Spider-Man zips and zags here and there, jumping from one building to the next with the gusto and determination of a superhero on a mission! Spider-Man feels a tremendous sense of responsibility to his fellow man, in large part because of the death of his dear Uncle Ben. Righting the wrong because of the guilt he feels might just be keeping others safe from harm.

But is he required to stop chasing burglars to potentially save bystanders? Is he responsible for the carjacking victim’s death? What action should Spider-Man have taken?

As mentioned above, Spider-Man feels responsible just as a boss might feel for his employee or a veterinarian might feel for his four-legged patient. This idea of responsibility is introduced by J. Keeping in Does Great Power Bring Great Responsibility – Spider-Man and the Good Samaritan. As Keeping puts it, “The thing that makes him [Spider-Man] the Spidey we know and love, is that he helps strangers (Keeping, 71). Can we feel this kind of responsibility to those who we have no special relationship with? In terms of being a Good Samaritan, meaning anyone who helps a stranger, then Keeping argues – yes. He should help save innocent bystanders. He just can’t help himself because of his call to action.

But acting on a good deed as a Good Samaritan is quite different than being obligated to do so, which Keeping says is a duty. We’d be morally deficient or blameworthy if we don’t help someone in need (Keeping, 73). Our lives are not so independent and disconnected from the world around us, and so Keeping accounts for this. We do rely on the help and work of others in many respects: farmers to grow food, mechanics to fix cars, and even strangers to help us in times of need. 

From here, Keeping delves a little deeper into these concepts by further defining duties – those that are positive, and those that are negative. At its core, negative duties restrict us from doing harm, but positive duties encourage us to do good (Keeping, 76). Spider-Man is encouraged to save bystanders by not chasing the burglars. It’s his responsibility, or duty, to those he doesn’t even know.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is Spider-Man’s deep remorse when Uncle Ben dies. He believes his inaction contributed to his loved one’s demise. In With Great Power Comes Great Culpability: How Blameworthy is Spider-Man for Uncle Ben’s Death? by Philip Tallon, the author argues that Spider-Man’s loss powerfully shapes his hero ethos and desire to fight crime (Tallon, 86). But the death of Uncle Ben was just an unfortunate occurrence of bad luck, according to Tallon. Luck, whether good or bad, is brought about by chance and is separated from morality (Tallon, 89). He writes that what really matters in morality, according to philosopher Immanuel Kant, is good intent – or good will. Even if completely unlucky you still intended the best, that is ultimately what counts (Tallon, 90).

Furthermore, decisions don’t take place in a vacuum (Tallon, 90). They’re surrounded by events both before and after and are, in many cases, simply out of our control.

Like Uncle Ben’s death, Spider-Man isn’t responsible for the carjacking victim’s death. This doesn’t mean he wouldn’t feel responsible or a sense of guilt. In fact, Spider-Man does. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what ultimately happened.

For what Spider-Man should have done, we look for a wider philosophical argument on ethics. Spider-Man, like Batman, is a utilitarian (whether he means to or not) whose concern is for the happiness of the most involved. In The Debate Over Utilitarianism, author Stuart Rachels explains philosopher John Stuart Mill’s idea on utilitarianism: it’s not about the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned (Rachels, 102). Right actions are the ones that produce the most good, according to this theory.

Spider-Man does as Spider-Man does. Back to With Great Power Comes Great Culpability, Tallon cites Judith Andre’s suggestion that part of what it means to be a good person is to take responsibility for one’s actions and the resultant consequences (Tallon, 95). But one can’t be held morally accountable for what they have not done.

Finally, the chain of events that led to Uncle Ben’s death, and the death of the carjacker, occurred in separate instances. The principle, novus agens interveniens (a new agent intervening) by Marilyn McCord Adams tells us that a person is less responsible for events that take place once the chain of causality one is responsible for is broken (Tallon, 97). 

Should Peter have stopped the thief? No – he couldn’t have anticipated the future killing of Uncle Ben and he didn’t quite yet develop his mantra that with great power comes great responsibility. True, he might be partially responsible for the chain of events that occurred, but he’s not culpable in any sense of the word though he may feel intense guilt. 

In the end, Spider-Man may have done things differently that only might have changed the outcome, but he did not do anything morally wrong. His story becomes our story of strength. Through his humanness and subsequent change to superhero, we learn about our own humanity.

BATMAN

From a Utilitarian perspective, Batman should in fact kill the joker. Or should he? In Chapter 8, The Debate over Utilitarianism in the text The Elements of Moral Philosophy by philosophers James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, the authors begin right away with the Classical Version of the Theory – or Classical Utilitarianism – argued by John Stuart Mill that “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” (Rachels 102). In this instance, Batman should in fact kill the Joker because it is not about Batman, it is about that of all concerned. It would be better for the Joker to be dead so that others do not die at the hand of the Joker.

​But there are three antiutilitarian arguments that question whether Batman should kill the Joker. They are justice, rights, and backward-looking reasons. Justice is incompatible with utilitarianism because it requires that we treat people fairly and that the demands of utility conflict with justice (Rachels 106). Batman himself would be wrong for killing. It is unjust.Regarding rights: It is evident to moral common sense that [the act of killing] is not right (Rachels 107). Finally, regarding backward-looking reasons, no one knows with certainty that the Joker will kill again since no one can predict the future. “Utilitarianism has us confine our attention to what will happen as a result of our actions” and Joker has not killed anyone else yet. Utilitarianism excludes backward-looking considerations (Rachels 108). Therefore, if we’re only peering into the future, what grounds should the Joker be killed by Batman?

​Because the Classical Theory on Utilitarianism conflicts with three antiutilitarian arguments, Batman should not kill the Joker.

​I do not believe that Batman should kill the Joker, either. In Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul, author Mark D. White alludes to the fact that killing is a responsibility that Batman would take up on his own without even considering Joker’s bad deeds. “If you don’t kill the Joker, the deaths of all his future victims will be on your hands,” states the author (White 12). Rather consider, the author says, that the Joker’s actions are his responsibility and his responsibility alone. Batman is only responsible for the deaths he causes. 

The author elaborates further in the case of the trolley example, the agent-centered rule: the bystander did not cause the trolley to endanger the five lives, but the bystander would cause the death of one if he diverted the trolley. By that reasoning, Batman isn’t causing deaths; the Joker is. It isn’t Batman’s fault, but it would be if he chose to kill the Joker.

MORAL DILEMMAS

The 1996 film, The Birdcage, features Robin Williams and Nathan Lane who portray a gay couple, Armand and Albert. Their son, Val, is to marry a conservative senator’s daughter, Barbara. As it turns out, Barbara’s father, Senator Keeley, is the co-founder of a conservative group known as the Coalition for Moral Order that has recently become involved in a scandal – the group’s other co-founder is found dead in the bed of an underage prostitute.

Senator Keeley believes that he might be able to use his daughter’s marriage to fix his reputation, but before any wedding bells ring the Senator wants to meet Val’s family. Not exactly excited about this, Armand and Albert, who own a drag club in Miami, aptly named The Birdcage, decide to support their son despite the challenges ahead.

As the plot unfolds, the gay dads redecorate their flamboyant looking apartment, which is above the nightclub, and go by the last name “Coleman” rather than “Goldman” to hide their Jewish faith. Their gay housekeeper, Agador, hilariously attempts to act straight as he serves the dinner guests their food.

The dilemma at its core is that Val and Barbara feel that the only way their families will find common ground and acceptance is that if Val’s gay dads present themselves not as who they are, but instead as a traditional Christian family. Of course, this pushes the baseline plot forwardand provides comedic relief especially when Armand tries to teach Albert how to act straight, but it proves to be impossible given Albert’s mannerisms.

What should the characters have done, and why? In this instance, I would place the moral burden on Val and Barbara. They believed that Senator Keeley would not allow Barbara to marry Val if Armand and Albert were gay. This is the crux of the dilemma. 

Instead of asking them to portray a straight couple, Val and Barbara should have told her family the truth despite the backlash they might have felt. I believe that they were trying to protect their own interests so that they could get married.

In the end, the truth is revealed. While not an ideal situation for Senator Keeley, he and Barbara’s mom, Louise, find refuge among the newly revealed gay dads when Armand and Albert help the Senator dodge the press in drag as they exited through the nightclub. Louise exhibited the best moral example of all the characters when she became upset at Senator Keeley for putting his political career first and not recognizing his daughter’s happiness. The resolution introduced a huge sigh of relief for the audience as the families came together for a common cause amidst the crowd in the club celebrating the night with no one the wiser that the press was on the hunt for Senator Keeley.

OBJECTIFICATION

Objectification is the treatment of people as objects rather than humans, stripping victims of their dignity and self-worth. This can happen as a matter of perspective from others as well as from within. Philosopher Immanuel Kant addressed objectification in terms of individual persons as opposed to objects, or things.

Persons, he said, can make their own decisions for themselves and are therefore autonomous. Jordan Pascoe writes in On Not Being a Slut (Even When Everyone Thinks You Are) that not only do persons have ends, but they are also ends in themselves – a “good thing” in which autonomy should be safeguarded in ourselves and in others (Pascoe, 149).

Objectification violates Kant’s golden rule. When people are treated as objects or things, it strips someone of their autonomy. When we treat someone as a thing, we are objectifying that person and using them as a thing – a mere means to our own ends (Pascoe, 149). That is what makes objectification problematic. It goes against this thinking.

But objectification does not happen in a vacuum. There is much more going on, like the culture that allows it to happen. In the text, it’s not just enough to be tough. You have to fight back and demand respect (Pascoe, 156). The culture of Neptune High School was so rampant with objectifying behavior that the girls were treated as things.

That creates a double standard. While the girls scored poorly on their purity tests, making them out to be “sluts,” the boys were regarded as studs. Pascoe argues that the problem isn’t just with sex, it’s the reputation one gets that shapes how others think they can treat you (Pascoe, 155). In his example, Pascoe says that once Meg’s reputation is in place as a slut, that’s how other people will treat her. Kant’s view is that’s exactly why sexuality is morally dangerous – because we can’t think about sex without objectifying someone. This viewpoint makes the double standard justified. The actions of the girls – or perceived actions – creates the reputation that dictates how others will treat them. It follows the theory that sexuality is morally dangerous and will cause objectification.

Therefore, objectification is not morally acceptable. Pascoe demonstrates several examples where the boys took away the autonomy of the girl. Tad drugged Carmen to make a suggestive video. She did the popsicle dance not of her own will, but because her autonomy was compromised (Pascoe, 151). The high school’s purity tests declared the girls to be sluts, and to be declared a slut is to be publicly denied the right to even basic kinds of respect (Pascoe, 147). 

Pascoe agrees with Kant that those regarded as slutty aren’t treated as full-fledged persons deserving of respect, so they experience objectification (Pascoe, 148). Though Kant claims that using others isn’t always wrong, the key concept is consent (Pascoe, 150) and in the several cases of those being objectified in this text, no one provided consent. That makes objectification not morally acceptable.

BLOODBENDING

​Immanuel Kant held that moral rules are absolute – it is not OK to lie for any reason! For Kant, moral obligations have no desires and are therefore called categorical imperatives. He expressed Categorical Imperative as a rule which says, “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” According to philosophers James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, this principle argues if something is morally permissible.

​

When performing an action, known as the maxim, what rule would you be following if you followed that action? Then, you would ask, are you willing for that rule to be followed by everyone all the time (Rachels, Are There Absolute Moral Rules, 6)? If that answer is yes, the act is morally permissible. But if you’re not willing to follow that rule, then it would not be classified as morally permissible.

​Let’s take an example from fictional text in the ATLA series on bloodbending, Hama discovered bloodbending when she learned to control the water in rats, and subsequently humans, to do her will. Bloodbending is to use someone for your own purposes while ignoring the person’s desires (Gregory, On the Ethics of Bloodbending, 2).

​While there are many other forms of bending (from plant to metal), bloodbending hasbeen described as an ill-intentioned act. It is using someone as a mere means for the bloodbender’s benefit and to the detriment of the one being controlled by bloodbending.

​Bloodbending could violate Kant’s argument if everyone agreed that bloodbending may be used in all circumstances. But that isn’t the case. Bloodbending for any of its intended purposes is a learned skill that’s performed under the full moon. When it is used, it is not universally accepted as morally permissible. The question is posed for this argument: Are you willing for that rule to be followed by everyone all the time?

​Most would argue that the moral answer to bloodbending would be no. Further, bloodbending uses a person as a mere means – for the intent of the bloodbender only. This additional example explains that the maxim, the action, of the bloodbender is to perform the will of the bloodbender and not for the person being bloodbended. This means that it does indeed violate Kantian ethics.

But some consider possible reasons why bloodbendimg might be morally allowed. Say, for example, the bloodbender needed to defend himself or his family. Or what if the person being bloodbended consented? If someone isn’t being used as a means, they are not being used as a mere means, right?

Not necessarily, for if the intent behind bloodbending is wrong, then it cannot be morally permissible. Therefore, it should remain banned as it is not moral to use someone as a mere means, and that it is also not universally accepted as law.

Psychology

What Is Your Coping Style?

Imagine that you are part of an international travel group. The group decided to go to a tropical island in February 2020. During your trip the World Health Organization declared that there was a global pandemic and your group was forced to stay on the island because many countries closed their borders and airlines ceased flights for at least three weeks. The island’s government declared that all hotels and guest accommodations must allow guests to stay in place until international travel was allowed again. While your hosts said they were fine with your group staying for an additional three weeks without extra charge, you are now going on four months in lockdown. Here is how each traveler is currently coping with the situation. Identify the person’s coping strategy as problem- focused or emotion-focused, specifying the exact form it takes. Then, explain how you would cope overall with the situation. This assignment is worth 25 points.

1. Jennie believes that the travel ban will be lifted “any day now” and your hosts will be fully compensated by the government once your group leaves. She tells the other group members to be patient and enjoy the extra vacation time they have. She continues to go sight-seeing each day.

I believe that Jennie is expressing an emotion-focused coping style in the form of escape – avoiding the actuality of the situation and using activities to keep her busy. She is trying to see the positive side by really just ignoring the problem and thinking things will be fine on the other side. To be quite honest, I think I would use the same strategy here. I don’t think that stressing unnecessarily helps anything and perhaps sometimes I use a false optimism to not get down in the dumps.

2. Ravi is critical of the island government’s response to the pandemic. Last week, at a bar, he met someone from the U.S. Consulate, who Ravi is confident can “do something about our situation” as soon as that person returns his calls. Meanwhile, the bar offers plenty of opportunities for Ravi to think about other things besides the pandemic.

Ravi might be exhibiting a problem-focused strategy in the form of confrontive coping, with what appears to be an aggressive approach after meeting someone from the U.S. Consulate’s office who can do something about the situation. If not confrontive, then I would at least say that Ravi is still using a problem-focused strategy because he is seeking to change or eliminate the stressor here (the stressor being stranded on the island and that someone in a powerful position might be able to help out). I would personally not try to keep calling an office in hopes of someone taking the call. I think I would lean into the bar’s efforts to think about other things besides the pandemic.

3. Irina also wants to leave the island as soon as possible, but she is worried about getting sick and infecting her family if the travel ban is lifted before the illness is under control. She believes that the best way to handle the situation is to remain calm, focus on staying connected with friends and family, and figuring out how to keep her job back home. Irina believes in making plans and identifying possible solutions.

Irina seems to be in a problem-focused area, and she is using planful problem solving to identify and implement solutions to the issue at hand. Remaining calm, not wanting to get her family sick, and desiring to keep her job are all extremely rational thoughts in the middle of a very stressful situation. I agree with Irina’s approach. She seems to be levelheaded about the situation. Keeping calm is the best way to do it while staying connected with loved ones.

4. Mark is the one who just tries to downplay the pandemic. He frequently says that their predicament is “no big deal” and that they shouldn’t “sweat it” because everything happens for a reason. He seems to keep more to himself and intentionally avoids interacting with the other travelers.

Mark is definitely in the emotion-focused area and is using an escape method, thinking that this pandemic issue is no big deal. Escape is avoidance and that is a key attribute. While I can appreciate Mark’s “no big deal” attitude, I don’t think it’s very realistic to completely downplay the situation. Also, it’s not a great idea to disconnect from others. Times like this require emotional support.

5. Sakura has resigned herself to the fact that the travel ban may not end any time soon and the pandemic has completely disrupted her life for now. She has set her goals on normal day-to-day maintenance needs. She keeps busy by reading and starts an outdoor school for the island’s children whose parents have to keep working.

Sakura perhaps might be using a flexible coping strategy here, which is the best strategy of all. She sounds disappointed about the travel ban because she realizes it may not end soon and she’s resigned herself to the fact that her life has been disrupted. This sounds like an emotional response using distance as a way toacknowledge the situation but trying to minimize the emotional impact. At the same time, a problem-focused strategy is being employed with a planful problem solving approach. I like Sakura’s method. It seems realistic, optimistic and hopeful, and while the disappointment may be a real factor, keeping a positive attitude and thinking of ways to be productive as she does is healthy for the mind and body.

Coping is how we try to change circumstances, or interpretations of circumstances.

• When coping is effective, we adapt to the situation and stress is reduced. Maladaptive coping can intensify or prolong distress or produce self-defeating outcomes.
• Adaptive coping responses serve many functions.
• They involve realistically evaluating the situation and determining what can be done.
• They involve dealing with the emotional aspects of the situation.
• They are directed toward preserving important relationships.
• Traditionally, coping has been broken down into two basic categories: problem-focused and emotion-focused.

A. Problem-Focused Coping Strategies: Changing the Stressor

1. Problem-focused coping strategies seek to change or eliminate the stressor.
2. In planful problem solving, we rationally identify and implement potential solutions.
3. In confrontive coping, we use aggressive or risky approaches.

B. Emotion-Focused Coping Strategies: Changing Your Reaction to the Stressor

1. Escape–avoidance shifts attention away from the stressor and toward other activities.
2. Seeking social support involves turning to other people.
3. Distancing acknowledges the stressor but tries to minimize its emotional impact.
4. Denial is a refusal to acknowledge that the problem even exists.
5. The most constructive emotion-focused strategy, positive reappraisal, tries to create positive meaning by focusing on personal growth.
6. Positive religious coping includes seeking comfort or reassurance in prayer, a religious community, or believing your personal experience is spiritually meaningful.
7. Negative religious coping occurs when individuals become angry and question their religious beliefs or feel that they are being punished.

C. The most effective coping is flexible. People often combine problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies.