Quentin Tarantino and Philosophy (12 page)

To see how this theory works, let’s look at the first killing we see in the movie, the death of Vernita Green (codename: Copperhead). At first, all we know about the situation is that there is a standoff between two beautiful women who are somehow very well trained in martial arts. At this point, we need to look at the happiness or unhappiness that both parties would experience were Beatrix to kill Vernita. We know that Beatrix would derive a great amount of happiness from killing Vernita. Assuming that Vernita has an equally strong desire to stay alive, utilitarianism might not be able to tell us whether the killing is morally permissible or not. All this changes when we see a school bus pull up in front of the house and Vernita’s young daughter Nikki arrives home. At this point, we need to factor in not only the happiness that Beatrix would experience and the unhappiness that Vernita would experience, but also the happiness or unhappiness that Nikki would experience. Presumably Nikki would experience a great amount of unhappiness if her mother were killed. When all of these elements are factored into a utilitarian calculus, it is clear that the action is morally impermissible.
⁵²

This is a case where we are looking at immediate happiness or unhappiness. What is really important is the happiness or unhappiness that is promoted for all agents involved in the long term. For example when Beatrix receives training from Pai Mei, his behavior seems to leave something to be desired. She is constantly afraid of losing her arm or having her eyes ripped out of their sockets. However, in the long term, Pai Mei’s actions may be justified because of the happiness that Beatrix experiences when she is in possession of the power that the master imparts. So an action that seems unjustified at the time that it occurs is ultimately justified when we look at the long-term happiness or unhappiness of the agents involved.

However, there are some problems with this kind of utilitarianism. Take, for example, psychotic Go-Go of the Crazy 88.
Go-Go derives a great amount of pleasure from killing and she will do so with little provocation. She kills a man at a bar just because he said “yes” when she asked him if he would like to have sex with her. Imagine that the man she killed had no family or loved ones that would care if he was dead. Also suppose that the man has lived a fairly miserable life and isn’t too sad about dying. It may actually turn out that crazy murderous Go-Go is justified in killing the man because she will derive a greater amount of pleasure than the amount of pain she causes. This seems counter-intuitive.

A modification of utilitarianism that attempts to avoid such a problem is
rule utilitarianism
. This can be distinguished from the
act utilitarianism
we have been discussing so far. Act utilitarianism looks at the specific consequences that result from any particular action. Rule utilitarianism is concerned with the happiness that is promoted as a general rule from the action that is performed. From a rule utilitarian perspective, Go-Go’s actions would not be morally permissible. Because murdering another person as a general rule promotes more unhappiness then it does happiness, all such instances of murder are morally impermissible.

This distinction will help us in our discussion of revenge. Let’s look at Beatrix’s revenge. She kills four of the world’s most deadly assassins and blinds a fifth. We need to weigh her happiness against the unhappiness of the assassins. We also need to factor in the happiness that would be experienced by the families of the victims of the people the assassins killed upon receiving the news of the assassin’s death. Finally, we need to factor in all of the lives saved by killing these four people and their associates. From an act utilitarian perspective, this action may be morally praiseworthy. From a rule utilitarian perspective, however, the action is impermissible because deadly revenge as a general rule leads to more negative consequences than it does positive ones.

There is no textual evidence in the screenplay that suggests the squad takes themselves to be operating according to a utilitarian theory of morality. However, there is one other form of consequentialism that we should consider, ethical egoism. According to this theory, an action is morally permissible if it promotes the agent’s long-term self interest. In a situation like Beatrix’s, seeking revenge may actually be in her long-term self
interest. The relief she seems to feel at the end of the movie when she is laughing on the bathroom floor in her cheap motel is evidence of this. However, there is no textual evidence in the movie that Beatrix thinks she is acting in accordance with ethical egoism. In fact, there is textual evidence to suggest that this is not the theory the squad operates on. Take, for example, Bill’s words to Beatrix immediately following his attempt on her life. “Do you find me sadistic? You know, Beatrix, I’d like to believe that you’re aware enough even now to know that there’s nothing sadistic in my actions. At this moment, this is me at my most masochistic.” This quote suggests that even though Bill knows his actions are not in his own long-term self interest, he is motivated to perform them anyway. This is not consistent with an Ethical Egoist account.

A second way of determining whether an action is right or wrong is to look at the duties and intentions of the agent performing the action. This approach is typically referred to as “deontology.” The philosopher that is the most famous for advocating this kind of theory is Immanuel Kant.
⁵³
According to Kant, reason gives us access to the moral law. The moral law manifests itself in commands or imperatives that we are obligated to follow. For Kant, the supreme principle of morality is the Categorical Imperative. This is the principle from which all of our moral obligations can be derived.

There are two formulations of this imperative that we will be concerned with here—the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity. The Formula of Universal Law states that you should

A maxim is usually of the following form: I will perform action A to achieve purpose B. In order to follow the Formula of Universal Law, we must imagine what would happen if our
maxim were universalized. In other words, we must imagine what would happen if everyone did what we are planning to do. Once we have universalized our maxim, we must check for what Kant oddly refers to as “contradictions.” There are two different types of contradictions that may arise, contradictions in conception and contradictions in will. If the maxim is universalized and no contradiction occurs, then the action is morally permissible. If the maxim is universalized and a contradiction does occur, the action is impermissible. If failing to perform the action creates a contradiction, then that action is morally required.

A contradiction in conception occurs when, if you universalize your maxim, it no longer works. To illustrate how this works, let’s look at the arrangement that Elle Driver (codename: California Mountain Snake) makes with Budd (codename: Sidewinder). She wants his Hattori Hanzo sword and agrees to give him a million dollars in exchange for it. She arrives at his trailer as promised with a briefcase full of large bills. Ultimately, however, she has no intention of parting with the money as she promised. Underneath the cash is a deadly Black Mamba snake. The snake bites Budd multiple times about the head and face and, as Elle points out, “In Africa, the saying goes ‘In the bush, an elephant can kill you, a leopard can kill you, and a black mamba can kill you. But only with the mamba is death sure.’ Hence its handle, ‘Death Incarnate.’ Pretty cool, huh?” Budd dies and Elle is in a position to keep the sword and the money. In this case, our maxim would be to promise to do something that we were never planning to do in order to obtain some advantage or benefit. If we universalized this maxim, it would no longer work because no one would trust one another and no such agreements would ever be made.

A contradiction in will arises when a person would not rationally will to live in a world in which the maxim is universalized. For example, during a staff meeting, O-Ren Ishii (codename: Cottonmouth) chops off the head of a person with a dissenting opinion. In this case, our maxim is to kill a person for expressing an opinion contrary to our own in order to achieve some sense of satisfaction or to get rid of the dissenting opinion. If we universalized this maxim, we would have a world in which no one could speak freely. A rational person would not will to live in a world in which this maxim is universalized. All rational
persons would, at various times, wish to have their positions known. Therefore, O-Ren’s actions are impermissible.

The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, The Formula of Humanity, states that

This means that we should respect one another’s ability to make autonomous choices. We shouldn’t use people. For example, consider Buck, the hospital orderly who has sex with comatose patients and accepts money from other men in exchange for guarding the room while they do the same thing. Buck’s actions are morally impermissible because he is not recognizing Beatrix as an end in herself. He is treating her as a mere means to obtain sex and money.

Now let’s consider revenge from this perspective. The kind of revenge that Beatrix is engaging in will always be impermissible on this view. Killing is wrong according to both formulations of the categorical imperative. If we universalize the maxim that we should kill in order to be vindicated, a contradiction in will occurs. A rational person would not will to live in a world where they have to fear for their life if they offend someone. The Formula of Humanity yields the same result. When Beatrix kills, she is treating her victims as a means to her vindictive end. She is not only disrespecting their ability to make autonomous decisions, she is actually permanently depriving them of that ability.

Is this the system they seem to be acting on? There may be some textual evidence to support the claim that it is. When Bill comes to Budd with the news that Beatrix is out to kill them all, Budd says, “That woman deserves her revenge . . . and we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.” This quote suggests the idea of a person getting what they deserve, which is a deontological concept. However, Budd seems to be using it in an eye-for-an-eye, Code-of-Hammurabi kind of way. There is no sophisticated deontological theory in play here. We will see that there is more substantial textual evidence to suggest that Beatrix and the squad operate according to a different moral code.

At this point one might be tempted to conclude that the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad acts without any regard for ethics. As we have seen, the actions they engage in are impermissible from both consequentialist and deontological perspectives. However, members of the squad do not act with complete reckless abandon. There is a certain code they follow such that some members of the squad are more ethical than others. In this section I will discuss a third theory that more closely approximates the ethical code the Deadly Vipers appear to be acting in accordance with. In fact, I will argue that there is some textual evidence for the claim that they take themselves to be acting on such principles.

Let’s begin by gathering the evidence from the screenplay. At the end of
Kill Bill Volume 2
, Bill says

This quote suggests that the squad does not act without consideration for ethics. Essential to any theory the squad would accept is an element that takes into consideration neither duties nor consequences, but the kind of character a person has. Bill is pointing out that there is something admirable about Beatrix and others like her that is not present in the average person. She is courageous and strong. These character traits are virtues.

This emphasis on character is present on a number of occasions in both movies. At the beginning of
Kill Bill Volume 1
, Beatrix lies in a coma as a result of an unsuccessful attempt on her life. Elle arrives at the hospital to finish the job. She makes a phone call to Bill to apprise him of the situation. He tells her not to kill Beatrix, insisting that she deserves better. Bill considers
killing Beatrix in her sleep to be cowardly. Cowardice is a trait of character to be avoided by members of the squad.

This sentiment is also present in Elle’s reaction to the news that Budd has killed Beatrix. She is appalled and says (on Budd’s “deathbed”):

This is a strange response for someone who has made multiple attempts on Beatrix’s life herself. Although all members of the assassination squad are ruthless killers, there is something particularly contemptible about Budd. For example, when Beatrix arrives at Budd’s trailer, he shoots her in the stomach. Beatrix duels with all the other members of the squad she encounters without the use of firearms. Budd is too cowardly to engage her directly.