Terminator and Philosophy: I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am (12 page)
Read Terminator and Philosophy: I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am Online
Authors: Richard Brown,William Irwin,Kevin S. Decker
BOOK: Terminator and Philosophy: I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am
3.99Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
The relevance of this idea for Kant’s moral theory has to do with what we rational humans can do to achieve our goals and ends. For Kant, a bedrock limit is that we cannot use other people as a means to our ends, and they cannot use us as a means to their ends.
9
For Kant, one thing that gives humans the moral legitimacy to use horses for hunting, oxen to pull plows, and cows for milk is that we’re not interfering with their chosen plans for their lives. And for Kant, that’s a powerful argument against slavery, as slaves are used for the master’s ends rather than choosing their own life course.
10
To use another human being as a means to my ends is to violate the dignity that is attached to being rational and choosing one’s own objectives. According to Kantian ethics, Sarah is forbidden to use Miles Dyson by killing him in order to fulfill her project of averting the holocaust.
9
For Kant, one thing that gives humans the moral legitimacy to use horses for hunting, oxen to pull plows, and cows for milk is that we’re not interfering with their chosen plans for their lives. And for Kant, that’s a powerful argument against slavery, as slaves are used for the master’s ends rather than choosing their own life course.
10
To use another human being as a means to my ends is to violate the dignity that is attached to being rational and choosing one’s own objectives. According to Kantian ethics, Sarah is forbidden to use Miles Dyson by killing him in order to fulfill her project of averting the holocaust.
Here I find myself stuck, and you may feel stuck, too. Utilitarianism seems attractive when it will justify sacrificing one person to save three billion, but not when it could justify sacrificing me for someone else’s goals and ends. Kantianism seems attractive when it protects me, but it seems to have a fatal inattention to consequences. It can’t possibly be right to allow three billion to die in order to avoid using one man, and it can’t possibly be right that in the mall John’s friend should have given him up to the T-1000. While utilitarianism and Kantianism seem to be antidotes to each other’s flaws, neither can escape its own problems.
11
Fortunately, some feminist philosophers have suggested a way out of this impasse.
11
Fortunately, some feminist philosophers have suggested a way out of this impasse.
Feminists should welcome
T2
, since the film does unexpected things with sex roles. The first time we see Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the most physically imposing figures in the history of movies, he seems almost vulnerable, naked, crouched. And the first time we see Sarah Connor, she’s doing pull-ups, grunting, her muscular arms covered in sweat. Her initial line of dialogue in her hospital room is, “Good morning, Dr. Lieberman. How’s the knee?” We soon learn that the knee is where she recently stabbed her therapist. She’s not a stereotypical woman, and this reversal of stereotypes continues through most of the film. The first thing that Schwarzenegger’s T-101 does to save young John in the mall hallway is to turn his back on the T-1000 and passively absorb bullets.
12
By contrast, consider the first thing that Sarah does to protect John. The scene takes place in the elevator when they’re fleeing from the mental hospital. As the T-1000’s metallic, knifelike arms slashes through the elevator’s roof, we might expect a mother to protect her son by shielding him, using her body to protect him. Instead Sarah reaches over to the Terminator, takes out his gun, and starts blasting away through the elevator ceiling.
T2
, since the film does unexpected things with sex roles. The first time we see Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the most physically imposing figures in the history of movies, he seems almost vulnerable, naked, crouched. And the first time we see Sarah Connor, she’s doing pull-ups, grunting, her muscular arms covered in sweat. Her initial line of dialogue in her hospital room is, “Good morning, Dr. Lieberman. How’s the knee?” We soon learn that the knee is where she recently stabbed her therapist. She’s not a stereotypical woman, and this reversal of stereotypes continues through most of the film. The first thing that Schwarzenegger’s T-101 does to save young John in the mall hallway is to turn his back on the T-1000 and passively absorb bullets.
12
By contrast, consider the first thing that Sarah does to protect John. The scene takes place in the elevator when they’re fleeing from the mental hospital. As the T-1000’s metallic, knifelike arms slashes through the elevator’s roof, we might expect a mother to protect her son by shielding him, using her body to protect him. Instead Sarah reaches over to the Terminator, takes out his gun, and starts blasting away through the elevator ceiling.
Like many male heroes, Sarah thinks about the larger world and the course of history. She wants to protect John because he’s her son, and also because he has a mission in the future. She cares about things beyond her family, and her focus never strays from questions of the well-being of others in the outside world. In stark contrast, the Terminator exists only to preserve and protect the child. He cares little about anything else and will unhesitatingly sacrifice himself for John. When Sarah describes him as “the perfect father,” she’s really talking in conventional gender-role terms about the perfect
mother
. “When watching John and the machine it was suddenly so clear. The Terminator would never stop, it would never leave him . . . it would die to protect him,” she realizes. These gender differences extend to ways that males and females often think differently about ethical problems.
mother
. “When watching John and the machine it was suddenly so clear. The Terminator would never stop, it would never leave him . . . it would die to protect him,” she realizes. These gender differences extend to ways that males and females often think differently about ethical problems.
Men have talked always and endlessly about the ethical differences between men and women, but the discussion developed in profound and unexpected ways in the last century when scientists began to study the moral development of children. The Swiss scientist and philosopher Jean Piaget (1896-1980) created the first modern systematic way to think about the psychological and cognitive development of children, including their moral development. But it was Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), a professor of education and social psychology, who further explored the “stage theory” of children’s moral development. Studying boys of different ages, he described six stages through which children’s moral thinking should naturally progress. At the lowest level, they think of obeying authority to avoid punishment, while at the next stage, they can think of satisfying their own needs and allowing others to do the same through fair deals. At the third stage, they understand the obligation to fulfill duties in their relationships. At the fourth stage, they think beyond themselves and their personal relationships to duties owed to their larger group. By the fifth stage, they want to uphold the rights, values, and legal arrangements of the society. At the sixth and highest level, they understand and become attached to abstract principles that they believe all humanity should follow. Crucially, they can rank these principles in importance based on other principles. For example, they understand why hurting people is wrong and why protecting their own family from an attacker is right. As children grow into young adults, they can reason that the principle of protecting their family “trumps” the principle of not hurting others.
13
13
When Kohlberg would later test both boys and girls to analyze their moral development, he was less interested in the content of their thinking than in how they would reason. The highest form of moral thinking would be abstract principles like Bentham’s utilitarian idea of producing the greatest happiness for the most people or Kant’s categorical imperative. To study and evaluate kids’ moral development, Kohlberg presented them with the “Heinz problem.” In this ethical “thought experiment,” a woman was near death from cancer and needed a special drug. It was extremely expensive, and her husband, Heinz, couldn’t get the money to pay the pharmacy for it. Nor could he get the pharmacist to sell it to him at a reduced rate or on credit. Ultimately, Heinz stole the drug for his wife. The kids were asked if Heinz did the right thing, and to explain why or why not.
14
14
To Kohlberg, an “immature” answer would be that Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because theft is a crime. The reasoning here is based on doing what the authority of the law dictates. Another lower-stage-of-development answer was that Heinz should steal it because he really loves his wife and wants her to live. That thinking involves simply doing what is best for his wife and is in his own self-interest. Instead, Kohlberg thinks the most ethically “mature” answer would be one based on broader principles. For example, a child well along in Kohlberg’s stages might say that it’s wrong to steal the medicine because then another cancer patient won’t be able to get it, and Heinz’s wife is not more deserving of the medicine than someone else. Another kid might say that it’s correct to steal the medicine because a person’s right to lifesaving medicine trumps the right of someone else to property and profit. Note that both of these “mature” answers are rooted in abstract moral principles. And this is exactly how Sarah Connor reasons as she decides to kill Miles Dyson: for her, his right to life is less important than the right to life of three billion other people. And the consequences of killing him would be better than the consequences of a holocaust.
One interesting aspect of Kohlberg’s research was the different answers of boys and girls, and which gender scored higher. Most of us would expect girls to score higher. They’re usually seen as more “moral” and “good.” Moreover, if you’ve ever been around young, adolescent boys and girls, it becomes obvious that most girls mature earlier than boys—physically, emotionally, and intellectually. But, surprisingly,
boys
usually scored higher on Kohlberg’s tests. This counterintuitive result was especially intriguing to one of Kohlberg’s colleagues, Carol Gilligan (1936- ).
boys
usually scored higher on Kohlberg’s tests. This counterintuitive result was especially intriguing to one of Kohlberg’s colleagues, Carol Gilligan (1936- ).
As Gilligan studied the tests, she discovered an interesting perspective in the girls’ answers. When asked what Heinz should have done, the girls would respond often with “immature” answers (ones not rooted in abstract principles), proposing other options for Heinz to pursue. For example, why not invite the druggist over for dinner so he could meet the wife, and that might possibly change his mind? Gilligan began to discern a pattern in the girls’ answers. Rather than reason from abstract principles, as the boys more often did, they tried to fashion solutions that would take care of everyone’s needs. Their goal was to preserve relationships and harmony, to find solutions that would satisfy all the parties.
15
This is not too surprising, as we often see this difference expressed in how men and women parent, or how male and female day care workers resolve children’s problems. If two kids are arguing over who gets a toy, a male caregiver will often suggest a solution rooted in some principle of fairness: “Let’s have one of you play with it for twenty minutes and then it’ll be your friend’s turn.” Female caregivers will often suggest a game in which both kids can share the toy and play together. Gilligan went on to argue that this ethic of care and preserving of relationships wasn’t an inferior moral approach, just a different one. She wasn’t in favor of replacing abstract, male-favored principles with a female ethic of care, since both ways of moral reasoning have value. But in her view, Kohlberg was wrong to privilege abstract moral principles as the highest form of moral thought.
16
15
This is not too surprising, as we often see this difference expressed in how men and women parent, or how male and female day care workers resolve children’s problems. If two kids are arguing over who gets a toy, a male caregiver will often suggest a solution rooted in some principle of fairness: “Let’s have one of you play with it for twenty minutes and then it’ll be your friend’s turn.” Female caregivers will often suggest a game in which both kids can share the toy and play together. Gilligan went on to argue that this ethic of care and preserving of relationships wasn’t an inferior moral approach, just a different one. She wasn’t in favor of replacing abstract, male-favored principles with a female ethic of care, since both ways of moral reasoning have value. But in her view, Kohlberg was wrong to privilege abstract moral principles as the highest form of moral thought.
16
In
T2
, Sarah uses the moral reasoning most associated with men when she relies on abstract principles to choose her course of action. But young John and the Terminator think and act differently. When it comes to killing Dyson to avert the holocaust, John knows what his mother is planning to do, is horrified, and tries to stop her. Given the role reversals in the film, we shouldn’t be surprised that John and the Terminator will reason like females, trying to preserve relationships and meet everyone’s needs. Arriving at Dyson’s home and seeing the chaos, destruction, and trauma for the family, the Terminator acts to care for Dyson’s wounds while John makes sure that Dyson’s young son is taken to a safe place. John comforts Sarah, then he and the Terminator explain the situation to Dyson. The Terminator shows Dyson his titanium skeleton, and John persuades Dyson to join with them in destroying his research. Rather than see Dyson as an object to be used/killed to save lives or as an abstract “rational being” that must not be violated, they enlist his support and integrate him into their team.
T2
, Sarah uses the moral reasoning most associated with men when she relies on abstract principles to choose her course of action. But young John and the Terminator think and act differently. When it comes to killing Dyson to avert the holocaust, John knows what his mother is planning to do, is horrified, and tries to stop her. Given the role reversals in the film, we shouldn’t be surprised that John and the Terminator will reason like females, trying to preserve relationships and meet everyone’s needs. Arriving at Dyson’s home and seeing the chaos, destruction, and trauma for the family, the Terminator acts to care for Dyson’s wounds while John makes sure that Dyson’s young son is taken to a safe place. John comforts Sarah, then he and the Terminator explain the situation to Dyson. The Terminator shows Dyson his titanium skeleton, and John persuades Dyson to join with them in destroying his research. Rather than see Dyson as an object to be used/killed to save lives or as an abstract “rational being” that must not be violated, they enlist his support and integrate him into their team.
In the film’s penultimate scene, the Terminator not only sacrifices himself for the well-being of humanity, but also completes his ongoing investigation of human nature. As John cries and orders him not to self-terminate, the Terminator says, “I know now why you cry.” This machine that has been, in many ways, more “female” than “male” discovers
emotion
rather than reason at the core of our being.
emotion
rather than reason at the core of our being.
The original, unused ending of
T2
showed a future that had been changed by moral action. Sarah, John, the Terminator, and Miles Dyson had successfully changed history and averted the holocaust and the war with the machines. In that version’s last shot, an aged Sarah Connor enjoyed playing with her granddaughter. But given the film’s dark ideas about our propensity for destructive violence, cowriter and director James Cameron chose the current, more ambiguous ending. The message is that perhaps people will find ways to create a humane world and avoid Judgment Day, but perhaps not. There are reasons for hope, and the choices will be ours. And in making those choices,
T2
’s advice for us is that we are best armed with not only rational moral principles but also with an emotional capacity to care. We need to think about preserving relationships, and we need to respect and try to reconcile a wide variety of needs. Only then will there be hope.
17
T2
showed a future that had been changed by moral action. Sarah, John, the Terminator, and Miles Dyson had successfully changed history and averted the holocaust and the war with the machines. In that version’s last shot, an aged Sarah Connor enjoyed playing with her granddaughter. But given the film’s dark ideas about our propensity for destructive violence, cowriter and director James Cameron chose the current, more ambiguous ending. The message is that perhaps people will find ways to create a humane world and avoid Judgment Day, but perhaps not. There are reasons for hope, and the choices will be ours. And in making those choices,
T2
’s advice for us is that we are best armed with not only rational moral principles but also with an emotional capacity to care. We need to think about preserving relationships, and we need to respect and try to reconcile a wide variety of needs. Only then will there be hope.
17
1
Medieval philosophers would all agree that their moral values and the reason to adhere to those values come from God. But their arguments are philosophical, and not just theological, because they rely on the rigorous use of reason, and many of their arguments don’t even depend upon the existence of God.
Medieval philosophers would all agree that their moral values and the reason to adhere to those values come from God. But their arguments are philosophical, and not just theological, because they rely on the rigorous use of reason, and many of their arguments don’t even depend upon the existence of God.
2
Jeremy Bentham,
The Principles of Morals and Legislation
(New York: Hafner, 1948). Chapter 5 contains his system for calculating pleasure.
Jeremy Bentham,
The Principles of Morals and Legislation
(New York: Hafner, 1948). Chapter 5 contains his system for calculating pleasure.
3
John Stuart Mill,
Utilitarianism
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957), 12.
John Stuart Mill,
Utilitarianism
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957), 12.
4
For more problems with the utilitarian view of Sarah’s actions, see Wayne Yuen’s chapter in this volume, “What’s So Terrible about Judgment Day?”
For more problems with the utilitarian view of Sarah’s actions, see Wayne Yuen’s chapter in this volume, “What’s So Terrible about Judgment Day?”
5
Kant’s moral theory is a type of deontological ethics, or theories that don’t look to consequences to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. Instead, deontologists hold that some acts are right and others wrong in and of themselves.
Kant’s moral theory is a type of deontological ethics, or theories that don’t look to consequences to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. Instead, deontologists hold that some acts are right and others wrong in and of themselves.
6
Immanuel Kant,
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
, trans. H. J. Paton, in
The Moral Law
(New York: Barnes and Noble, 1950), 66.
Immanuel Kant,
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
, trans. H. J. Paton, in
The Moral Law
(New York: Barnes and Noble, 1950), 66.
7
Kant,
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
, 89, also 70, 100.
Kant,
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
, 89, also 70, 100.
Other books
Heiress by Janet Dailey
A Simple Autumn: A Seasons of Lancaster Novel by Rosalind Lauer
CHAINED TO YOU: The Contract by Alexia Praks
Operation Heartbreaker by Thomas, Christine
Diana--A Closely Guarded Secret by Ken Wharfe
Touch of Rogue by Mia Marlowe
These Honored Dead by Jonathan F. Putnam
Scents and Sensibility by Spencer Quinn
Billionaire Boss by Jessica Marx
The Aristocrat and the Single Mom by Michelle Douglas
