How Dr. Strange's decision in "Avengers: Infinity War" demonstrates moral relativism (SPOILERS: "Avengers: Infinity War" and "Watchmen")
WARNING: Spoilers for both "Infinity War" and "Watchmen" ahead. I know the latter is almost 10 years old now, but heads up anyway.
It's a heavy concept, and it's more complex than the film seems to argue.
Kill One, Save Ten
Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olson) and Vision (Paul Bettany) have a series of moments in which Vision, fearing capture by Thanos (Josh Brolin) and his thugs, implores Scarlet Witch to kill him by destroying the Mind Stone. The Mind Stone is the Infinity Stone that serves as his power source. Though extremely reluctant, Scarlet Witch eventually does so. "It's not fair, but it has to be you," Vision says, pleading and apologizing at the same time. Earlier in the film, it was revealed the relationship between them implied during "Captain America: Civil War" had fully blossomed. Painful as it was, Scarlet Witch killed the person she loved to save the universe from Thanos. Unfortunately, it didn't work.
The Problem
This argument falls apart when it comes to Dr. Steven Strange's part of the story; having looked at every conceivable outcome and realized, logically, the best outcome, he knew for a fact what would come from giving Thanos the stone to spare Tony's life. He would have seen Peter Parker's death, the death of the Guardians, and his own in doing so. He would not have traded one life for so many if he didn't know for certain it would pay off in the long run. He further drives this home with his last words: "Stark...it was the only way."
We are shown two examples of the "kill one to save ten" thesis, and both of them fail. Then we are shown two examples of what seem to be the film's thesis, the inverse of the "save ten" concept. Both succeed as if to say this is the "correct" choice, both from an ethical standpoint and a logical one, as though it were a universal truth that no matter the situation, refusing to let one person die to save more than one is the correct choice. This is not necessarily true.
The Purpose of Morality
If we processed every single piece of sensory information, every single thought with bottom-up processing, our brains would constantly become overloaded. Ideally, we would all have super brains like Dr. Strange and be able to perfectly understand every facet of everything we encounter with relatively low effort. Sadly, this is not the reality we live in. Our brains need to be able to process things efficiently.
Movies, like the human brain, like things to be simple, even when the things they are attempting to depict are not. That's why the most popular stories have clear lines between "good" and "evil," just as stark as the difference between the colors "black" and "white."
The problem is, this causes human beings to oversimplify the actions and character of other human beings. When we do this, it makes us less likely to be compassionate, to learn from each other - it makes us more likely to dismiss and destroy each other...even when, from a certain point of view, there was nothing "evil" about the person being judged as such.
That's why this distinction is important. That's why it's important to be skeptical of things that seem "black and white."
Contrasting Example: Watchmen
In "Watchmen," millionaire genius Adrian Veidt, AKA Ozymandias (played by Matthew Goode in the film). Again, spoilers below.
Ozymandias is technically the antagonist of the story because his solution to nuclear escalation was to create a spurious "greater threat" that would force the United States and Soviet Union to put aside their differences. To accomplish this, he builds a doomsday device of some form or another that effectively kills a horrific amount of people - in the books, he genetically engineers an emourmous "alien" creature, which teleports into the heart of New York city, destroying a huge part of it. In the film, he creates electronic discharges that detonate in several major population centers all over the world - those discharges are similar to those seen being used by Dr. Manhattan, another superhero, earlier on. In the graphic novel, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. unite under the threat of a supposedly imminent alien invasion; in the film, they unite against the threat of an omniscient superbeing.
Here's where the "kill one to etc." scenario goes differently.
In doing so, he alienates every single person in his life, and is destined for a life of regret and solitude when last we see him. His former friends now know the truth, and even though his theory was technically correct - he successfully stopped the threat of nuclear holocaust dead in its tracks - the extent to which he was willing to go to end the Cold War made him monstrous in their eyes. Everyone besides Rorschach, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre II, and Dr. Manhattan had been killed by Veidt to keep them from telling anyone what they knew. Yet, by the time the "heroes" of the story learned the truth, Veidt had already pushed the doomsday button. He knew that they would know that exposing him would cause the Cold War to resume; they had no choice but to pretend they didn't know what Veidt had done, and they would forever hate him for it.
Unlike in the case of Scarlet Witch and Starlord respectively, Veidt's plan worked given his circumstances - it had nothing to do with right or wrong. Having your actions work out in the end isn't necessarily a sign that you're "right," it just means that you were successful.
If Marvel wanted to argue against the "cold calculus" of such an idea, emphasizing the social ramifications of doing so might have served them better, as Alan Moore did with Watchmen.
Pragmatism vs. Idealism
Some may argue that Dr. Strange's plan will work because he did the "right thing" by trading the stone for Stark's life, so the narrative will reward him for it. From a literary point of view, this makes sense; if the story is trying to convey a specific message, the writers of that story will end it in such a way that the message is reinforced. The message Marvel seems to be conveying doesn't necessarily reflect reality in this case, given that Strange's motivations were practical, not idealistic.
Conclusion
I wanted to end with a definite answer, but the thing is, I don't think this question is one that is supposed to be answered definitively by something like a blog post.
As creatures capable of epistemological thought, our identities are shaped by how we choose to adapt to adversity. Questions like these may have different answers in different circumstances.
It is more useful as a thing to be carried through life, constantly, constantly tested. This is how we learn about the world and ourselves. It's how we grow.
Kill One, Save Ten
Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olson) and Vision (Paul Bettany) have a series of moments in which Vision, fearing capture by Thanos (Josh Brolin) and his thugs, implores Scarlet Witch to kill him by destroying the Mind Stone. The Mind Stone is the Infinity Stone that serves as his power source. Though extremely reluctant, Scarlet Witch eventually does so. "It's not fair, but it has to be you," Vision says, pleading and apologizing at the same time. Earlier in the film, it was revealed the relationship between them implied during "Captain America: Civil War" had fully blossomed. Painful as it was, Scarlet Witch killed the person she loved to save the universe from Thanos. Unfortunately, it didn't work.
We see the same choice between Starlord (Chris Pratt) and Gamora (Zoe Saldana), whose relationship had likewise actualized earlier in the film. Fulfilling his promise, Starlord attempted to kill Gamora to keep her from falling into the hands of Thanos. This, too, did not work.
Later, Thanos himself is faced with a similar choice: he must sacrifice the thing he loves most to "earn" the Soul Stone, one of the final remaining stones that fits into the Infinity Gauntlet. A tearful Thanos apologizes to Gamora, his adopted daughter, before firmly grabbing her by the wrist and hoisting her off a cliff. This does work, but ultimately it was a decision he would regret unto his grave (or "would have"...we'll just see when "Avengers 4" comes out).
These are examples of "kill one to save ten." Then there is the inverse, "save one no matter what because it's the 'right' thing to do."
Gamora is forced by Thanos to watch as her sister, Nebula (Karen Gillan) is tortured. To save her, Gamora needs only give up the location of one of the stones, knowing that it will significantly further Thanos' quest to extinguish 50% of all life in the universe. She gives in, unable to bear watching her sister in pain.
Later, Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) gives up the Time Stone, the second-to-last one Thanos needs, so that Thanos will spare Tony Stark, who is on the brink of death. Strange implies it's part of his plan; he had just used the stone to look into over 14,000,000 possible outcomes that could result from the fight with Thanos, and learned that there was only one way to ensure that the universe would be saved. Though this decision would be instrumental in Thanos finally becoming able to remove 50% of the universe's population in what is being called "The Snap," apparently there's more to it that will be revealed in a future film.
The cold calculus of "kill one to save ten" is often dismissed by moral traditionalists like Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) as amoral, and the film seems to agree - this seems to be why the film ensures that we see those who choose to save their friends end up being more successful, and those who choose to save the greater number indirectly usually fail.
 |
| I always did find Captain America's morality to be a bit plastic. |
The Problem
This argument falls apart when it comes to Dr. Steven Strange's part of the story; having looked at every conceivable outcome and realized, logically, the best outcome, he knew for a fact what would come from giving Thanos the stone to spare Tony's life. He would have seen Peter Parker's death, the death of the Guardians, and his own in doing so. He would not have traded one life for so many if he didn't know for certain it would pay off in the long run. He further drives this home with his last words: "Stark...it was the only way."
We are shown two examples of the "kill one to save ten" thesis, and both of them fail. Then we are shown two examples of what seem to be the film's thesis, the inverse of the "save ten" concept. Both succeed as if to say this is the "correct" choice, both from an ethical standpoint and a logical one, as though it were a universal truth that no matter the situation, refusing to let one person die to save more than one is the correct choice. This is not necessarily true.
The Purpose of Morality
Morality is about making the best decision when you don't know the outcome. If you automatically, unquestionably knew for a fact which outcomes would come of which actions, you would far more easily be able to make the best possible decisions, and there would be little need for things like theoretical ethical frameworks to guide you.
Think of it this way: if you knew for a fact that God exists, and you knew exactly what God wanted you to do in order to lead the best possible life, you would be omniscient - just as all-knowing as God.
Humans don't have such knowledge. The existence of God is a matter of faith, and our practical knowledge is limited, which is why we have philosophy and ethics to guide us.
Think of it this way: if you knew for a fact that God exists, and you knew exactly what God wanted you to do in order to lead the best possible life, you would be omniscient - just as all-knowing as God.
Humans don't have such knowledge. The existence of God is a matter of faith, and our practical knowledge is limited, which is why we have philosophy and ethics to guide us.
Let me ask this question: what if the "one outcome" out of 14 million had been to let Tony Stark die?
That which is considered "right" or "wrong" often varies from person to person, culture to culture. There are some things that stay universal, sure; but rarely are matters of ethics and morality black-and-white.
Example: depending on how your brain works...your memories, experiences, different ways your brain is set up to interpret sound, the recording in this voice will sound like "Yanny" to some, and "Laurel" to those with a perfect auditory cortex:
The problem is, we humans all have human brains, and the human brain constantly, often unconsciously, tries to see things as simply as possible, even if that isn't necessarily how things are. There may well be a "right" answer, but that's beside the point. The point is, everyone perceives things differently, and between those differences, the truth does not necessarily lie.
Another example: Person A says, "four is less than five." Person B says, "four is greater than three." Both are correct, but they approach the same concept from different angles. The value they place on the number four is based on different principles, principles which may conflict, despite neither party being "wrong."
Example: depending on how your brain works...your memories, experiences, different ways your brain is set up to interpret sound, the recording in this voice will sound like "Yanny" to some, and "Laurel" to those with a perfect auditory cortex:
The problem is, we humans all have human brains, and the human brain constantly, often unconsciously, tries to see things as simply as possible, even if that isn't necessarily how things are. There may well be a "right" answer, but that's beside the point. The point is, everyone perceives things differently, and between those differences, the truth does not necessarily lie.
Another example: Person A says, "four is less than five." Person B says, "four is greater than three." Both are correct, but they approach the same concept from different angles. The value they place on the number four is based on different principles, principles which may conflict, despite neither party being "wrong."
Human beings rely on heuristics to optimize brain function in what is called "top-down" processing. The other kind of processing we have is called "bottom-up" processing, which our brains generally use when analyzing a new or unfamiliar situation or sensation.
If we processed every single piece of sensory information, every single thought with bottom-up processing, our brains would constantly become overloaded. Ideally, we would all have super brains like Dr. Strange and be able to perfectly understand every facet of everything we encounter with relatively low effort. Sadly, this is not the reality we live in. Our brains need to be able to process things efficiently.
Movies, like the human brain, like things to be simple, even when the things they are attempting to depict are not. That's why the most popular stories have clear lines between "good" and "evil," just as stark as the difference between the colors "black" and "white."
The problem is, this causes human beings to oversimplify the actions and character of other human beings. When we do this, it makes us less likely to be compassionate, to learn from each other - it makes us more likely to dismiss and destroy each other...even when, from a certain point of view, there was nothing "evil" about the person being judged as such.
That's why this distinction is important. That's why it's important to be skeptical of things that seem "black and white."
Contrasting Example: Watchmen
In "Watchmen," millionaire genius Adrian Veidt, AKA Ozymandias (played by Matthew Goode in the film). Again, spoilers below.
Here's where the "kill one to etc." scenario goes differently.
Ozymandias, though arguably the villain of the story, doesn't "lose." He enacts his plan successfully. As a result, millions die...instead of the billions that could have perished if the U.S. and U.S.S.R. had launched nukes at each other.
In doing so, he alienates every single person in his life, and is destined for a life of regret and solitude when last we see him. His former friends now know the truth, and even though his theory was technically correct - he successfully stopped the threat of nuclear holocaust dead in its tracks - the extent to which he was willing to go to end the Cold War made him monstrous in their eyes. Everyone besides Rorschach, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre II, and Dr. Manhattan had been killed by Veidt to keep them from telling anyone what they knew. Yet, by the time the "heroes" of the story learned the truth, Veidt had already pushed the doomsday button. He knew that they would know that exposing him would cause the Cold War to resume; they had no choice but to pretend they didn't know what Veidt had done, and they would forever hate him for it.
Unlike in the case of Scarlet Witch and Starlord respectively, Veidt's plan worked given his circumstances - it had nothing to do with right or wrong. Having your actions work out in the end isn't necessarily a sign that you're "right," it just means that you were successful.
If Marvel wanted to argue against the "cold calculus" of such an idea, emphasizing the social ramifications of doing so might have served them better, as Alan Moore did with Watchmen.
Pragmatism vs. Idealism
Steven Strange would not have made such a choice unless he had seen that it led to the best possible outcome. As he tells Tony Stark and Peter Parker when they first met, he "would not hesitate" to let them die to protect the stone, if necessary. He didn't backpedal because he suddenly had some grand revelation. Nothing that transpired between Strange meeting the Avengers and the Guardians and giving the stone to Thanos would suggest a change in his attitude towards Stark. He didn't save Stark because he thought it was somehow morally imperative to do so - he saved Stark because it was a necessary part of a bigger plan.
Some may argue that Dr. Strange's plan will work because he did the "right thing" by trading the stone for Stark's life, so the narrative will reward him for it. From a literary point of view, this makes sense; if the story is trying to convey a specific message, the writers of that story will end it in such a way that the message is reinforced. The message Marvel seems to be conveying doesn't necessarily reflect reality in this case, given that Strange's motivations were practical, not idealistic.
Conclusion
I wanted to end with a definite answer, but the thing is, I don't think this question is one that is supposed to be answered definitively by something like a blog post.
As creatures capable of epistemological thought, our identities are shaped by how we choose to adapt to adversity. Questions like these may have different answers in different circumstances.
It is more useful as a thing to be carried through life, constantly, constantly tested. This is how we learn about the world and ourselves. It's how we grow.
Comments
Post a Comment