A Study of Political Philosophy and Normative Ethical Theories within Zack Snyder's Comic Book and Graphic Novel Adaptations

Graduate School of Literatures, Languages & Cultures

University of Edinburgh

A Study of Political Philosophy and Normative Ethical Theorieswithin Zack Snyder’s Comic Book and Graphic Novel Adaptations.

B053931

MSc Film Studies Dissertation

14,679

1

Contents

Introduction….................................................

..............................................................

....... 3

Chapter One: Consequentialism and liberty in

300......................................................... 8

Classical Utilitarian Ethics and the

Spartans………………………………………. 9

Political Philosophy and Liberty……………………………………………………11

Ethical Egoism and the Persian

Empire……………………………………………...13

Ethical Long Takes…………………………………………………………………..18

Chapter Two: Collectivism and individualism in Man of

Steel………………………… 21

2

Krypton and Plato’s Perfect Society………………………………………………..

22

Mill’s Political Philosophy on Freedom and

Individuality…………………………. 27

Superman, Utilitarianism and Tragic

Dilemmas……………………………………. 29

Chapter Three: Utilitarianism and Deontology in

Watchmen………………………….. 35

Introduction to Deontology………………………………………………………… .35

Rorschach and Veidt’s Contrasting

Ethics………………………………………….. 37

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….. 44

Works cited………………………………………………………………………………….49

Introduction

3

This dissertation will provide a critical analysis of the

ethical and moral universes presented within the comic book

and graphic novel adaptations of director Zack Snyder. Three

films will be discussed: 300 (2007), Watchmen (2009) and Man of

Steel (2013). The main concern of this dissertation is to

discuss each of these three films from a philosophical

perspective by analysing the parallels between the

consequentialist ethics, moral actions and ethical codes

adopted by the prominent characters in each. Consequentialist

ethics are the primary focus throughout all of the chapters,

as my argument states that the films juxtapose contrasting

ethical doctrines in order to provide a source of conflict for

the characters and their actions. Several chapters shall also

argue that certain characters within Snyder’s film adhere to

specific forms of political philosophy. I will also analyse

how Snyder frequently uses close-up shots and long takes to

emphasise certain characters’ moral and ethical stances

throughout the films. The consequentialist philosophies that

will be discussed are utilitarianism, ethical egoism and

ethical altruism. Deontology, which contrasts consequentialism

4

within normative ethics, will also be discussed in the chapter

that analyses Watchmen.

With the advancement of computer generated images (CGI) and

special effects in current mainstream cinema, comic book and

graphic novel adaptations have been extremely prominent within

the past decade. The vast financial investment from major film

studios into the utilisation of mediums such as CGI and motion

capture performance has enabled comic books and graphic novels

to be adapted into big budget franchises within the film

industry. During the last decade, Zack Snyder has become one

of the most prominent directors within the graphic novel and

comic book film genre. Most of the films from within this

particular genre revolve around ideas of good versus evil and

hope, and depict altruistic heroes. What sets Snyder apart as

an auteur filmmaker is his constant focus on themes of moral

dilemmas, freedom and justice, set amongst narratives that

display excessive action and graphic violence. These kinds of

themes are hardly original, and have certainly been present

within comic book films throughout their history, however (due

5

to other films’ focus on attracting a younger demographic,

thus a family friendly Motion Picture Association of America

rating), the vast majority of comic book films do not

necessarily engage with them as seriously, or to the extent

that Snyder does. In contrast, the darker tone and edgier

content of Snyder’s comic book and graphic novel films allows

for the inclusion of deeper philosophical meaning and

discussion.

Snyder’s films invest a significant amount of time into

visually arresting, high-octane action sequences, and the

philosophical issues that are contested throughout his films

usually serve as the source of conflict. The main characters

within each of these films take it upon themselves to morally

dictate and decide what is best for the rest of society. His

films are also notorious for a heavy reliance on slow motion,

particularly in fight scenes. Another signature element of

Snyder’s style as a filmmaker is his frequent use of long

takes. These are often used to bring the viewer’s attention to

the philosophical and ethical discussion that is occurring

6

during the scene. While the long takes displayed throughout

Snyder’s films may not last as long in comparison to other

films within modern cinema, they stand out within the context

of his films as Snyder generally heavily relies on rapid

editing, particularly in the reoccurring action sequences in

order to create an entertaining and visually stimulating

audience experience. Parts of this dissertation will focus on

how characters ethical codes are emphasised by Snyder through

the varying use of long takes throughout his films.

Before each of the films is individually dissected from a

philosophical perspective, it is important to define and

establish the type of philosophy that is going to be applied

throughout this dissertation to each of Zack Snyder’s

adaptations. Ethical theory can largely be divided into three

major areas, with meta-ethics, applied ethics and normative

ethics being the most significant branches. This dissertation

specifically applies and discusses normative ethics through

its analysis of the three films under consideration. Normative

ethics is the area of philosophical ethics that focuses on

7

moral actions and is, “concerned with standards for right

conduct and moral evaluation” (Driver, 2006, p.2). Normative

ethics is relevant to this work as it is highly applicable to

the films that will be referred to. Each of these three films

portrays violent conflict between protagonists and

antagonists, frequently presenting the characters with ethical

dilemmas regarding what kind of action they should or should

not take. It is in these moments of action that this

dissertation seeks to analyse and evaluate the kinds of

ethical decisions and moral philosophies that the characters

subscribe to. This thesis argues that the characters within

these films predominately adhere to contrasting

consequentialist moral theories. Consequentialist philosophy

and deontological philosophy both subscribe to moral

objectivism; the view that, “there are moral facts-facts about

what is morally right and morally wrong, facts that do not

depend on what anyone or any group of people happen to think”

(Litch, 2010, p.147). This is in contrast to moral relativism,

which states that there is no such thing as objective moral

facts and declares that morality is determined by either the

subjective standards of the individual or by cultural moral

8

standards. Consequentialism is the ethical doctrine that

states that the consequences or results of an action are the

key factors when judging whether an action is morally wrong or

right, therefore, a consequentialist abides by the belief that

the morally right action is the action that ultimately

produces the overall best outcome and results.

Consequentialism holds that acts such as killing, stealing or

lying are permissible if the final outcome brings about good

consequences. There are various forms of consequentialism

that, as Kuusela points out, “can be distinguished on the

basis of what they regard as the end our actions ought to

promote and as the source of their moral value” (2011, p.18).

Kuusela is referring to the fact that consequentialist

philosophies have contrasting ethical stances and codes that

are defined by what they strive to promote and establish from

a moral and ethical perspective. One code of ethics is ethical

egoism, which holds that we have no moral obligation other

than to do what is best for ourselves and that individuals

should prioritise their own needs and requirements over the

needs of other people. These particular codes of ethics will

be discussed in much more detail in the next two chapters,

9

however, another consequentialist ethical theory known as

classical utilitarianism has a more prominent presence

throughout this dissertation, so it is important also to

provide a brief definition of the theory.

Utilitarianism is one of the key components within

consequentialist philosophy. Legal scholar and philosopher

Jeremy Bentham is credited as the person responsible for the

modern development of the ethical theory know as classical

utilitarian theory. Bentham’s student John Stuart Mill would

later go on to revise and attempt to remedy the classical

utilitarianism established by his teacher. This dissertation

will be discussing the classical utilitarianism that was

advocated by both Bentham and Mill. As it stems from

consequentialism, utilitarianism holds that we ought to act in

ways that will bring about the best consequences, however,

utilitarians consider the well-being of all people in an

impartial manner and all moral reasons for action are agent-

neutral. This means that an actor’s personal goals have the

exact same amount of value as anyone else’s when it comes to

10

evaluating what action the actor should decide to take.

Utilitarianism holds that people ought to maximise the sum

total of pleasure and that, “an action is right if it is

useful for promoting happiness” (Raphael, 1981, p.34). The

emphasis on pleasure leads to classical utilitarianism often

being referred to as hedonistic utilitarianism. Bentham and

Mill were both proponents of hedonistic utilitarianism,

believing that maximising the sum total of welfare meant

prioritising and maximising the sum total of happiness within

society and the morally right actions would fulfil this. This

is what is known as ‘the greatest happiness principle’, under

which, pleasure is deemed to have intrinsic value and

therefore is good, while pain has intrinsic does not and

therefore is bad. The following chapters will discuss

classical utilitarianism while drawing from Mill’s greatest

happiness principle and his theories of political philosophy

on freedom and justice, in regards to their relevance within

Snyder’s films.

11

This dissertation will conclude that the comic book and

graphic novel films directed by Zack Snyder predominately

portray contrasting consequentialist ethical theories that

serve as the source of conflict for the characters. While

ethical theories such as ethical egoism and deontology can be

found within Snyder’s films, utilitarianism is the most

prominent ethical theory that his characters subscribe to.

Although each of the three films discussed within this

dissertation contain copious amounts of action and violence,

Snyder often uses the editing technique of long takes to

withdraw from the high tempo drama and focus on the moral

decisions that the characters are presented with and discuss.

The reoccurrence of these contrasting ethical topics and

themes, combined with the graphic nature and frantic editing

of his films, certainly helps Snyder stand out as an auteur

director with his own signature style within mainstream

cinema’s current comic book and graphic novel genre.

Chapter One: Consequentialism and Freedom in 300

12

This chapter provides a critical analysis of the ethical and

moral universe presented within 300. By analysing the film

from a philosophical perspective, this chapter will focus on

the contrasting codes of ethics that the Spartans and Persians

abide by throughout the film. The film’s narrative largely

focuses on the conflict between three hundred Spartan warriors

lead by King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and the Persian Empire

lead by King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). Leonidas defies Spartan

law as he attempts to stand up against tyranny and preserve

freedom for all of Sparta in the hope of defeating the vastly

superior Persian army. The main line of argument that I will

pursue within this chapter is that the characters’ contrasting

codes of ethics are what eventually materialises in the

violent conflict that takes place throughout the majority of

the film. This chapter will analyse and contrast the

utilitarian ethics of the Spartans with the egoist ethics of

king Xerxes and the Persians. Juxtaposition of the

civilisations highlights their contrasting views on morality.

While Spartan men are bred for combat and certainly do not shy

away from fighting, they nonetheless advocate liberty and

peace throughout society. Their methods may at times seem

13

brutal, but they deem that their actions serve a necessary

purpose that is justifiable, as it seeks to produce happiness

for the greatest number of people. This is contrasted with the

Persian Empire led by King Xerxes who seek to conquer the

world at any cost. Xerxes is motivated purely by personal

greed and feels that everyone should be subservient to his

needs and demands, even when it is against their agenda. This

ties in strongly to the theme of freedom that appears often in

Snyder’s films. Freedom is thread that runs throughout this

film and this something that will, in this text, be paralleled

with John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian theory on liberty. This

chapter concludes that the utilitarian and altruistic nature

of the three hundred Spartans leads to confrontation with the

egoistic Persians led by King Xerxes, ultimately resulting in

the Spartans sacrificing their lives in the hope that they

will inspire the rest of Greece to stand up and fight for

freedom.

Classical utilitarian ethics and the Spartans

14

Firstly, it is important discuss classical utilitarianism and

show the similarities is shares with the Spartan ethics

depicted by Zack Snyder within 300. The introduction chapter

briefly explained that Bentham and Mill’s classical

utilitarianism judges actions as right or wrong only by virtue

of their consequences and does not take any other factors into

account. While assessing the consequences of an action, the

sole factor that is taken into consideration is the amount of

happiness or unhappiness that is generated by that action.

Every person’s happiness is also judged and prioritised

equally throughout society. Thus, actions that produce the

greatest possible amount of happiness over unhappiness within

society are judged as morally right. John Stuart Mill

summarises this within his essay about utilitarianism when he

states:

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happinessis intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness,pain, and the privation of pleasure (Mill, 1985, p.257).

In the very first scene of the film we are introduced to

Spartan culture as we are shown flashbacks of King Leonidas’ 15

upbringing as a child. Spartan law dictates that for a boy

child to be deemed worthy enough to participate in Spartan

society, from the age of seven they must be cast out into the

wild and devote the adolescent years of their lives to combat

training, so that if the time comes they will be able to serve

their city in battle. This customary procedure is known as

‘agoge’. While this may seem like a very harsh and extreme

method of education, the Spartans feel that it is necessary to

expose the children to independence, violence and combat so

that they can mature into supreme warriors that can defend

Sparta on the battlefield. This certainly fits in with

consequentialism, as the harsh means justify the ends. The

Spartans feel that the pain and suffering endured by the

children during the time of agoge is morally justifiable, as

it ultimately serves the purpose of defending Sparta and

ensuring peace and harmony for its people. In a certain sense

agoge does not entirely correspond with Mill’s greatest

happiness principle in that it produces large amounts of pain,

not just for the children who endure physical pain throughout

the brutal training, but also for the mothers who endure

psychological pain as they are forced to exile their young

16

sons. Agoge does, however comply with Mill’s greatest

happiness principle in terms of ‘right actions’ being those

that produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over

unhappiness within Sparta, in that it is done with the

intention of strengthening Sparta’s army in order to

sufficiently protect the state. This way Spartan society can

rest assured that should they engage in any form of conflict

with another country or state, their military are more than

capable of protecting their lives and their right to freedom.

For this reason, the Spartans view agoge as a necessary

morally right procedure that ultimately produces the greatest

amount of happiness in society. Fred Berger comments on

utilitarianism’s, at times, harsh nature when he states:

Utilitarianism, it has been argued, is committed to aggregating utilities, hence, is committed in theory to preferring greater to lesser distributions of utilities even when the lesser is fairer. Moreover, it is held that by its commitment to the maximization of utility, it permits the sacrifice of some for the greater good of others, permits punishing the innocent, and sanctions “free loading” on cooperative schemes, in violation of a duty of “fair play” (Berger, 1997, p.45).

Berger is highlighting how utilitarianism often permits harsh

acts that result in harm, such as killing a small minority of

17

people, in order to maximise happiness for the larger majority

of society. Although killing the minorities is extremely cruel

and not ideal, a utilitarian would judge it as the right moral

decision as long as the consequences brought about the

greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness for

the majority of society. The Spartans utilitarian outlook can

be seen in a brief scene between the queen of Sparta and one

of the state’s counsellors.

The Loyalist: Your son starts agoge next year. That is always a difficult time for a Spartan mother.

Queen Gorgo: Yes it will be hard, but also necessary.

This shows that while the queen will be upset when her son is

taken from her and subjected to life of violence, she

understands and appreciates that it is in the pursuit of the

greater good as it will ultimately bring about protection and

more happiness for the Spartan people. This is what is known

as act utilitarianism, which holds that best action is the one

that leads to the greatest amount of happiness of the greatest

number of people.

18

Political philosophy and liberty

The conflict of the film begins when a Persian messenger

travels to Sparta with the message that King Xerxes requests,

“a simple offering of earth and water as a token of Sparta’s

submission to the will of Xerxes”. Choosing not to subject his

people to slavery and death, King Leonidas rejects the

Persians offer in pursuit of avoiding oppression and

preserving freedom for all Spartans, however, before Leonidas

can summon his army in defence of Sparta, he must first be

granted permission by the Ephors and the Oracle who ultimately

set the political agenda in Sparta. At this time Leonidas is

not aware that the Ephors, along with certain Spartan

politicians, have already been bribed by the Persians with

gold and are offered sanctuary and favouritism should the

Persian Empire conquer Sparta. This results in the Ephors

forming an allegiance with the Persians and denying Sparta the

chance to go to war with Persia, therefore leaving Sparta

defenceless should Xerxes attempt an attack. This places

Leonidas in a dilemma as he feels obliged to abide by Spartan

law, but at the same he feels that it is duty to save the

people of Sparta from tyranny and slavery. Leonidas confides 19

in his wife and she urges him to pursue the path that a free

man would take:

King Leonidas: What must a king do to save his world when the very laws that he has sworn to protect force him to do nothing?

Queen Gorgo: It is not a question of what a Spartan citizen should do, nor a husband, nor a king. Instead, ask yourself, my dearest love, what should a free man do?

Leonidas decides to defy the Ephors and Spartan law as he

assembles three hundred of his best soldiers to take into

battle with the Persian Empire. This decision shows that

Leonidas subscribes to a utilitarian stance on social liberty.

Within the first chapter of his essay, entitled On Liberty, Mill

discusses the limits of power that can be legitimately

exercised by a society over its people:

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community,against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient (Mill, 1985, p.135).

In this passage Mill is stating that society should only

exercise its power over any individual in a situation if it

20

prevents harm to other people and that it can never intervene

for the benefit of the individual committing the harmful act.

He calls this the Principle of Liberty. Regarding Mill mention

of harm to others, this is, “best construed as injury to the

vital interests of others, where these comprise the interests

in autonomy and in security” (Gray, 1983, p.57). Mill feels

that security and autonomy are vital basic rights that ought

to be applicable to all people and that these rights should be

protected by law. When he mentions security, Mill is referring

to, “security primarily in terms of the reliability of

established expectations” (Gray, 1983, p.54). This simply

states that breaching someone’s contract or violating their

human rights qualifies as an encroachment on that person’s

moral right to security. By indulging in corruption via

accepting the Persians bribe of money and women, the Ephors

have violated their political duty and encroached upon the

people of Sparta’s moral right to security. As king of Sparta

and an advocate of freedom, Leonidas feels justified in his

decision to intervene and use his power to stop the Persians

from causing harm to both his people and other cities

throughout Greece. By attempting to prevent the Persian Empire

21

from conquering any more countries, Leonidas is essentially

adhering to Mill’s utilitarian Principle of Liberty.

Ethical egoism and the Persian Empire

The antagonists in 300 come in the form of the Persian Empire

lead by King Xerxes. Although he is merely a mortal, Xerxes

proclaims to be a god-king and ruler of the entire world. He

is adamant that he, “conquers and controls everything that he

rests his eyes upon” and is willing to resort to any means in

order to fulfil his own personal interests, to conquer the

entire world. In his pursuit of global domination, Xerxes only

considers how the consequences of a decision or action can

benefit him and shows little empathy or sympathy towards other

people. Xerxes’ actions coincide with the consequentialist

ethical theory of ethical egoism. James Rachels summarises the

nature of this specific ethical doctrine when he states that:

Ethical Egoism is the radical view that one’s only duty is to promote one’s own happiness. According to Ethical Egoism, there is only one ultimate principle of conduct, the principleof self-interest, and this principle sums up all of one’s natural duties and obligations (Rachels, 2000, p.550).

22

Rachels’ definition of an ethical egoist is someone who feels

morally obligated to solely act in ways that produce the best

consequences exclusively for themselves. While ethical egoism

does not state that an ethical egoist should go out of their

way to avoid helping others, ultimately they should prioritise

their own agenda over that of other people. It is clear that

Xerxes adheres to the principle of ethical egoism as he feels

justified in his actions to slaughter and murder thousands of

innocent people across various nations as it ultimately

promotes his own personal happiness. Within the ethical

doctrine of ethical egoism there are, however, a few different

variants. A universal ethical egoist subscribes to the belief

that all people should pursue their own interests exclusively.

On the other hand, an individual ethical egoist subscribes to

the belief that people should serve my own personal interest

exclusively. King Xerxes clearly subscribes to individual

ethical egoism as he believes that all of civilisation should

give in to his demands and declare their loyalty to his

regime. One particular scene that highlights how Xerxes

subscribes to individual ethical egoism is where he is trying

23

to persuade Leonidas to surrender his campaign and align with

the Persian Empire.

King Xerxes: Imagine what horrible fate awaits my enemies whenI would gladly kill any of my own men for victory.

King Leonidas: And I would gladly die for any one of mine.

This extract of dialogue shows the contrasting ethical stances

between Xerxes and Leonidas. While Xerxes, as an individual

ethical egoist, is extremely willing to pursue his own

personal interests at the detriment of everyone else,

Leonidas, on the other hand, shows that he adheres to

classical utilitarianism. Spartan law states that should the

king ever be killed during battle then all of Sparta is

obligated to go to war. Leonidas knows that his death will

prompt Sparta into utilising its entire military in battle

with the Persians instead of the mere three hundred men that

he has at his disposal. This will give Sparta a much better

chance of survival against the Persians in combat and,

ultimately, the consequences of Leonidas’ sacrifice will

generate the greatest amount of happiness over unhappiness for

the majority of the world. This is another example of where

the conflict between the Spartans and the Persians is created 24

by their contrasting ethical codes. King Xerxes is what Edward

Regis Jr. would call a narrowly self-centred egoist. Regis Jr.

argues that devout ethical egoists struggle to possess the

capacity for empathy. He states that:

A narrowly self-centred egoist would, for example, be prohibited from experiencing the valuable pleasures of love, friendship, fellow feeling, and community. He would not understand or have any insight into other human beings, grasp that they are in pain, and so forth (Regis Jr., 1980, p.51).

Regis Jr. is suggesting that someone who is extremely devoted

to pursuing their own interests will fail to grasp the concept

of empathy and this will prevent them from being able to

relate to other people on an emotional level. By pursuing

their own interest to such an extreme and focused degree, a

narrowly self-centred egoist will emotionally cut themselves

off from everyone around them and judge people based on how

beneficial they can be in helping them accomplish their goals.

This specifically applies to Xerxes, as at no point in the

film do we see him emote any empathy or sympathy to any of the

other characters within the film. This again highlights the

opposing ethical stances of Xerxes and Leonidas that serves as

the source of conflict throughout the film. Every decision

25

that Leonidas makes throughout the film is made with the

intention of producing consequences that will maximise freedom

and happiness throughout, not just the Spartan community but

throughout the whole of Greece. Xerxes on the other hand is

dependant only on making decisions that will fulfil his own

egoistic desires of power and domination. One of the few times

we witness Xerxes experience pleasure comes when he talks

about his ‘divine power’ as a self-proclaimed god-king and in

a scene when he persuades Ephialtes to defect from the

Spartans and reveal the location of the secret pathway that

will secure the Persians victory in battle.

Although he is scarcely seen in the film, Ephialtes is another

important character who also adheres to a consequentialist

form of ethics. We initially see him when he offers his

services as a warrior in the battle to Leonidas. He is

gracefully rejected by the king as his physical limitations

due to his disfigured body prevent him from being able to

raise his shield, which would endanger the lives of his fellow

Spartan warriors. Ephialtes later stumbles across King Xerxes

26

who promises to fulfil all of Ephialtes personal pleasures if

he will align himself with the Persians and betray the

Spartans:

King Xerxes: Everything you could ever desire. Every happinessyou can imagine. Every pleasure your fellow Greeks and false gods have denied you, I will grant you, for I am kind. Embraceme as you kind and as your god.

Ephialetes: Yes.

Kind Xerxes: Lead my soldiers to the hidden path that enters behind the cursed Spartans and your joys will be endless.

Ephialtes: Yes. I want it all, wealth, women.

This is another example of where Zack Snyder introduces a

character into the film that embraces ethical egoism. In the

pursuit of his own happiness and satisfaction, Ephialtes is

willing to doom his fellow three hundred Spartans to their

death in exchange for money and sexual pleasures. Through

opting to prioritise his own happiness over the lives of

others, Ephialtes is subscribing to ethical egoism and by

giving in to his urges for wealth and sexual desires, what

Mill regards as lower forms of pleasure. The topic of pleasure

is something that divides opinion amongst classical

utilitarian’s Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According

to Bentham, pleasure is sensation that can be measured. He

27

used intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty,

propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity and extent as the

parameters to gauge pleasure. Bentham proposes that all forms

of happiness are equal and that the quantity of an experience

was what mattered most in regards to pleasure. John Stuart

Mill defects from this line of argument in his book,

Utilitarianism. Mill argues that higher forms of pleasure are,

“those which befit our nature as human beings, and utilise our

capacities for intelligent activity” and are superior to lower

forms of pleasure such as physical pleasure (Norman, 1983,

p.127), stating that:

It is better to being human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question (Mill, 1987, p.281).

Mill is proposing that it is more beneficial and rewarding for

people if they seek pleasure in things that will help expand

their knowledge, maximise their intellectual capacity and

allow them to contribute to society in a productive fashion,

rather than pursuing physical pleasures that may bring great

satisfaction to the individual in the short term but do not,

28

ultimately, contribute a great deal to society on the whole.

He is also stating that people who oppose his stance and

prioritise lower forms of pleasure only do so becomes they

have never experienced higher forms of pleasure and therefore

cannot appreciate its superior value. Towards the climax of

the film a scene takes place where Xerxes makes a similar

proposal to Leonidas to the one he gave to Ephialtes. Xerxes

offers Leonidas the opportunity to align himself with the

Persian Empire and bask in the pleasure of money, power and

women. Xerxes vows that instead of conquering Sparta, he will

provide Sparta with wealth and prosperity if Leonidas and his

forces surrender and kneels before him. Unlike Ephailtes,

Leonidas refuses Xerxes’ offer and instead launches one last

assault on the Persian army, which he knows will almost

certainly result in his own death. This is another example

where Leonidas and the Spartans adhere to Mill’s classical

utilitarianism. By refusing Xerxes offer, Leonidas and the

three hundred Spartan warriors choose not to indulge in lower

forms of physical pleasure but instead devote themselves to

the pursuit of maximising happiness and freedom for anyone who

opposes the Persian Empire’s regime of tyranny and

29

enslavement. This again highlights the conflicting moral

agendas of the utilitarian Spartans and the ethical egoist

Persians.

Ethical long takes

Before going into battle one last time Leonidas gives his men

a rousing speech urging them to devote their lives to freedom:

King Leonidas: No retreat, no surrender. That is Spartan law. And by Spartan law we will stand and fight and die. A new age has begun, an age of freedom. And all will know that three hundred Spartans gave their last breath to defend it.

Figure 1: King Leonidas (300, 2007)

This entire monologue takes place during a long take (see

figure 1. for a representative still). As will be further

30

argued throughout the dissertation’s remaining chapters,

Snyder often uses long takes in scenes where he intends to

emphasise a character’s ethical stance. A long take is an

editing technique that prolongs the duration of a shot longer

than the majority of shots within a film. For large parts of

300 the film is edited at a very rapid pace, which works to

provide a sense of immediacy, particularly in the case of the

frequent battle scenes that occur. Snyder uses long takes,

such as the one in this particular scene, in order to slow

down the rhythm of the film and give more attention to the

dialogue, dialogues that contain an ethical perspective.

Michael Ryan states that, “an editor combines shots and images

in ways that illuminate character, suggest ideas, or stage

conflicts” (Ryan, 2012, p.75). This suggests that editing

contributes to the way in which characters and their motives

can be portrayed and defined. John Stuart Mill establishes

that for a utilitarian to perform a morally right action, they

must consider the total happiness of everyone concerned in an

unbiased manner. That way favouritism is avoided and happiness

can be maximised. Mill states that:

31

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 person (Mill, 1985, p. 268).

Leonidas’ dialogue within this particular long take highlights

that he is willing to die in his pursuit of freedom and

therefore adheres to Mill’s definition of right utilitarian

conduct. Instead of accepting Xerxes’ offer and giving in to

ethical egoism, Leonidas remains impartial and decides that he

is willing to face certain death in battle if the consequences

of his death ultimately produce the greatest balance of

happiness over unhappiness for all of Sparta and Greece.

This chapter has focused on the contrasting ethical codes that

are present within 300. I have argued, predominately through

the characters of King Leonidas and King Xerxes, that

classical utilitarianism and ethical egoism serve as the base

for conflict within the film and that the characters actions

are defined by these different consequentialist codes of

ethics. Throughout the film both Leonidas and Xerxes maintain

their moral beliefs and never stray from their personal codes

of ethics. By adhering to utilitarianism, Leonidas and the

32

three hundred Spartan soldiers ultimately decide to defend

their city and sacrifice their lives in the belief that their

decisions will bring about a greater balance of happiness

throughout the whole of Sparta. Xerxes on the other hand

maintains his stance as an individual ethical egoist

throughout the film, as he considers only how other people can

aid him in his pursuit of world domination. The consequences

of his tyrannical and brutal actions are justified by the

pleasure they exclusively bring him. I have also touched upon

Mill’s political philosophy regarding liberty and how it

applies to the way in which Leonidas decides to take action.

By refusing the order from the Ephors, Leonidas opts to

exercise his power over the people of Sparta in order to

prevent the inevitable harm that is forthcoming from the

Persians.

33

Chapter Two: Collectivism and Individualism in Man of Steel

This chapter provides a critical analysis of the ethical and

moral universe presented within Snyder’s Man of Steel. The chapter

predominately focuses on the ethical dilemmas that the main

protagonists and antagonist face, and discussing the

consequentialist ethical decisions that they make throughout

the duration of the film. The main source of philosophical

analysis will be applied to the contrasting ethical codes that

are adopted by the characters of Kal-El (Henry Cavill),

Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner), Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and

General Zod (Michael Shannon), in order to emphasise how they

34

play into Zack Snyder’s overall signature style. I argue this

juxtaposes opposing ethical theories within normative ethics,

such as utilitarianism and ethical egoism, to provide the

source of conflict within his films. Carrying on from the

previous chapter, which laid the groundwork for discussion on

classical utilitarianism and John Stuart Mill’s political

philosophy, this chapter analyses how Snyder’s protagonists

and antagonists actions once again display utilitarian and

egoistic ethics. In Man of Steel, as in 300, the theme of freedom

is presented throughout and will once again be paralleled with

theories from Mill’s essay On Liberty. Particular focus will be

paid to Mill’s theories on individuality within society and

will be juxtaposed with Plato’s ‘perfect state’ within The

Republic. This comparison is relevant to highlight the

contrasting ethical views held by Zod and Jor-El. This chapter

will conclude that the films protagonists, Jor-El, Kal-El and

Jonathan Kent, subscribe to John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian

ethical stance, which conflicts with General Zod’s more

Platonic utilitarianism code of ethics. Both Kal-El and

Jonathan Kent, in particular, make utilitarian decisions when

they are faced with moral dilemmas; they are willing to kill

35

or risk the lives of a smaller number of people in order to

ensure the maximisation of happiness for the human race on a

global scale.

Krypton and Plato’s ‘perfect society’

The opening stages of the film take place on the planet

Krypton and it is quickly established that all forms of

natural childbirth have been deemed illegal by the government

for hundreds of years. Instead, a procedure called artificial

population control has been established, which consists of

genetically breeding people in genesis chambers so that they

fulfil a predetermined role in society. This genetic and

social stagnation makes the Kryptonians resort to harvesting

their planet’s core for natural resources, ultimately making

the planet unstable and resulting in its destruction. The

genetic template for every person yet to be born on Krypton is

held within a codex that is stored within government. Jor-El

foresees the planets demise and decides to send his son to

earth with the stolen codex, in the hope that new race formed

of humans and Kryptonians can start a new civilisation.

36

Unwilling to embrace change and diversity within Kryptonian

society, military leader General Zod also travels to earth in

an attempt to retrieve the codex from Kal-El with the aim of

terraforming earth into a new Krypton that would cause the

genocide of the entire human race. Zod’s view of an ideal

society and political philosophy can be paralleled with the

view that the ancient philosopher Plato had of how an ideal

society should be constructed and run. In his iconic

literature entitled The Republic (1974), Plato discusses at length

his plan for building a perfect society that will accommodate

all citizens and allow them to live happy lives. The Republic

establishes a plan for a three-class state. The ruling classes

that possess the political power consist of what are called

the philosopher-kings and the administrators. The third class

consists of the civilians who make up the vast majority of the

population and are deemed unable to rule themselves. This idea

is based on Plato’s belief that people should exist only to

fulfil a specific function within society. During childhood

the ruling class are segregated from the civilians, and

trained and educated in ways that will empower them to rule

and uphold harmony within society. The children are physically

37

and mentally disciplined and all personal interests, such as

the desire for family, bodily pleasures and wealth, are

suppressed in the pursuit of upholding the perfect society.

With the ruling classes controlling the political agenda, the

citizens have no right to a democratic election process and,

ultimately, have to adhere to the laws outlined by the

government. Taylor argues that The Republic is essentially a

totalitarian state run by the ruling classes (known as the

guardians) when he states that:

All political decisions are made by the guardians without any reference to the citizen body. The guardians, moreover, are neither elected nor removable form office by popular vote. Politically, their power is absolute; the only control over them is itself ideological, in that they are under an absolutemoral obligation not to allow any deviation from the system ofeducation by which the ruling ideology, and therefore acceptance by all of the political system is passed on from one generation to the next (Taylor, 1997, p.32).

Taylor is stating that Plato’s proposed society is ultimately

a totalitarian one as the citizens have no say in their own

destiny; they are bound to obey and conform to laws that they

have no say in establishing. Taylor also alludes to the fact

that the ruling classes within Plato’s society are diligent

and tireless in their pursuit of maintaining the established

38

political ideology. They feel morally obligated to ensure that

the rest of society do not stray from the law and are bound by

duty to preserve this law. These aspects within The Republic

certainly reflect the political ideology that exists on

Krypton in Man of Steel. Much like the philosopher-kings and the

administrators in the Republic, Zod has dedicated his entire

life to ensuring harmony throughout his society by making sure

all citizens abide by the law. His devotion to preserving a

harmonic Kryptonian state is clear when he declares that, “I

have a duty to my people, and I will not allow anyone to

prevent me from carrying it out”.

The Republic (1974) also emphasises that society should pursue

collectivism over individualism and that society does not

exist to serve every individual person within society, but

instead people are born in order to contribute to society as a

whole. Cross & Woozley point out that, within Plato’s vision

for an ideal society, “the individual man is now primarily

regarded in respect of the performance of his function of

contributing to the life and unity of the city” (1964, p.98).

39

Cross & Woozley are stating that Plato’s ideal society is not

assembled in order to serve the needs of every citizen on an

individual basis, but in fact every single individual

citizen’s morality is judged in terms of how much they are

able to provide and contribute to society as a whole through

their specific role and function within that society. By

prioritising the happiness of society as a whole, Plato’s

totalitarian political philosophy within The Republic can also be

judged to be utilitarian from an ethical perspective, as it

looks to maximise the amount of happiness throughout society

and judges actions that fulfil this as morally right. Karl

Popper proposes the utilitarian nature of Plato’s political

philosophy within The Republic when he states that, “Plato’s

moral code is strictly utilitarian; it is a code of

collectivist or political utilitarianism. The criteria of

morality is in the interest of the state” (Popper, 1963,

p.63). Popper is suggesting that Plato is ultimately a

utilitarian, as he believes that the right moral decisions and

actions are the ones that result in the best outcome for the

maximum amount of people within society. Though they are both

utilitarian, Plato’s utilitarian political philosophy largely

40

differs from Mill’s in advocating that people should

unequivocally sacrifice their personal freedoms in order to

contribute to the maximisation of happiness within society as

a whole. When Zod discovers that Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van

(Ayelet Zurer) have broken the law and conceived a child

through natural methods, he is enraged as civilians have

breached the legal codes established by the ruling class and

have, therefore, gone against the interest of society as a

whole. The following lines of dialogue from Man of Steel indicate

this:

Jor-El: This is a second chance for all of Krypton. Not just the bloodlines that you deem worthy.

General Zod: What have you done?

Jor-El: We’ve had a child Zod, a boy child. Krypton’s first natural birth in centuries. And he will be free. Free to forgehis own destiny.

General Zod: Heresy! Destroy it!

“Plato recognised only one ultimate standard, the interest of

the state. Everything that furthers it is good and virtuous

and just; everything that threatens it is bad and wicked”

(Popper, 1963, p.63). Here, Popper is stating that Plato

believed that actions that serve the state are judged to be

moral actions and actions that are detrimental to the state

41

are judged to be immoral. By declaring that Kal-El’s natural

birth is an act of heresy, it is clear that Zod views this

decision to be an immoral act. It also, therefore, signifies

that he is a proponent of Krypton’s totalitarian society and

believes in collectivism over individuality. Zod ultimately

kills Jor-El in battle but is unable to prevent the infant

Kal-El’s shuttle from launching into orbit and in the

direction of Planet Earth. Zod justifies killing Jor-El as he

believes that Jor-El’s actions are morally wrong and are

therefore worthy of punishment. This is similar to Plato’s

republic where, “for the god of the State the ruler must

punish and banish and kill the citizen who objects the

political operation the State must undergo” (Crossman, 1963,

p.33).

Portions of the film’s climax serve as another example of

where General Zod can be seen to be adhering to Plato’s form

of utilitarianism. After launching an alien invasion on earth

and attempting to commit genocide via terraforming the planet

into a new Planet Krypton, Zod ultimately fails in his attempt

42

to save his race, as Kal-El destroys the last remaining

genesis chamber and banishes Zod’s fellow insurgents into a

black hole. Upset that he has been unable to restore

Kryptonian civilisation, Zod holds Kal-El responsible for

destroying their race and further reveals that his actions are

motivated out of creating the best consequences for his

society as a whole:

General Zod: We could have built a new Krypton in this squalor, but you chose the humans over us. I exist only to protect Krypton. That is the sole purpose for which I was born. And every action I take, not matter how violent or how cruel, is for the greater good of my people. And now…I have nopeople. My soul, that is what you have taken from me!

Figure 2: General Zod (Man of Steel, 2013)

43

By stating that his actions, “are for the greater good” of his

people, Zod is adhering to Plato’s from of utilitarianism in

that he is morally obligated to avoid individualism by

maximising the amount of happiness within (Krypton’s) society

as a whole. Snyder once again utilises the editing technique

of a long take in order to emphasise the ethical dialogue that

is used within the scene. This particular long take occurs

directly after an extremely violent and long action-sequence

that uses rapid editing to showcase the destruction of

Metropolis as Zod’s forces attempt to terraforming Earth into

Krypton. Snyder’s use of a long take in this scene (see figure

2.) retracts from the excessive amounts of carnage in the

scene and brings focus onto Zod’s utilitarian ethical stance.

Similar to the long take monologue that Snyder used for

Leonidas’s monologue in 300, this particular long take also

comes in-between long action sequences that are cut at a very

fast rate. A different emphasis is placed on the scene by the

long take; its fixed focus highlights the scenes importance

from a narrative perspective, allowing the defining Zod’s

ethical perspective.

44

Mill’s freedom and individuality

As was discussed in the previous chapter in regards to

classical utilitarianism and ethical egoism, the conflict in

Snyder’s films usually occurs because the characters view the

world in different ways and therefore have conflicting moral

perspectives and codes of ethics. Man of Steel is certainly no

different; Snyder also uses the characters of Jor-El and

General Zod to fulfil this function. Whilst they are both

utilitarians in their own respects, Jor-El and Zod possess

very different opinions on an individual’s role and

responsibility within society. As has already been mentioned,

Zod is a utilitarian in that he believes that the morally

right actions are those that generate the maximum amount of

happiness for his people. He also objects to individualism

within society as he feels that citizens should sacrifice

their personal pursuits of pleasure and desire in aid of

contributing to society as whole. Jor-El, on the other hand,

has a drastically different political philosophy from Zod. He

is against the artificial population control established by

the Kryptonian government and believes that citizens should be

free to choose what they wish to pursue in life and not be 45

obligated to fulfil a specific function or role within

society. The following monologue is from a scene in the film

where Jor-El informs his son, Kal-El, of the reasons why he is

different from anyone else and why he was sent to earth. The

dialogue within this monologue defines Jor-El’s stance as a

proponent of individualism within society:

Jor-El: Every child was designed to perform a predetermined role in our society as a worker, a warrior,a leader, and so on. Your mother and I believed Krypton lost something precious, the element of choice, of chance. What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended for him or her? Whatif a child aspired for something greater? You were the embodiment of that belief Kal. Krypton’s first natural birth in centuries. That’s why we risked so much to save you.

Jor-El’s stance is very similar to the form of individualism

that John Stuart Mill proposes in On Liberty (1859). Mill states

that diversity and freedom are the two necessary conditions

that enable individuality to flourish in society (1859,

p.186). He stresses that individuality and diversity are

crucial within society, as they produce creativity and

progress and avoid the social stagnation that can be created

by collectivism and conformism. Mill goes on to discuss how

46

people should be left to lead their own lives and not forced

to conform to the ways of others within society. He states

that:

…human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribe for it, but a tree, whichrequires to grow and develop on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing (Mill, 1859, p.188).

Mill is stating that society should not dictate or shape an

individual’s role or function, and that in order to achieve

freedom, people must be left to develop their own beliefs and

ideas naturally and to pursue their own personal agenda.

Although he is a proponent of individualism, Mill does agree

that all citizens have a duty to obey some of society’s rules

regarding certain conduct (1859, p.205). He states that the

individual should not injure or harm the rights of another

individual and that they should contribute to society by

defending it and its members from injury and harm. Lastly,

Mill suggests that, “the individual ought to also refrain from

hurting others in ways that do not go to the length of

violating any of their constituted rights” (Riley, 1998,

p.92). Thus, as long as an individual’s personal freedom does 47

not impede on another person’s personal freedom, Mill views

individualism to be a morally right action.

Jor-El actions and words within Man of Steel clearly reflect

elements of Mill’s views on individualism within society and

emphasise the contrast in the political philosophy that he and

Zod have. By defying the Kryptonian law of artificial

population control and allowing his son to be born in a

natural way, Jor-El is adhering to Mill’s theories on freedom,

in that he is proposing diversity and individuality within

society. His intentions and actions are purely based on trying

to achieve freedom for his race with the desire that, “free

scope should be given to varieties of character, short of

injuries to others”(Mill, 1859, p.185) and that different

modes of life should be allowed to be pursued when any one

individual within society is fit to attempt them. Both Jor-El

and Zod are utilitarian in sense that they are hoping the

consequences of their actions will maximise the amount of

happiness produced within society. The main difference is that

Jor-El is thinking about producing actions that will bring

48

peace and happiness on a universal scale, while Zod’s concerns

are limited to producing the largest amount of happiness for

Kryptonian culture. This is highlighted within the film as Zod

is willing to, “sever the degenerative bloodlines that led us

to this state” and attempt a genocide of the human race,

whilst Jor-El is much more diplomatic and passive in his

thinking and actions; believing that the people of Earth and

Krypton can coexist together in harmony. This difference in

political philosophies once again highlights Snyder’s use of

conflicting theories within philosophy and ethics to create

conflict within his films.

Superman, utilitarianism and tragic dilemmas.

Large parts of the first half of the film are told in

flashback sequences that take place during Kal-El’s youth in

Kansas. These scenes are utilised in order to display the

difficulties that a young teenage Kal-El, referred to as Clark

Kent on Earth, faces throughout his day-to-day life. It is in

these scenes that Clark’s adoptive earth father Jonathan

informs Clark of his responsibility to use his unique powers

49

to bring about positive changes across the world. Jonathan

believes, however, that, “people are afraid of what they don’t

understand” and Clark should continue to conceal his secret

alien identity until he is mature enough to burden the

responsibility that comes with possessing such great power.

After young Clark uses his powers to save a school bus of his

classmates from drowning in a river, Jonathan tells Clark that

maybe it is best to avoid saving the lives of others to avoid

revealing his secret alien identity.

Figure 3: Clark Kent and Jonathan Kent (Man of Steel)

One particular scene (see Figure 3) would initially seem to

suggest that Jonathan is proposing Clark should follow an

50

egoistic ethical approach, as he should only look to act in

ways that will provide the overall best consequences for him.

Instead, Jonathan is clearly adopting a utilitarian ethical

stance. The following passage of dialogue from this scene

indicates this:

Jonathan Kent: Clark, you have to keep this side of yourself asecret.

Clark Kent: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die?

Jonathan Kent: Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything.

While Jonathan is not endorsing that Clark intentionally try

to sacrifice innocent people’s lives, he feels that society

and the world will flourish and be better off in the long-term

if Clark’s alien identity is kept a secret during his youth.

This way Clark will not be taken away and experimented on by

the government, and society will not be deprived of his unique

superpowers and capacity to use them for the benefit of

mankind in the future. Snyder once again uses a long take for

large parts of this scene in order to slow down the pace of

the film and bring attention to the dialogue, dialogue that

51

emphasises Jonathan’s utilitarian ethical approach. Later on

in the film, Jonathan solidifies his stance as a classical

utilitarian when he encounters a tornado. After helping other

civilians to safety, Jonathan faces certain death as his leg

is badly injured which prevents him from being able to escape

the tornado. With a crowd of civilians looking on, he is

forced to decide between dying to preserve Clark’s secret

alien identity or letting Clark fly to his rescue and thus

exposing his superpowers to the world. With Clark ready to fly

to his adoptive fathers rescue, Jonathan signals to Clark with

his hand to stop and decides that the right moral decision is

to preserve Clark’s secret as he is swept up and killed by the

tornado. By sacrificing his life in order to keep Clark’s

alien identity, Jonathan can again be said to be adhering to

utilitarianism. Here, his actions are motivated by the belief

that Clark’s superpowers will be of great benefit to mankind

on a long-term basis, in maximising the greatest amount of

happiness for the greatest amount of people across the world.

Around halfway through the film Clark finally embraces his

superpowers and embraces the moniker of Superman. He inherits

the Superman cape and tights from his father Jor-El and 52

eventually reveals his secret identity as an alien to the

United States military and the whole world. For the rest of

the film we generally see Superman act in an altruistic

fashion. He utilises his powers to prevent Zod’s plot to

commit genocide of the entire human race by terraforming

planet earth into a new Krypton. At the end of another

gratuitously violent action sequence, Superman defeats Zod in

physical combat but finds himself presented with a tragic

dilemma. Todd Weber (2000, p.192) defines tragic dilemmas as

moral conflicts in which an agent is presented with two

actions that they morally ought to do but are forced to carry

out only one action can be performed by the agent at that

time. By choosing one action over the other, the agent is

still acting morally wrong, in the sense that they are acting

against something the morally ought to do. Whichever option

the agent decides to make, they are forced in some way to go

against their own personal code of ethics. Superman is forced

to decide between killing Zod and letting him murder an

innocent family of civilians with his heat vision. “There is

no way out of this dilemma for Superman; whatever decision he

makes will be morally horrible in some way” (White, 2013,

53

p.10). Mark White is alluding to the fact that throughout his

history and across various platforms, Superman is

traditionally a character that will attempt to avoid killing

at all costs and usually always finds a way of utilising his

powers in a way that resolve conflict without resorting to

killing. Within Snyder’s adaptation of the character, however,

due to his natural birth on Krypton, Superman ultimately

embodies Mill’s utilitarian stance on freedom, diversity and

individualism that Zod morally opposes. This allows him to

decide to kill Zod in order to save the lives of the family.

Rosalind Hursthouse states that utilitarian ethical theory,

“basically eliminates the conflict problem, it eliminates

irresolvable conflicts” (Hursthouse, 2001, p.3). Hursthouse is

stating that when any utilitarian is faced with a tragic

dilemma, the conflict is easily erased as the moral agent will

always choose the decision that ultimately maximises the

greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of

people. While Superman feels that it is morally wrong to kill

and wishes that there was a way in which he could stop Zod

without killing him he is, nevertheless, forced to kill him.

He breaks his neck, believing that the consequences of this

54

action will ultimately bring more happiness and pleasure to

the billions of people across the world that would have

otherwise died due to the terraforming. Ultimately, Superman

adheres to classical utilitarianism as actions are motivated

out of his obligation to maximise happiness throughout the

world.

This chapter has discussed both Plato’s and John Stuart Mill’s

political philosophy by showing how it is applicable and

relevant at defining certain characters stance on morality

within Snyder’s Man of Steel. Through discussing elements of The

Republic and On Liberty, I have been able to highlight and examine

specific elements of these contrasting philosophies that are

embodied by the actions of Jor-El, Superman and General Zod. I

have again established how specific contrasting philosophies

create a source of conflict within Snyder’s films. The main

source of conflict is derived from the difference in

philosophy that Jor-El and Zod have in regards to an

individual’s role within society. Zod adopts the same

political views as Plato’s Republic as he believes that

happiness can only be established within a society if

citizens’ individualism is sacrificed so that people can 55

perform a specific function within society in order to benefit

the state as a whole. This type of political philosophy is

opposed by Jor-El who subscribes to Mill’s theory of

individualism that states that people should be free to pursue

their own personal agenda within society, as long as it does

not interfere with the freedom of others. Ultimately, this

chapter concludes that the main characters within the film

subscribe to utilitarianism as their actions are made with the

hope that the consequences will ultimately produce the

greatest amount happiness over unhappiness throughout society.

The main difference, however, is that Zod’s actions are more

egoistic in that they will only produce happiness for the

Kryptonian race at the expense of Earth, while the

protagonists seek to produce harmony and maximise happiness

throughout the universe.

56

Chapter Three: Utilitarianism and Deontology in Watchmen.

This chapter provides a critical analysis of the ethical and

moral universe presented within Zack Snyder’s Watchmen which

is an adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s graphic novel57

of the same name. Less emphasis will be placed on political

philosophy within this chapter as the majority of the

discussion will focus on the films contrasting ethical

doctrines that define specific characters actions and moral

stance. This chapter specifically discusses the deontological

ethics proposed by the philosopher Immanuel Kant and will be

comparing his theory with Mill’s classical utilitarianism that

has already been discussed within the last two chapters of

this dissertation. Whilst Watchmen consists of multiple

characters who each have their own story arc and ethical

stance, this chapter is specifically going to focus on the

characters of Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) and Ozymandias

(Matthew Goode). The main argument within this chapter is that

the film juxtaposes the normative ethical theories of

deontology and classical utilitarianism through the characters

of Ozymandias and Rorschach. Much like in 300 and Man of Steel, I

argue that the source of conflict within Snyder’s Watchmen

stems from the contrasting ethical theories that the main

characters subscribe to and ground their morality in. Before I

proceed to analyse the normative ethical theories within

Watchmen it is important to establish and define deontology as

58

an ethical theory and highlight how it is different from the

consequentialist theory of classical utilitarianism.

Introduction to Deontology

Within normative ethics consequentialism and deontology are

two ethical theories that have two completely opposite ways of

judging what defines an action as morally permissible. “If

consequentialism invites us to consider the consequences of an

act, deontological ethics invites us to consider the act,

without pondering the consequences.” (Tännsjö 2013, p.59).

Tännsjö is stating that deontology judges the morality of an

action by looking at the action itself rather than whatever

consequences may occur as a result of the action. Immanuel

Kant is regarded as one of deontology’s biggest proponents

with large parts of his ethical theory emphasising the

importance of adhering to moral law. Kant states that the only

virtue that is intrinsically good is good will. “It is

impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed

even beyond it, that could be considered good without

limitation except a good will.” (Kant 2007, p.525) Kant is

implying that a good will without limitation is a will that is

59

good in itself and its moral value is not conditional on any

other factors. Kant also believed that the morality of an

action is based on the actions adherence to rules and even an

act that fails to fulfil its purpose will maintain its moral

value just as much as an act that achieves its objective as

long as it is acted out of good will and duty. Kant believed

that a “good will under human conditions is one which acts for

the sake of duty” (Paton 1947, p.46) and felt that peoples

desires and feelings could get in the way of them acting from

good will and performing their moral duty. “He felt that

morality could not be based upon emotions; otherwise it would

lose it authority over our actions. Emotions, unlike reason,

are fickle and transitory.” (Driver 2006, p.100) Driver is

alluding to Kant’s belief that sensuous desires and feelings

can create obstacles that prevent people from acting in an

impartial manner that adheres exclusively to acting from duty.

Kant (2007) argued that in order for a moral agent to fulfil

his duty they must adhere to categorical imperatives. These

are rules that require unconditional devotion and must be

obeyed in all circumstances. The first of Kant’s formulations

for the categorical imperatives is to act only according to

60

that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it

should become a universal law without contradiction:

Man regards himself as a moral agent, morally responsible for his conduct, and he regards others as morally responsible, whatever his or their particular nature may be. That means that he must act as he thinks anyone else would be bound to act. (Lindsay 1919, p.107)

Lindsay is stating that the first formulation of the

categorical imperative instructs that people should behave as

if the entire universe conformed to the exact same moral laws

which would mean that everyone’s moral actions would be judged

evenly. This means that if a moral agent considers stealing as

a morally wrong act for one person, then they should consider

stealing as a morally wrong act for all people to commit. Kant

goes on to declare that morally wrong actions such as lying

are cannot be applied as a universal law as they would be

contradictory. “If that were universal no one would believe anyone

else, and there would be no point in telling a lie.” (Lindsay 1919,

p.109) Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative

states that all moral agents should act in such a way that

they treat other people never merely as a means to an end, but

always as an end. This means that we should treat people with

61

respect and should never use them or manipulate them for our

own personal gains.

Rorschach’s and Veidt’s Contrasting Ethics

At the beginning of Watchmen we are introduced to an alternate

history in which the United States of America were victorious

in the Vietnam war thanks to some assistance from a group of

masked vigilantes known as the watchmen. However, it quickly

becomes evident that all is not well within society. The

streets are rampant with corruption and crime, the once

revered masked vigilantes are now declared outlawed and worst

of all the United States is on the brink of engaging in

nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The very first scene of the

film shows the murder of Edward Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan)

who is a former member of the watchmen. This murder triggers

another former member of the watchmen called Rorschach into

action as he seeks to uncover the truth behind Blake’s

mysterious killing. As the film progresses more and more

innocent people are killed until it is revealed that another

one of the former watchmen named Adrian Veidt is behind the

killings. Veidt, who was formerly known as Ozymandias when

62

part of the watchmen, is the only member of the vigilante

group to reveal his true identity to the public and has used

his great intellect to amass a multibillion dollar energy

company. Veidt’s plan ultimately hinges on his desire to

prevent the United States and the Soviet Union from engaging

in nuclear war with each other which will conclude with the

extinction of the entire human race as a result. Veidt

detonates massive explosions throughout multiple major cities

across the world by harnessing Dr. Manhatton’s fusion power.

Dr. Manhatton is subsequently framed for the millions of

innocent deaths while the United States and the Soviet Union

decide to abort their nuclear attacks on each other and

instead agree that Dr. Manhatton is a common enemy. The two

countries decide to form an alliance with the unified

objective of bringing Dr. Manhatton to justice. J. Robert

Loftis defines Veidt’s murderous plan as subscribing to

consequentialist ethics when he states that:

Ozymandias appears to be what philosophers call a consequentialist: he believes that all actions should be judged bytheir consequences implying that the ends will sometimes justify the means. He is the kind of guy who, when he has to make a decision, carefully lists the pros and cons and goes with the option that has the most pros on balance. At least, that’s the way Ozymandias thinks of himself. Consequentialism

63

is how Ozymandias rationalizes the bizarre murderous scheme that was revealed in the Antarctic fight. (Loftis 2009, p.64)

Loftis is stating that as a consequentialist, Ozymandias views

his actions are morally permissible as they are carried out

with the intent of providing the best of overall consequences.

The form of consequentialism that Ozymandias most clearly

adheres to is classical utilitarianism. While Ozymandias

understands that his plan is clearly brutal in nature, he

views it as a necessary sacrifice as it maximises the amount

of happiness of all concerned. When confronted in by several

members of the watchmen, Ozymandias reveals the utilitarian

thinking behind his plan:

Ozymandias: Humanity’s savage nature will inevitably leadto global annihilation. So in order to save this planet Ihad to trick it with the greatest practical joke in history.

Night Owl: Killing millions?

Ozymandias: To save billions. A necessary crime.

Killing millions of people is morally justifiable for

Ozymandias as it ultimately saves the lives of billions of

people by preventing nuclear war. Should peace be sustained

between the United States and the Soviet Union then Ozymandias

will be vindicated as his actions will ultimately maximise

64

happiness throughout the world for a larger number of people.

Veidt’s plan in the original graphic novel of Watchmen is

slightly different from the one that he eventually formulates

in the film. In the graphic novel Veidt attempts to prevent

nuclear war by creating a giant creature that attacks New York

City in the hope that this will present the United States and

the Soviet Union with a common enemy and will lead to the two

nations uniting. Veidt’s plan in the movie chooses to change

from the original story in the source material and further

emphasises Veidt’s stance as a classical utilitarian as he has

to constantly kill people and be deceitful in order for his

plan to remain a secret. By increasing the amount of people

that Veidt eventually sacrifices in comparison to the source

material, Snyder’s adaptation further emphasises how far Veidt

is willing to go in his pursuit of maximising utility. Another

utilitarian element of Ozymandias’s actions is the fact he is

willing treat people as means to an end. He is willing to

deceive people by using them to serve his greater goals.

Another example of this can be seen after Ozymandias poisons

and kills his entire team of scientists who helped him design

his fusion bombs. After observing his assistants dead bodies

65

he says “sleep well gentlemen. Our new peaceful world will be

indebted to your great sacrifice.” The morally worrying thing

about these actions is that consequentialism “is letting Veidt

believe that he can force people to sacrifice their well-

being- indeed, their lives- for the greater good.” (Loftis

2009, p. 67) Kant believed that people are obligated to

“respect the basic rights of persons, because only a person is

capable of exercising a good will, and a good will is the only

thing that is truly good.” (Loftis 2009, p.74) By being

deceitful and using people merely as means to an end,

Ozymandias is not treating people with the dignity and respect

that Kant believes is morally required from each person.

Rorschach unlike Veidt, has an absolute view of morality as is

articulated and emphasised by the black and white colours on

his mask. He judges the morality of an action as right or

wrong, legal or illegal, just or unjust. His moral duty is to

ensure that justice is carried out within society and he

chooses to live his life as if the world were as it should,

filled with rational people who act out of good moral duty and

good will. He acts outside the law in order to uphold it as

‘for if justice goes, there is no longer any value in human

66

beings’ living on the earth’ (Held 2009, p.26) The topic of

justice is an area where Rorschach and Veidt have conflicting

moral views. While Rorschach will never compromise his morals

in the pursuit of justice, Vedit is willing to compromise

justice in his pursuit of maximising happiness throughout the

world. Rorschach’s moral duty to provide justice throughout

society can be seen in a scene where he interrogates a former

criminal vigilante named Moloch. (Matt Frewer) Rorschach

searches Moloch’s room and discovers that he illegal drugs

that are not prescribed. Moloch reveals that he has terminal

cancer and that the drugs are a short term remedy that helps

relieve his pain. Even though Moloch is only a matter of

months away from dying, Rorschach still decides to confiscate

the drugs as he seems them as a threat and a stance against

justice within society.

After Rorschach discovers Veidt’s plan he threatens to go to

the media and tell the entire world the truth that Veidt is

responsible for the international killings and is the person

behind Dr. Manhatton’s framing.

Rorschach: We were meant to exact justice. Everyone is going to know what you’ve done.

67

Ozymandias: Will they? By exposing me you would sacrificethe peace so many died for today.

Night Owl: Peace based on a lie.

Ozymandias: But peace nonetheless

While this would eradicate the peace that Veidt’s plan was

able to establish, as a deontologist Rorschach does not

consider the consequences of his action but only whether or

not his actions conform to his moral duty. Kant believed that

an action that is morally good “does not depend for its value

either on the results it produces or even the results it seeks

to produce. In holding this it rejects all forms of

utilitarianism.” (Paton 1947, p.58) So by adhering to

deontology, Rorschach would be morally justified even if his

actions lead to the reoccurrence of nuclear war between the

United States and the Soviet Union. After Veidt has gone

through with his plan and has sacrificed the lives of millions

of innocent people around the world in order to maintain,

Rorschach is faced with a huge ethical dilemma and has a

variety of different options open to him that he can consider

pursuing. One option open to Rorschach is that he can embrace

Veidt’s plan by concealing the truth from the public in order

to maintain peace via a lie. Choosing this option would mean

68

that Rorschach subscribes to Veidt’s utilitarian approach that

specifically holds that the moral worth of the act is derived

from the good consequences that it produces. Another option

would be to tell all of society that Veidt was actually

responsible for the killings and would therefore end peace and

once again instigate nuclear war between the United States and

the Soviet Union. This choice would signify that Rorschach

subscribes to deontology over utilitarianism as he would be

adhering to the second formulation of the categorical

imperative that states that we should treat other people with

dignity and respect. Kant states that the difference between

value and dignity is that something that has value can be

replaced with something else which is its equivalent in value.

However, dignity is an irreplaceable quality within people as

Richard Norman explains:

Persons are what give value to things. Persons themselves, therefore, as the source of value, must have a quite differentkind of worth; that which constitutes the condition under which alone anything can be an end in itself, this has not merely relative worth, that is, value, but an intrinsic worth,that is, dignity. (Norman 1983, p.121)

Norman is stating that dignity is important quality for people

to possess as it is an intrinsically good quality and is

69

therefore good in itself. In comparison value is relative as

the value of something depends on an individual’s personal

judgment of that thing. Kant also believed that respect for

others is important in that people should respect others

freedom to pursue personal interests through their own free

will and should only help others in their pursuits of their

personal interests when their actions are compatible with

level of respect. By maintaining peace via Veidt’s lie,

Rorschach would be not be showing the other people within

society any dignity or respect as he would be breaking his

moral law of treating others as ends and not simply as means

to an end. Rorschach ultimately decides that he would rather

die than exist in Veidt’s peaceful utopia that was brought

about by a lie and orders Dr. Manhatton to vaporise him.

Rorschach says that people should never “Never compromise, not

even in the face of Armageddon.” He is arguing that people

should never compromise or deviate from their moral duty to

uphold justice and the moral law. Even if acting out of moral

duty results in worse consequences, at least the action will

have been acted out of good will and good intentions and will

therefore maintain its moral value despite its unfortunate

70

consequences. “It is better to sacrifice life than to forfeit

morality. It is not necessary to live, but it is necessary

that, so long as we live, we do so honourably.” (Kant 1997,

p.373) Kant is stating that it is more important in principle

if a person is willing to stand by their personal moral

beliefs and die by them and that it is more important that a

person lives for their sense of moral duty rather than

avoiding that moral duty. Rorschach is so devoted to his moral

duties of maintaining justice, respecting others and telling

the truth that he is willing to die rather than betray the

moral code which he adheres to and lives by.

The final scene of the films reveals that Rorschach had kept a

journal throughout the entire film in which he had made a note

of every incident that had occurred throughout the film,

including Veidt’s utilitarian plan that massacred millions of

lives in order to establish peace. Before he died Rorschach

submitted his journal to a news agency. The last shot of the

film shows one of the newspaper interns picking up the journal

which implies that he might end up publishing it. If this were

to happen, then Veidt’s plan would have been all for nothing

and all of those innocent people’s lives would have been 71

sacrificed for no reason at all. If this were the case, then

from a utilitarian perspective, Veidt will have acted morally

wrong as the consequences of his actions would not have

ultimately produced the most amount of happiness for the

majority of people throughout the world. This is one of the

things that is argued against consequentialism. Just because

an act produces good consequences in the short term, it is not

a guarantee that the act will produce good consequences in the

long term.

This chapter has discussed the normative ethical theories of

classical utilitarianism and deontology within Zack Snyder’s

Watchmen. This chapter predominately discussed how these two

normative ethical theories conflict each other within the film

and how Snyder uses these contrasting ethical stances to

create a source of conflict for his characters within the

film. I have argued that Ozymandias ultimately adheres to

classical utilitarianism as he is willing to kill millions of

people in order to save billions more and will therefore

maximise happiness for the largest number of people throughout

the world. The utilitarianism within the film can be

juxtaposed with the character of Rorschach who abides by 72

Kantian deontological ethics. Rorschach morally disagrees with

Ozymandias’s plan as he believes that as it is deceitful and

treats people merely as an ends and is therefore morally

wrong. Rorschach believes that it should be people moral duty

to abide by universal moral laws and subscribes to the Kant’s

formulation of the categorical imperative that states that you

should treat all people with dignity, respect and never treat

them as a means to fulfil your own personal pursuits.

Rorschach’s devotion to Kantian deontology ultimately results

in his own death as he would rather die whilst staying true to

himself and his moral duties than lie in order to preserve

peace for the rest of mankind.

Conclusion

The focus of this dissertation was to analyse each of Zack

Snyder’s comic book and graphic novel adaptations from an

ethical and politically philosophical perspective. By doing

this I have established that various normative ethical

theories can be applied to each of these films through 73

specific characters moral actions and statements. The first

chapter discussed Snyder’s 300 and juxtaposed the

consequentialist ethical theories of classical utilitarianism

and ethical egoism. This juxtaposition highlighted the

different moral stances that Spartans and the Persians adhere

to within the film. I have argued that King Xerxes judges

morally right actions as one that provides the best overall

consequences for him and therefore he ultimately adheres to

ethical egoism. He is motivated purely be power and greed and

views that is only moral duty is to pursue what are in his

best interests. I also established that Xerxes is an

individual ethical egoist as he subscribes to the belief that

all people should serve his interests exclusively and that

this is displayed by the fact that he is willing to sacrifice

the lives of any of his own men in his pursuit of world

domination. King Leonidas and the Spartans on the other hand

stand for freedom and oppose Xerxes tyranny and oppression.

The Spartans utilitarian approach is evident as they engage

the Persians in battle in order to preserve Sparta’s liberty

along with the intent of maximising the largest amount of

happiness for the largest number of people throughout all of

74

Greece. John Stuart Mill’s principle of liberty was also

discussed in regards to the philosophical political approach

that Leonidas resorts to when he is faced with choice of

defying Spartan law by engaging in war without the council’s

permission or allowing Sparta to burn at the hands of the

Persian Empire. Mill’s principle of liberty states that no

government should exercise its power over an individual’s

freedom against their own will unless it is in the service of

preventing harm to others. By denying Sparta the opportunity

to defend itself in battle against the Persians, Leonidas

believes that the ephors and the council are condemning Sparta

to oppression and slavery and therefore exercises his power as

king of Sparta to defy the council and engage in war.

The second chapter looked at Snyder’s interpretation of

superman with Man of Steel. This chapter once again discussed

classical utilitarianism and compared it to the political

philosophy of both Mill and Plato. This chapter mainly

concentrated on Mill as a proponent of individualism within On

Liberty and Plato as a proponent of collectivism within The

Republic. Both of these iconic philosophical texts were

paralleled with the ethical perspectives and beliefs of a 75

number of the films primary characters. I established that

Krypton’s law of artificial population control is collectivist

as it is designed to make sure that every individual fulfils

their predetermined function within society and must therefore

sacrifice their own personal desires in the pursuit of

preserving a happy and peaceful society. Zod’s adherence to

this collectivist state and his drive to fulfil his moral duty

and obligation to Krypton by attempting to preserve his planet

and his race ultimately results in the films primary conflict

with Jor-El and superman. Zod’s adherence to collectivism is

juxtaposed with Jor-El’s adherence to individualism which

highlights Jor-El’s belief in diversity and change. Mill

believed that individuality and diversity are crucial within

society, as they produce creativity and progress and avoid the

social stagnation that can be created by collectivism and

conformism. By analysing Jor-El’s actions and words throughout

the film it is clear that he aligns himself to a similar form

of individualism and freedom to Mill. The natural birth of

Kal-El opposes the predetermined and collectivist law of

Krypton and the prime example of how Jor-El believes that

individual citizens should be free to choose what they wish to

76

pursue in life and not be obligated to fulfil a specific

function or role within society. This chapter also argued that

both Jonathan Kent and superman adhere to classical

utilitarianism as they are willing to sacrifice the lives of a

few in order to generate happiness for the majority of

society. This is highlighted in the scene where Jonathan

sacrifices his own life in a tornado in order to keep his

adoptive sons superpowers and alien identity a secret from the

rest of society. We also witness superman conform to

utilitarianism within the climatic scenes of the film when he

is forced to kill Zod in order to save the lives of an

innocent family under attack. By choosing to side with earth

over Krypton, superman denounces Zod’s totalitarian and

collectivist ethics and embraces individuality and freedom for

individuals within society.

Chapter three’s discussion revolved around Watchmen and how

the main conflict in the film comes from Rorschach’s and

Ozymandias’s contrasting ethical beliefs. This chapter

introduced deontological ethics and discussed theories such as

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperatives, moral duty and

universal moral law. This chapter also contrasted deontology 77

with utilitarianism and discussed how Rorschach’s pursuit of

eliminating crime, corruption and injustice within society is

formed out of Kant’s moral duty to do the rights things

irrespective of what consequences the actions may generate in

the future. The chapter also discussed how Rorschach’s

conformity with Kantian deontology is evident in his objection

to Ozymandias plan which is designed to lie to the world and

and treats people as a means rather than as an equals. However

the consequentialist Ozymandias believes that his actions are

morally right as though his plan may be intentionally

deceitful and will result in the death of millions of innocent

lives, it will ultimately secure peace on a much larger scale

for humanity. This established that Ozymandias adheres to

utilitarianism as his plan is designed with the purpose of

maximising the most amount of happiness for the largest number

of people throughout the world.

Each chapter also discussed Snyder’s use of long takes within

his films in order to emphasise the significance of a

characters ethical beliefs within a particular scene. Snyder’s

reoccurring use of this editing technique within his films

prolongs the length a single shot and highlights specific 78

scenes as ones with important ethical discussion as they are

drastically longer in comparison with the majority of shots

throughout his films. While each of these three films largely

consist of lengthy graphic and violent action sequences,

Snyder’s use of long takes provides a break from all of the

hectic fighting and establishes certain characters ethical and

moral beliefs by paying specific attention to the dialogue

within the scene.

A significant aspect of the varying ethical and political

theories that the characters in each of these films have is

that they define the characters moral perspective on how

society should function. Classical utilitarianism defines

Leonidas’s belief of maximising happiness for all of society

in the pursuit of freedom from tyranny. On the other hand

Individual ethical egoism defines and justifies Xerxes desire

to pursue his own happiness at the expense of everyone else.

Zod’s motives are made out of his devotion to collectivism and

his view that people exist in order to fulfil their specific

duty and function within society in order to preserve peace.

Individualism is what defines Jor-El’s belief that individuals

should be free to pursue their own personal interests and 79

should not be obligated to fulfil a role within society as

long as they do not impede on others freedom. Rorschach’s

deontological perspective means that he believes in upholding

justice regardless of its consequences while Ozymandias

utilitarian ethics means that he believes in aborting justice

in order to maximise happiness throughout the world. Each of

these ethical and philosophical views is very different from

each other and acts as the catalyst within each of Snyder’s

films as the primary source of ethical discussion and

conflict. While graphic novel adaptations and comic book

movies are becoming much more frequent within modern

mainstream cinema, the frequent themes of freedom and the

reoccurring ethical theories, themes and dilemmas allow his

films to stand out in comparison with the rest of the genre.

In conclusion this dissertation states that each of Zack

Snyder’s comic book and graphic novel adaptations presents

conflict through the contrasting normative ethical theories

and political philosophies that the characters adhere to

throughout each of his films.

80

Bibliography

81

Berger, F.R. (1997) ‘John Stuart Mill on Justice and

Fairness’. In: Lyons, D. (Ed.) Mill’s Utilitarianism: Critical Essays.

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pp.45-65.

Cross, R.C. & Woozley, A.D. (1964) Plato’s Republic: A Philosophical

Commentary. Hong Kong: Macmillan Education Ltd.

Crossman, R.H.S. (1963) Plato and the Perfect State. In:

Thorson, L.T (Ed.) Plato: Totalitarian or Democrat? Essays Selected and

Introduced by Thomas Landon Thorson. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Inc. pp.15-40.

Driver, J. (2006) Ethics: The Fundamentals. Malden, Mass; Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Gray, J. (1983) Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul Plc.

Held, J.M. (2009) Can We Steer This Rudderless World? In:

White, M.D. (Ed.) Watchmen and philosophy. Hoboken, New

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 19-31.

Hursthouse, R. (2001) Irresolvable and Tragic Dilemmas. [e-book]

Oxford: Oxford University Press

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/view/

82

10.1093/0199247994.001.0001/acprof-9780199247998-chapter-4

[Accessed 22 July 2014]

Kant, I (2007) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals In:

Shafer-Landua, R. (Ed.) Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Malden, Mass.;

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 525- 539.

Kant, I (1997) Lectures on Ethics. (Ed.) Heath, P. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Kuusela, O. (2011) Key Terms in Ethics. London; New York: Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Lindsay, A.D. (1919) The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. London;

Edinburg: T. Nelson & Sons, Ltd.

Loftis, J.R (2009) Means, Ends, and The Critique of Pure

Superheroes. In: White, M.D. (Ed.) Watchmen and philosophy.

Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 63-78.

Litch, M.M. (2010) Philosophy through Film. 2nd ed. London; New

York: Routledge

Mill, J.S. (1987) ‘Utilitarianism’. In: Ryan, A. (Ed.)

Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth: Penguin Group,

pp.272-338.83

Mill, J.S (1985) On Liberty, In: Warnock, M. (Ed.) Utilitarianism:

On Liberty: Essay on Bentham: together with selected writings of Jeremy

Bentham and John Austin. London: Fontana press. pp.126-250.

Mill, J.S. (1985) Utilitarianism. In: Warnock, M. (Ed.)

Utilitarianism: On Liberty; Essay on Bentham: together with selected writings of

Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. London: Fontana press. pp.251-

321.

Norman, R. (1983) The Moral Philosophers: An Introduction to Ethics.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Paton, H.J. (1947) The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral

Philosophy. London: Hutchinson’s University Library.

Plato (1974) The Republic. 2nd ed. Translated by Lee, D.

Harmondsworth: Penguin Group.

Popper, K.R. (1963) Plato as Enemy of the Open Society. In:

Thorson, L.T (Ed.) Plato: Totalitarian or Democrat? Essays Selected and

Introduced by Thomas Landon Thorson. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Inc. pp.41-102.

84

Rachels, J. (2000) ‘Ethical Egoism’. In Pojman, L.P. (Ed.) The

Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature. New York;

Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.549-556.

Raphael, D.D. (1981) Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Regis Jr., E. (1980) What is Ethical Egoism? Ethics, Vol. 91

(1), pp.50-62.

Riley, J. (1998) Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Liberty.

London: Routledge.

Ryan, M. & Lenos, M. (2012) An Introduction to Film Analysis: Technique

and Meaning in Narrative Film. New York; London: The Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Taylor, C.C.W. (1997) Plato’s Totalitarianism. In: Kraut, R

(Ed.) Plato’s Republic: Critical Essays. Maryland: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pp.31-48.

Tännsjö, T (2013) Understanding Ethics. 3rd ed. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Weber, T.D. (2000) Tragic Dilemmas and the Priority of the

Moral. The Journal of Ethics, Vol 4 (3), pp.191-209.85

White, M.D. (2013) ‘Moral Judgement: The Power That Makes

Superman Human’. In: Superman and Philosophy: What Would the Man of

Steel do? [e-book] New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp. 4-15.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/doi/10.

1002/9781118541821.ch1/pdf[Accessed 20 July 2014]

Filmography

300 (2007) dir. Zack Snyder, USA.

Watchmen (2009) dir. Zack Snyder, USA.

Man of Steel (2013) dir. Zack Snyder, USA.

Illustrations

Figure 1. King Leonidas. (2007) From: 300. Directed by Zack

Snyder. [Film still] USA: Legendary Pictures.

Figure 2. General Zod. (2013) From: Man of Steel. Directed by Zack

Snyder. [Film still] USA: Legendary Pictures.

Figure 3. Clark Kent and Jonathan Kent. (2013) From: Man of Steel.

Directed by Zack Snyder [Film still] USA: Legendary Pictures.

86

87