You’re right: I haven’t produced new content in ages, so here’s a few unproof-read, uncited, pretty much unsubstantiated snippets from a very, very early draft of a huge paper I’m currently writing. It’s supposed to be a jurisprudential study of ethics and morality in comic books, but like I said to my lecturer in a moment of panic, “OMG, IT HAS LIKE, NO LAW IN IT!!!”
Apparently, that’s not such a big deal! And though I risk annihilating what little dignity I currently cling to, I have to say: this is the most fun I’ve ever had writing an essay.
Now, how do I turn this kind of wankery into a full-time job like these good folks?
[…]
Generally, superheroes can be seen as classically utilitarian: despite being violent, brutal and at times even criminal, arguably even their most immoral actions can be substantiated as being for the greater good. That the theme of outlawed superheroes continuing their crusades against evil, despite being vilified as wicked themselves, recurs across comics of different eras, genres and publishers underlines the fact that for superheroes and morality, the ends generally justifies the means.
Moreover, the worlds presented within comics tend to be imbued with an acutely-developed sense of rights and wrongs, of good and evil, and — perhaps most importantly — an ever-pervasive sense of justice. It is for this reason that the most resonant stories present an injustice — ethical, if not legal, in nature.
Take, for example, the character of Charles Xavier from Marvel’s X-Men series. As the founder of a school for young mutants, Professor X has traditionally been presented in canon as having a deeply-ingrained deontological ethical stratagem: for Charles, the ends never justify the means. In building an elite task-force of mutants to promote inter-human relations and the general welfare of the world, Charles has generally been fundamentally opposed to killing and the use of excessive force, and treats his capacity as a telepath with supposed ethical acuity. That’s not to suggest that he shies away from conflict; rather, he grapples with these opportunities to denigrate immorality. His teaching methods are founded upon the desire to propagate moral absolutism as an ideology. […]
Charles […] arguably becomes a more compelling character when his dealings in morally ambiguous areas come to the fore. Eventually, his deontological facade gives way to an unmistakeably utilitarian core, and this is presented as a kind of fall from grace. […]
His actions in themselves are not necessarily wicked — in erasing others’ painful memories, in using his power to fetter the undeveloped powers of others, in lying and falsifying, his intention to do good is ever-pervasive. However, it his deception in hiding these actions that gives rise to a duality of character, which seems inherently wrong — even evil: Charles has treated the people around him as a means to an ends, and not as ends in themselves. Though his actions may not constitute wrongdoing when seen through the filter of consequential ethics, his downfall — or wickedness — is compounded because of his misleading self-representations of moral absolutism.
With his mind rebuilt and the majority of his memories lost after a near-death experience, Charles is forced to reflect on his ethical practice. […]
Clearly, Xavier has become a utilitarian, and for fans of the series, it comes as a strange kind of tragic loss. Indeed, in the Legacy storyline, Scott Summers’ initial reluctance to allow Xavier a modicum of trust stems from this duality of the character: Summers can no longer act in reliance of Charles’ representations, and his motivations and justifications cannot be substantiated from Summers’ perspective, which is paradoxically a deonotological one acquired through habituation at Xavier’s school. (As a side-note, fuck Scott Summers.)
[…]
No, the fuck Scott Summers part didn’t stay in the essay… THOUGH IT SHOULD.
