Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Consequentialism, Deontology, and Serenity
Grid System
Registered User
Registered User
I think it's safe to assume that most people here are familiar with Serenity.
Consider The Operative. He's pretty much an asshole. He does a lot of bad stuff and we don't like him for it. But despite that, there's something about him that doesn't seem entirely evil. He believes that he's working towards "A better world. A world without sin." And he does so knowing full well that he won't benefit. Essentially, he sacrifices his morality, so other people don't have to make tough choices and endure suffering. He is a consequentialist moral martyr. And we feel strangely towards him.
Now, there are obvious problems with The Operative. For one thing, even a consequentialist might argue that the means by which The Operative builds his "better world" will not maximize happiness. We see at the end of Serenity that the means used by the Alliance Parliament to pacify Miranda had unintended yet very negative consequences. It isn't hard to believe that The Operative is not justified in killing the people he kills because Miranda's secret is not one worth keeping.
Still, I think that the concept of a moral martyr is an interesting one. It really gets to the core of the debate between consequentialism and deontology. I should say that I'm pretty much dyed-in-the-wool consequentialist, and my moral intuitions are heavily coloured by this, so my expostion and defence of deontology won't be particularly strong. Hopefully somebody else can step in and do a better job.
But I digress. The tension between consequentialism and deontology is of course all about ends and means. Consequentialists are concerned with ends alone. They focus on what happens rather than on what one does. Deontologists take the opposite view.
There are numerous thought-experiments which bring out this distinction. Imagine that you're a doctor and you have five patients that have been poisoned and will die if they do not have an organ replaced (any organ will do). Now, here's Bob the janitor. He's healthy and can provide the requisite organs (and the patients will accept them and survive - how we know this I can't say). The question is, do you kill Bob?
A consequentialist ought to say yes since five people dying is worse than one. A deontologist should say no because a person's life is inviolable, and since you the doctor didn't poison your patients, you won't be doing anything wrong by letting them die, whereas you will be doing something wrong if you kill Bob. Most people's intuitions do, I think, lean towards deontology in this case.
Another thought experiment runs along similar lines. Imagine that you've set a bomb somewhere. If it goes off, five people will die. Then you have second thoughts and you want to stop those five people from dying. But, in order to do so, you'll need to kill one person. Say that the bomb is in a secure area and you had paid off a security guard to let you in, but his shift is over, and the person who took his place, and who you'll need to bypass is uncorruptable so you'll have to shoot him. The consequentialist and deontologist advices are the same as in the doctor case, but our intuitions I think tend to go the other way.
Now, for the moral martyr. Imagine that in the doctor case there's a guy who overhears you debating what to do about Bob. He decides that he's going to simplify matters and he shoots Bob in the head. Now it's an easy choice, use Bob's organs to save the poisoned patients. And in the bomb case, imagine that the guy sees you agonizing over what to do and he shoots the security guard for you. Again, you know what to do. The question is, what do we want to say about this fellow? He's not a good person on account of the bad things he's done. Yet, somehow, we're almost (or perhaps not even almost but entirely) grateful for what he's done. He's made our lives easier, he's done something which will bring about an overall better state of affairs, and he's allowed us to keep our moral purity. It's an odd situation to say the least.
Anyway. Discuss?
Consider The Operative. He's pretty much an asshole. He does a lot of bad stuff and we don't like him for it. But despite that, there's something about him that doesn't seem entirely evil. He believes that he's working towards "A better world. A world without sin." And he does so knowing full well that he won't benefit. Essentially, he sacrifices his morality, so other people don't have to make tough choices and endure suffering. He is a consequentialist moral martyr. And we feel strangely towards him.
Now, there are obvious problems with The Operative. For one thing, even a consequentialist might argue that the means by which The Operative builds his "better world" will not maximize happiness. We see at the end of Serenity that the means used by the Alliance Parliament to pacify Miranda had unintended yet very negative consequences. It isn't hard to believe that The Operative is not justified in killing the people he kills because Miranda's secret is not one worth keeping.
Still, I think that the concept of a moral martyr is an interesting one. It really gets to the core of the debate between consequentialism and deontology. I should say that I'm pretty much dyed-in-the-wool consequentialist, and my moral intuitions are heavily coloured by this, so my expostion and defence of deontology won't be particularly strong. Hopefully somebody else can step in and do a better job.
But I digress. The tension between consequentialism and deontology is of course all about ends and means. Consequentialists are concerned with ends alone. They focus on what happens rather than on what one does. Deontologists take the opposite view.
There are numerous thought-experiments which bring out this distinction. Imagine that you're a doctor and you have five patients that have been poisoned and will die if they do not have an organ replaced (any organ will do). Now, here's Bob the janitor. He's healthy and can provide the requisite organs (and the patients will accept them and survive - how we know this I can't say). The question is, do you kill Bob?
A consequentialist ought to say yes since five people dying is worse than one. A deontologist should say no because a person's life is inviolable, and since you the doctor didn't poison your patients, you won't be doing anything wrong by letting them die, whereas you will be doing something wrong if you kill Bob. Most people's intuitions do, I think, lean towards deontology in this case.
Another thought experiment runs along similar lines. Imagine that you've set a bomb somewhere. If it goes off, five people will die. Then you have second thoughts and you want to stop those five people from dying. But, in order to do so, you'll need to kill one person. Say that the bomb is in a secure area and you had paid off a security guard to let you in, but his shift is over, and the person who took his place, and who you'll need to bypass is uncorruptable so you'll have to shoot him. The consequentialist and deontologist advices are the same as in the doctor case, but our intuitions I think tend to go the other way.
Now, for the moral martyr. Imagine that in the doctor case there's a guy who overhears you debating what to do about Bob. He decides that he's going to simplify matters and he shoots Bob in the head. Now it's an easy choice, use Bob's organs to save the poisoned patients. And in the bomb case, imagine that the guy sees you agonizing over what to do and he shoots the security guard for you. Again, you know what to do. The question is, what do we want to say about this fellow? He's not a good person on account of the bad things he's done. Yet, somehow, we're almost (or perhaps not even almost but entirely) grateful for what he's done. He's made our lives easier, he's done something which will bring about an overall better state of affairs, and he's allowed us to keep our moral purity. It's an odd situation to say the least.
Anyway. Discuss?
Grid System on
Posts
What? Again, I like everything you have here--it's a nice, meaty topic--but I'm a bit in the dark as to what you'd like to cover? The Operative himself as a character study? Consequentialism vs. Deontology? The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few (or the one :wink: ), and therefore people like the Operative are a necessary evil? There's a lot of ground to cover, but it's all interesting ground. Maybe we just need to narrow it a little.
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
I was actually considering the similarities between The Operative and Jurgen from Equilibrium. Jurgen also talks about his own sacrafice of emotion to further their revolution, which is incredibly bloody.
But yes, some further clarification on what we're discussing would be awesome.
I didn't really like The Operative much as a character, most likely because of how he turns out in the end.
You can't handle the truth!
Anyways, yes. That premise of "greater good" and "stepping outside morality" is always interesting. I think Machiavelli (I haven't actually read that) would appreciate it. I know Sun Tzu does.
Personally I'm too much of a cynic to trust anyone but myself with that moral Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. Likewise I'm too much of a cynic to think that I myself come even close to the requirements of the card.
But yeah. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong about abandoning personal morals in order to create a better world. You just have to factor in the risks inherent in such a world view. You're pretty much the only one who can question whether your actions truly benefit the people, so it's your grave responsibility to do so.
Since in the movie the Operative didn't ever even question his own actions but blindly trusted his ideal he was guilty of willful ignorance. His sin was Wrath.
Also, you don't get to use "greater good" or "better world" as an excuse if you get caught. By stepping above the morality you're accepting all the consequences in the first place.
Well, you can use it as an excuse if you think it'll help you in the court when accused of war crimes... I won't blame anyone for trying not to get executed or whatever. But it's not a real moral excuse.
Truth be told, I don't really know what I want to be discussed. Consequentialism versus deontology is a fun debate, but very broad as you noted.
How's this for a question. Would you want to live in a world with Operatives/Bob-the-janitor-killers?
DeepQantas raises the important point that The Operative isn't nearly critical enough of his ends. But what if he were?
We need to make a leap in order to answer the whole Operative thing, that leap being: are his ends truly for the greater good, or do his ends represent only what he perceives to be the greater good? I think that's the main problem with a topic like this--or maybe that's the whole point of a topic like this.
Let's break it down (Thanatos suggested spoilering in case folks haven't seen Serenity yet, so I'll do that).
[spoiler:121f2f56a4]Operative: Believes that the efforts of the Alliance will bring about a better world--bring the outer colonies under heel through the use of force. This could be the first stepping stone to a "world without sin." Side thought: I don't think the Operative believed the "world without sin" would happen once the Alliance took over--I think he believed Alliance domination would just be the necessary, but violent, first step to a world without sin. Anyway, y'know, "liberate" the people and usher in a new age of peace, prosperity and justice for the entire system. His greater good is, basically: conformity of the individual (through violent means if necessary) to a higher authority.
But like River says at the beginning of the movie, while the Alliance/Operative may view this as bringing order, justice and peace to the entire system, it can also be considered meddling, ("we meddle") which brings us to...
Mal: "They will swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave." And, indeed, he certainly does misbehave. So, is he acting for the greather good? Mal's greather good, in this case, is: the rights of the individual outweight the rights of higher authority. Is that a good thing if the folks on the outer colonies just spend their lives gunning each other down because there isn't a higher authority in place?
With that in mind, both Mal and the Operative have killed as a means to an end. Both believe their greater good is the "right" good. Are either right? Is it good for either to kill, even in small numbers, in order to achieve their respective world views?[/spoiler:121f2f56a4]
So, I don't know... it's a cool topic, especially relating to to Serenity and the Operative (again, the character is very cool) but are we just getting further off base with all of this? :?:
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-