistic utilitarianism, I
hope you have a better understanding of why Tony thought what he was doing was
necessary in order to maximize utility. Tony was trying to make right a lot of wrongs
and thought that by reining in powerful heroes he could bring happiness and security
to the greatest number of people. If you liked this entry, be sure to come back for part 2
to find out more about deontology and Captain America’s anti-SRA stance!

The Philosophy of Civil War

Part 2: Captain America
and Deontology

In Part 1 of this series, we looked at how Tony Stark’s utilitarian outlook allowed him to
justify his actions in Marvel’s Civil War. Today I want to look at a different ethical
philosophy called deontology. The first time we looked at deontology on 4LN we were
discussing why Batman does not kill. Now we will look at how this philosophy shapes
Captain America’s actions in the civil war.

So what is deontology?

Deontology is pretty much the opposite of utilitarianism. This philosophy focuses

exclusively on what one ought to do, or what is one’s “duty.” Unlike utilitarianism,
deontologists believe the end does not justify the means. They also believe every person
has intrinsic value and that it is immoral to use someone as a means to an end. Instead,
every person is an end in and of him/herself. Immanuel Kant, a major deontologist, had
 a list of rules for which one could determine their duty called the Categorical Imperative,
which states:

 Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become
a universal law.

 Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or
in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
end.

 Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a
legislating member in a universal kingdom of ends.

That’s some dense language so I am going to try to break it down because it really does
show why Captain America does what he does. Kant is saying three things. First, he
says that one should live by a code that they think could become a rule for all; then that
everyone has intrinsic value and should not be used as a means to an end, but be
treated as an end; and finally, that we must all act as if our personal code is a universal
law and is also an end in itself.

Cap sees the SRA as a violation of human rights, and since no person should be used as
a means to an end he believes that it is his duty to oppose the bill despite it being law.
This is why he refuses to back down despite the fact that his identity is not a secret. In
the comics, Spider-Man asks Captain America why he refuses to give up. He responds
with the following Mark Twain quote:

Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is
patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide it against your
convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your
country, let men label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way,
and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have your
duty by yourself and by your country. Hold up your head. You have nothing to be ashamed
of.

Cap then tells Spidey:

Doesn’t matter what the press says. Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say.
Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something
right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we
stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob
and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree
besides the river of truth, and tell the whole world — No, you move.

There is not a shred of utilitarian philosophy in those powerful words. That is pure
deontological reasoning. He is fighting for what he believes is morally correct based on
his moral code. We see this side of Steve during Captain America: the Winter Soldier as
well. He thinks Project Insight (an initiative to preemptively neutralize threats before an
incident happens) is an affront to human rights, and that the punishment should follow
the crime not preempt it. He tells Nick Fury that he is holding a gun to the head of every
citizen and calling it security, then says “This isn’t freedom, this is fear.”

This isn’t to say deontology is flawless. Like any philosophy, deontology certainly has
its sticking points. However, these flaws don’t present themselves in this particular
story, and since this is more of a philosophical overview of Civil War as opposed to a
straightforward deontology vs. utilitarianism debate, we won’t go into them in this article
(just look up Kant’s Nazi problem and start reading).

Both sides of the Civil War got out of hand. The reasons behind the SRA made sense.
Superheroes have incredible power, and the collateral damage they cause can be
staggering. From a utilitarian point of view, the greatest happiness would be a general
populace without fear, and that is nearly impossible with the ever-present threat of
masked villains and vigilantes with the power to destroy small towns. If people had that
kind of power in real life, I am sure almost all of us would want them controlled to some
extent. The problem is how the bill was implemented and the direction it took. The SRA,
and those that supported it, is responsible for the death of some heroes and the
indefinite incarceration of many others without trial. Despite Tony’s arc reactor being in
the right place at first, he and his team are the clear villains in the conflict, but that’s not
to say Captain America is completely blameless. He did respond to force with force,
continuing the escalation of the war. It’s hard to say if Cap would have ever gone as far
had it not been for Tony being the catalyst for an arms race. In the end though, Steve
realizes that, while the law in unjust, it is his responsibility to end the war by turning
himself in. He does this with the hope that the judicial system will realize its error and
discontinue the violation of their rights.

Well, there you have it. I hope you enjoyed this series of articles. During this two part
series, we have seen why Tony was able to justify his use of force while implementing
the SRA, and why Steve Rogers felt that it was his duty to oppose the law. We have seen
why Tony’s personality pushed him to go to far in his quest for maximum utility; how
Steve uses Kant’s categorical imperative to determine his moral code, and his
resoluteness in carrying out what he believes he ought to do despite the odds against
him. I tried to be as unpretentious as possible while presenting these ideas and I hope I
succeeded. What do you think about the conflict between Captain America and Iron
Man? Do you think these philosophies accurately describe them? Let us know what you
think in the comments!

Philosophy in Comics:
Batman’s One Rule
We’ve all thought about it – wouldn’t it be better if Batman just killed the Joker? Think of
all of the innocent people that would be saved if the Joker were finally off the streets of
Gotham for good?

The Joker has killed one of the many Robins, shot and paralyzed Barbara Gordon,
tortured her father, Commissioner Gordon, and killed Gordon’s second wife Sarah. He
has indiscriminately killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Gothamites.
Unfortunately every time Batman catches him and he is thrown into Arkham, he
inevitably escapes and continues to run amuck (I had to look up how to actually spell
“amuck” I have never actually seen it spelled out).

This leads us back to our original question. Why doesn’t Batman end the Joker’s reign of
terror for good, effectively saving anyone unlucky enough to catch him on a bad day?

A utilitarian (like Lando Calrissian) would argue that the best course of action would be
to kill the Joker. If you remember, utilitarians believe that the proper course to take in
any given situation is to determine the maximum amount of happiness for all those
involved and head in that direction. Happiness, in this particular situation, would mean
not getting murdered by a terrifying, psychotic, clown (that’s always on my list of things
that make me happy).

If you look at Batman, there is a recurring theme in almost every rendition ever made,
which is his refusal to kill (ironically, this theme was mostly ignored in the Burton and
Schumacher eras, I mean it’s easier to count the number of villains who survived their
altercations with Batman than those who didn’t).

This shows us that Batman is certainly not a utilitarian, if anything he is a deontologist.

Unlike utilitarians, deontologists believe the morality of an act is based on the act itself,
not the consequences of the act. For them, the end can never justify the means. So the
idea that Batman could stop the Joker from killing however many innocents in the future
is irrelevant because the means to that end would require him to kill, and killing is
always wrong (there are concessions when it comes to immediate self-defense — see
below). An easier way of saying this is that the “right” holds more weight than the
“good.”

A common philosophical thought experiment that deals with this issue is the “trolley
problem.” In this moral dilemma, there is a trolley moving down a track. Further down
there are five people who apparently don’t know that a trolley track isn’t the best place to
hold quorum, and will be killed by the trolley unless the trolley is diverted to another
track. Unfortunately, there is also a person on that track (because people in
philosophical conundrums make terrible spatial decisions) who will be killed if the track
is changed. In this thought experiment there is no “yell at them to get off the track”
option, despite what that one guy in your Philosophy 101 class inevitably suggests (trust
me, he is in every Philosophy 101 class).

A utilitarian faced with the scenario (depending on other extraneous circumstances)

would feel morally obligated to switch the track. They would say that maximum
happiness would be achieved by saving the five bystanders despite the sacrifice of the
other. The problem for deontologists is that saving the five would require them to
become actively involved in taking a life. When a deontologist says, “Do not kill,” they
mean it, even if there are reasons that would make killing a good idea (such as killing a
maniacal, killer clown).

Obviously, the biggest difference with the “trolley problem,” and Batman’s problem, is the
Joker (the one person on the track) actually endangers the other five. So if you do not
divert the track to kill the Joker, there is a good chance that he would go after the other
five, or he may have even put them there in the first place. Why should those five be
sacrificed so that the Joker can live? Most of us instinctively say that they shouldn’t.

It would be easy to look at Batman and tell him that he is responsible for every death
that the Joker causes. However, Batman could just as easily argue that the deaths that
the Joker causes are the Joker’s responsibility alone, but that he (Batman) is
responsible only for the deaths that he causes – or he might not feel like arguing with
you and rupture your spleen with your own face instead (I am leaning towards the
latter).

Deontologists generally accept that you can kill in instances of self-defense. Remember
in Man of Steel (SPOILER ALERT) when Superman is forced to kill General Zod to stop
him from eye-frying (freye-ing?) that family? Deontologists are okay with that, but if
Batman stops the Joker after he kills somebody, it is no longer self-defense. Would he
still be justified in killing him after the fact? A deontologist would say no, because there
is always a chance that the Joker would not kill again (despite the obvious pattern).
Would killing Joker, or anyone else for that matter, for crimes he has yet to commit be
right? Most of us would have to say no.

So despite the fact that most of us think that the death of the Joker would be a benefit
to society as a whole, Batman, as a deontologist, is not morally obligated to kill the
Joker himself. In fact, he is morally obligated to refrain from killing the Joker because
the act of killing is inherently wrong despite the end result.

Most of us, including me, are not strict deontologists. It’s hard for us to agree with
continually allowing the Joker to kill, but I think it’s interesting to see how Batman could
justify his actions philosophically. And now, when it’s brought up in conversation you
can share your philosophical knowledge with people who probably won’t care!