Final Fantasy and Philosophy: The Ultimate Walkthrough (8 page)

A Utilitarian Moral Stalemate: Sacrificing Party Members

Although most utilitarians would admit that both sanctity and autonomy are important, the foundation of morality, as far as they’re concerned, is simply happiness—actions are good insofar as they increase the pleasures or decrease the pains of people, in general.
⁷
The reason this view is termed
utilitarian
is that the true test of an action’s propriety is whether it has useful consequences (utility) with respect to promoting happiness. In opposition to the strict Kantian view that persons never should be used merely as means to some end, the utilitarian position has no problem treating some people as means, if, as a result, the “sum total” of happiness is increased for all people.
⁸

The
Final Fantasy
series abounds with examples of actions justified by utilitarian-type reasons. The female character Yuna, of
Final Fantasy X
and
X-2
, is in fact best characterized by her sacrificial actions as Summoner for the people of her world, Spira. At the conclusion of
Final Fantasy X
, her love interest, Tidus, disappears due to the status of his physical being. We discover, in
Final Fantasy X-2
, that rather than pursue Tidus or try to bring him back, Yuna has gone back to her home in Besaid to serve her people. She is finally convinced to pursue him when she feels as though her people can carry on successfully without her constant supervision. Most of Yuna’s decisions in the game revolve around doing what is best for her people and for the planet, not what is in her own best interests. Her decisions clearly follow a pattern of doing the greatest good for the majority of her people.

Another example of this formula for ethical decision making can be found in
Final Fantasy VII.
In this game, one of the main characters, Aeris, sacrifices her own well-being and ultimately her own life trying to defeat an enemy that is destroying the planet. Although Aeris is killed by the embodiment of the enemy, Sephiroth, she sacrifices her life attempting to defend not only the planet itself, but all of its inhabitants.

Finally, the conflict between Kantianism and utilitarianism is never clearer than when young graduates from the various training Gardens of
Final Fantasy VIII
are assigned to foreign armies or governments. The graduates themselves have no choice in the matter. As we see in the development of the game, some of the foreign countries turn on their neighbors and begin to attack them, thus putting the entire planet in peril. It is the duty of the graduating soldiers to serve the army or the government to which they are assigned, however, even at the cost of the well-being of everyone else on the planet. When the graduates are given a mission, they are often unaware of the possible consequences of the mission. They simply carry out their orders as per their duty to serve those to whom they have been assigned.

We have already noted that Kant’s theory presented us with a moral stalemate because it implied that objectification is
both
good and bad in some scenarios. Another kind of stalemate arises from the utilitarian perspective. A strict utilitarian must admit that an action is good, no matter how horribly some people are treated, so long as more people benefit in the long run.
⁹
This means that if killing certain people will increase the overall happiness of humanity, then such murder is not only permissible but downright advisable, based on utilitarianism. For example, imagine the risks to innocent bystanders in various games when your party fights monsters or major antagonists. There is always the risk that these people may be injured in the fighting, but the overall happiness of humanity depends on your defeat of the aggressors. Furthermore, if some of your party members die in the attempt to save the world you are defending, this is all part and parcel of the mission you have been entrusted with. More often than not, in the worlds of
Final Fantasy
, this mission involves the well-being of many, sometimes entire worlds. The fate of everyone and everything in a world often depends on your success and if your success means the end of your life, then you are expected to give it. Thus, a utilitarian regards such self-sacrifice as obligatory, and if you decline to give up your life, other people are justified in taking it.

Maybe a few utilitarians could bite the bullet and claim that this conclusion is acceptable, but most of them would admit that it is too extreme.
¹⁰
Although mandatory self-sacrifice would create a tremendous amount of happiness for some people, the amount of misery for the widows, the families, and the friends of the departed would be just as substantial. Such a system would induce paranoia, undermine security, and destroy humanity as we know it, thereby making it worse. Indeed, you can imagine this state of affairs culminating in a single living person, so pleased with his solitude that killing everyone else was warranted. Such an outcome is not merely tragicomic, it is absurd. A utilitarian stalemate, then, results from the fact that by holding the greatest happiness of the greatest number in such high regard, it
unacceptably
advocates decreasing the latter number as a means of increasing the former balance.

Virtue Ethics: Aristotle, Aeris, and Sephiroth

Opposed to these
action-based
moral theories, which first establish what people should do and then assess whether they have actually done so, there are
character-based
theories, which first look at how people actually act and
then
determine how they should act.
¹¹

Aristotle, in particular, thought that character development was the key to morality. As he saw it, our characters result from our (1) forming certain habits starting in childhood and (2) acquiring practical wisdom in maturity. Ideally, people would cultivate the habits and form the wisdom that would lead them to know how to always act in the right way, at the right time, in the right manner, and for the right reasons. He famously believed that the path of such uprightness always ends up being the mean between two extremes. For example, courageous people are neither cowardly nor reckless, but somewhere in between.

An example of a plainly virtuous character is Aeris of
Final Fantasy VII
, who embodies virtues of liberality and courage. Aeris risks her life to help save the planet and its people. An example of a plainly vicious character is Sephiroth, who is malicious and viciously ambitious. His ultimate goal in the game is the destruction of the planet—mainly out of spite.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) advocated a form of virtue ethics that was very different from that of Aristotle. Nietzsche believed that power was the ultimate virtue, and that we all must express power
if we are powerful.
¹²
Society consists of domineering master-slave relationships. Some people have the kind of character that causes them to be attracted to being in control; others are prone to being controlled. For example, the character of Cloud in
Final Fantasy VIII
is attracted to being in control, whereas his nemesis, Seifer, is prone to being controlled. Cloud enjoys dictating his own destiny, and sometimes this brings him into conflict with authorities. Seifer, on the other hand, seeks power at any cost, even allowing himself to be controlled by a sorceress in an attempt to secure power for himself.
¹³

So, What Character Do You Aspire to Be?

Can virtue ethics tell us if and when objectification is warranted without falling into the same stalemate traps that the Kantian and utilitarian positions did? Aristotle escaped the problems that Kant faced because even if we suppose that sanctity and autonomy are equally important, a person who encroaches on either would simply show that he or she has a weak character. A virtuous, well-balanced person tends not to objectify people because objectification is an extreme action. On rare occasions, however, objectification can be the right course of action. For example, when people courageously (as opposed to rashly) allow themselves to be used by others, they are demonstrating their own virtuous characters, such as the case of Aeris. Thus, for Aristotle, the conflict between sanctity and autonomy is illusory—one of the two is always the right target. Because Aristotle would have said that only vicious people achieve happiness at other people’s expense, the difficulty that plagued utilitarianism also does not apply.

Nietzsche simply advocated living your life to the fullness of your potential. If your greatest attribute is intelligence, do not feign stupidity to appease the masses. Similarly, if you’re camera shy, don’t try to become a movie star. Rather, just be yourself! Don’t let anyone tell you what you should believe or that sanctity is a virtue. It is, in fact, a vice that is meant to make you live like everyone else. Instead, determine for yourself what to believe, and you will experience a joyful wisdom that most people aren’t even capable of. Simply put, always express your autonomy, and you will never act “wrongly.” Nietzsche did not encounter the Kantian stalemate because, for him, autonomy is clearly more important than sanctity. He also sidestepped the utilitarian problem because he was not concerned with happiness at all. Utilitarians mistakenly think all men are created equal and deserve equal treatment—this is the source of their stalemate.

Aeris or a Cloud?

The two virtue ethics perspectives we’ve considered don’t have the problems that plagued the moral theories of Kant and Mills. But which virtue ethics perspective is the better one to uphold and foster in one’s life? In other words, which kind of person should we strive to be, Aristotle’s eudaimon (virtuous man) or Nietzsche’s Übermensch (superman)? More to the point, whom do
you
most aspire to be: an Aeris or a Cloud? Ultimately, the decision is yours.

NOTES

1
The various Gardens are places where young people train to become mercenaries and members of a militarylike organization that takes on special missions and jobs. Often the jobs are dangerous and involve putting down rebellions or defeating evil characters. The role of the graduates, or SeeD members, is to potentially risk their lives to accomplish the mission or protect the team. Following orders in such a group is of utmost importance.

2
Rational will is the expression of our free will by our acting in accordance with rationality instead of irrationality and sensuality.

3
See Immanuel Kant,
Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals
, translated by Lewis White Beck (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989). See also Onora O’Neill,
Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy
(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

4
See Thomas Hill,
Autonomy and Self-Respect
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Christine Korsgaard,
The Sources of Normativity
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996); and Timothy Madigan, “The Discarded Lemon: Kant, Prostitution and Respect for Persons,”
Philosophy Now
21 (1998): 14-16.

5
See Andrea Dworkin,
Pornography: Men Possessing Women
(New York: Perigee Press, 1981); and Catherine MacKinnon,
Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).

6
See Ann Garry, “Pornography and Respect for Women,” in John Arthur, ed.,
Morality and Moral Controversies
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993), pp. 395-421; Timothy Madigan, “The Discarded Lemon: Kant, Prostitution and Respect for Persons,”
Philosophy Now
21 (1998): 14-16; and Sibyl Schwarzenbach, “On Owning the Body,” in James Elias, Vern Bullough, Veronica Elias, and Gwen Brewer, eds.,
Prostitution: On Whores, Hustlers, and Johns
(New York: Prometheus Books, 1998), pp. 345-351.

7
See, for example, John Stuart Mill,
On Liberty
(New York: Meridian, 1974).

8
See Jeremy Bentham,
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961); John Stuart Mill,
Utilitarianism
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2002); and Peter Singer,
Practical Ethics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

9
Many thinkers have argued that “goods” can result from “evils” to justify the existence of God or the forces of nature in the face of egregious evil. Classical examples are G. W. Leibniz,
Theodicy
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, 1996), and Viktor Frankl,
Man’s Search for Meaning
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1959). For more contemporary work, see John Hick, ed.,
Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion
(New York: Macmillan, 2001).

10
See J. J. C. Smart, “An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics,” in J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams,
Utilitarianism: For and Against
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973).

11
The idea here—which was noted by philosophers as far back as Confucius (551-479 BCE) and Plato (c. 427-347 BCE)—is that different people have different characters.

12
Friedrich Nietzsche,
Beyond Good and Evil
, translated by Walter Kaufmann (New York: Random House, 1966), and
The Will to Power
, translated by Walter Kaufmann (New York: Random House, 1967). For contemporary examples of virtue ethics theories employing the concept of power, see Imelda Whelehan,
Modern Feminist Thought: From Second Wave to “Post-Feminism”
(New York: New York University Press, 1995), and Marti Hohmann, “Prostitution and Sex-Positive Feminism,” in
Prostitution: On Whores, Hustlers, and Johns
.