 |
| Image Courtesy- TeePublic |
If a close analysis is undertaken of all superhero movies, then a common denominator underlying all plots will be discovered. Every superhero tale has a moral dimension, but it is quintessentially limited to the protagonist. That is to say, the superhero alone has the might of the right with him. Invariably accompanying him is the badness of the villain. Badness in the sense, the values that he stands for and things he fights for. This element is indispensable because goodness is relative. You need to give something worse to the viewer, to which he can compare the alleged good part and arrive at the conclusion which storyteller wants to sell; the superhero was indeed good!
This is the cliché tale of every superhero movie and Marvel Entertainment has been no different about it. Start watching Marvel Universe movies starting from Iron Man (2008), Captain America, Thor, Avengers, and all their sequels and you will possibly get my point. But in Avengers: Infinity War, things took a turn. There is a classic saying that ‘a hero is as good as the villain is’, but it looks like Marvel never took it with much seriousness until the Infinity War installment. The idea was simple; a badass villain does not make a great villain, a morally principled one does. Meet Thanos! The greatest villain of the Marvel cinematic universe. Not because he apparently defeated Avengers or because he wiped out half the population of the entire universe (I am, by no way trying to belittle these achievements of his, but instead suggesting that they are not the prime reasons of his grandiose) but, what makes Thanos a great villain, in my view, are his pious intentions. That he too, like Avengers, wants to make the universe a better place. There is a hint of morality in his vision, he is not fighting for ruling the world.
 |
| image source: twitter.com |
When Thanos reveals the rationale behind his plan, to exterminate half the population of the universe, at least to some (including me) he starts making sense. A solution to the problem of “too many mouths, not enough to feed.” Problems that will, ultimately, doom everyone (his own planet faced extinction due to overpopulation, lack of resources, hunger, and everything that logically follows). His solution was to dust half of the population, randomly by a process that is fair to rich and poor, so that the remaining half can lead a better life. He wishes to set the balance right, which is still a brighter prospect (to him) in comparison to a future where everyone kills each other for limited resources.
To put it succinctly, Thanos adheres to a particular conception of justice, referred to as utilitarianism as has been advocated by Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill. A conception of justice and morality, utilitarianism solicits that the sum total of happiness must be increased. It argues that any action must not be evaluated as being morally just or unjust on the basis of its nature or some inherent moral value, but by its consequences. Thanos, a utilitarian, was of the view that ‘killing’ is not wrong in itself if it can yield ‘more happiness’ as a result. Also, another important feature of Thanosian style utilitarianism is that it is ready to sacrifice the happiness of one person for the greater happiness of others. To put things in context, consider that if before the apocalyptic snap of Thanos, the sum total of happiness of the whole universe was X and after the snap, it would be Y. Then Thanos will only make the snap if Y is greater than X. Which would, ideally, happen if the average happiness of every person who survives doubles.
On the other side, our heroes, Avengers believe in a different ideology, which is in stark contrast with utilitarianism, the categorical imperative. They are fighting Thanos not because they do not want a happier universe where everyone will be happier, but because they have two fundamental differences with Thanos’s view. The first difference is very aptly captured in a dialogue by Captain America in the movie when Vision suggests destroying the stone embedded in his head, which inevitably would kill him, so that the stone may not fall into Thanos’s hands. Captain America reminds Vision that “we do not trade lives”, which is precisely what Thanos was doing. Categorical imperative deplores the concept of snatching one’s happiness for the greater happiness of other(s). John Rawls has argued that what is good and what is right are, mandatorily, two separate questions. He argues that the question of justice is prior to the question of happiness. For anything to be good, as a precondition, it will have to be morally right, and killing people for others’ sake is morally wrong. If something is good, then it does not mean it mandatorily has to be right.
The second fundamental difference that Avengers have with Thanos and utilitarianism is that they do not judge anything as morally just or unjust from the consequences that follow. Categorical imperative believes in the inherent moral worth of the act. Like, the act of killing is inherently wrong! No matter who benefitted, or how many benefitted, nothing can justify killing. What makes 'Infinity War' different from stock superhero movies is that it not about good versus bad, but rather competing versions of good which have been the center of debate in jurisprudence. Infinity War shatters our cliché way of thinking and prompts us to ask- what if the antagonist is the good guy here? What if, he is the one who sits in a peaceful place, towards the end of the movie, seeing the sunrise on a new world, in a better world!
Comments
Post a Comment