Narrative analysis, moved to AM&E
What… nobody watched X-Men when they were kids?
Well, you said it yourself, it was a hopeless battle. They needed to retreat, recover, and regroup like Cyclops ordered. Right?
The X-Men theme song brings back good memories 
…but Cyclops behaved deontologically cowardly!
Plus, perhaps they could have saved beast and hightailed it outta there, I didn’t write the description btw, from wiki.
Actually, if anything, Cyclops seems to have been more consequentialist and Wolverine deontological. Cyclops assessed the situation and judged that their chances of successfully getting to and extracting Beast were slim. Therefore, it’s a much better result to retreat and at least save the remainder of the crew than for everyone to die in vain. Wolverine on the other hand seemed to think that they ought to have stuck it out no matter the consequences.
Who can say whether the battle was hopeless or not? I think I would trust Cyclops’s judgement, though. Wolverine has a history recklessness.
Yeah I used to watch this when I was younger. I had one of those “oh yeah” moments when the theme music came on lol.
Fuse said Wolverine behaved deontologically - though I think you’re both right: one’s duty was sorta utilitarian, the other’s duty was to leave no man behind. Both subscribe to their own (conflicting in this case) “altruistic” duties.
I’d have to side with Wolverine. If Beast died, then everyone would have all been wondering “what if” they’d been able to save him. Better to have a shorter, more “yes-saying” life than a longer life of regret - but that’s just the Nietzschean in me.
In a sense, this is the more control-freak stance, which regards definite self-blame as better than leaving things up to someone/something else. Let’s say Rogue died in trying to save Beast, and they saved Beast and everyone else survived, who is to say Beast’s life was more important than Rogue’s? But they would have been in control that way around.
Even if only Wolverine, Cyclops and Beast survived if Wolverine had his way, there would have been more control - you would know you did everything you could. Even if Beast died as they tried to rescue him, perhaps because they tried to rescue him. Even if nobody survived - more control.
But then there would be regret if it all went tits-up from doing it Wolverine’s way: “if only they have trusted Cyclops’ judgement…”, so it’s not so much an issue of regret. In terms of Game Theory, Wolverine and myself would be going for the maximum win every time, at the risk of the highest loss. That approach doesn’t work as well in the long term as cutting your losses and moving on, achieving the moderate win more consistently - which adds up to a “better” outcome in terms of cold practicalities, just not necessarily in terms of conscience.
Sorry, but isn’t utilitarianism the most well-known form of consequentialism? It’s like saying “one’s duty was sorta consequentialist…”
A true yes-sayer wouldn’t have regrets in either case.
So to Sil, a life of mediocrity is not worth living, we should always aim for the stars, no matter how distant and how impossible. Very romantic and… vain.
I know, but from Wolverine’s point of view, Cyclops behaved deontologically cowardly, from Cyclops’ view, wolverine behaved consequentially foolishly.
I tend to agree with this. In assessing the danger, clearly Cyclops was behaving rationally and Wolverine, emotionally.
He failed to take into account the risks… no surprise there.
I wouldn’t say he failed to take the risks into account. I would say he knew them but was compelled to take them anyway.
His deontology is based around taking any risks to not leave any man behind, whereas Cyclops’ is based around cutting losses based on probabilities of emerging best off as a whole. So Cyclops is more bigger picture and Wolverine is more about the details.
I don’t think I said a life of mediocrity is not worth living, did I?
And I don’t think I said we should always aim for the stars, because they are indeed too distant and impossible. I’m neither a romantic, nor vain.
Just because I support a life that isn’t merely mediocre, that instead says “yes” to opportunities to jump higher (if they are presented as realistically possible) that doesn’t mean that I automatically condemn any alternative as worthless.
A true yes-sayer wouldn’t have said no to risks. So there wouldn’t be an “either case” for them - just the Wolverine one. But as it is, since Cyclops got his way, Wolverine is plagued by regret. I don’t think they would have regretted going back for Beast, even if they suffered greater losses in doing so.
Yes that’s right. I wasn’t refuting your labelling of consequentialism with my labelling of utilitarianism. I don’t even count the two as having any difference. Deciding according to consequence is deciding that the consequence has the greater utilty (deciding on “unuseful” consequences is a contradiction, since one is finding use in such a process). Deciding according to greatest utility is deciding about the consequent amount of usefulness.
Both the deontologies relevant to this thread are based on the consequences/utilities - in either dutifully leaving no man behind or dutifully vouching for the highest probably survival rate. Though I can conceive of instances of consequentialism that are not exactly dutiful, or deontological.
Or you could say, Wolverine’s morality is based on virtue, courage is always good, and cowardice is always bad, no matter what the outcome.
Or you could also say what you said, a satisfactory outcome (lose two men, save six) isn’t an option for Wolverine. It has to be the best, or nothing at all. This makes Wolverine a kind of perfectionist, when it comes to battle. This makes Wolverine a… maximalist consequentialist (just coined it). A maximalist consequentialist always aims for the best outcome, no matter how impossible. The opposite would either be a minmalist consequentialist (always aims for a satisfactory result), or a rational consequentialist (aims for the best result possible… what Cyclops aimed for).
Oh and I’m not sure he was aware of the risks, as fuse pointed out, Wolverine has been known to make brash, reckless decisions. Would Wolverine have been happy, if they went back for Beast and Morph, and as a result, Wolverine wound up in jail and all the other X-men wound up dead. Would he say to himself, well, at least we tried, at least we didn’t punk out… I think not. It’s simple math. Leave-- 5 X-men live, 2 X-men could live or die. Stay-- all X-men could live, but all X-men could die. Staying-- on average amounts to 3.5 X-men living. Leaving-- on average amounts to 6 X-men living. Why put 5 X-men in grave, grave danger to save two? It doesn’t make logical sense.
Always be careful about throwing terms like “best” around.
Best in what sense?
Logically emerging with more men at the end according to probabilities?
That’s not the only kind of “best”.
He would have thought that. But he would also be thinking about how to get out and take revenge. Being macho is often associated with brash recklessness, and maybe it is some kind of “maximalist” consequentialism. Treating people as numbers of men is too detached for this type, their disregard toward risk is out of an abundance of attachment and compulsion to confront fears and take them on - much like in all your American Hollywood war films, where no man gets left behind.
It’s simple math to Cyclops - when one equates rational with best and “emerging with more men at the end according to probabilities”.
To Wolverine it’s not about living longest and winning the war, it’s about winning all the battles and living hardest despite the risks and the probable shortness of one’s life. Tactically unsound, but relevant to a different problem entirely: that of a full, yes-saying life.
So a yes-sayer can have only immediate short-term goals?
A yes-sayer would be achieving any long-term goals they have through immediate short-term goals.
I’m not saying Wolverine has any long-term goals, I’m not so sure he does - I’ve never been into X-men enough to be sure. I think he’s interested in the people who gave him his new skeleton or whatever they did, but I don’t think there’s anything beyond that. He’s still a yes-sayer, but not the only kind of yes-sayer.
A yes-sayer with long-term goals would not be saying no as a means to his yes ends. Short and long are compatible.
Yeah, I suppose there’s many kinds of best, a Vulcan’s (Cyclops) best is not a Klingon’s (Wolverine) best.
I wonder, is there anyway to universally judge which morality is superior? Is there a universal standard for judging particular standards?
I’d also be careful in equating masculinity with Wolverine’s morality, and feminity with Cyclops’ morality. Afterall, aren’t males suppose to be rational and females emotional? We often associate masculinity with rationality, but we also associate masculinity with courage. Perhaps in this context, there’s a masculine way of feeling (courage), a feminine way of feeling (cowardice), a masculine way of thinking (universal justice), and a feminine way of thinking (particular altruism). Hmmm, am I wrong in associating virtue ethics more with feeling and consequentialism more with thinking? I think there’s a correlation. By universal justice I mean, when morally thinking, males tend to maximize favourable consequences for the whole, respective of justice, where as when females morally think, they tend to maximize favourable consequences for their friends and family, irrespective of justice.
I’m not interested in a full, yes-saying life, sometimes I say yes, sometimes I say no, and sometimes I say nothing.
In my opinion? No. And I don’t think this is a problem, either. I think the assumption of hierarchy and single truth is a problem, but that’s just the post modernist in me.
Just to carry on our “I’d be careful” tennis match, your male/female dichotomies are misleading - I’d be careful about seeing each sex in quite as black and white terms as you are. I find there are very general differences in many members of the one sex compared to the other, but there is no way that this is enough to separate them each into distinct categories with regard to things such as rationality vs. emotionality, courage vs. cowardice and justice vs. egoism/altruism etc.
For example, there are many emotional and cowardly men in the world compared to many women, yet they are still distinctly physically male. Likewise there are many rational and courageous women in the world compared to many men, yet they are still distinctly physically female. For all the physical differences in sexual make-up, the overwhelming factor contributing to one’s personality is consistently environment. Environment can only influence within the bounds of one’s genetics, so it is restricted, but it ends up making all the difference in so many cases, regardless: hence the huge overlap between characteristics of either sex.
I bring up the word “macho” less in relation to its derivation and associations with masculinity, and more in relation to its assertive and dominant associations. This is wolverine all over, and it just so happens he’s a man - but that is not the only reason he is macho. No doubt he is emotionally led and very much about virtue ethics, but he is no less macho because of it and he is still very much male. In fact he is probably more macho because of it.
Ok.
Okay I might understand, but the idea is still a bit hazy to me. Can you come up with another phrase to describe a “yes-sayer”?
A yes sayer can say even no. But conditionally. When he is ready and able and especially when he is sure. And it really matters really wether he is saving himself for others, or using a theory of a beutiful mind, soul, or regress to a lower more primitive/childish optimism/faith.OR, saving others for himself.(Example : wittgenstein could look at any picture for hours as long it was moving:::went to theatres (movie) and didn’t care what was showing, as long as it was film)
Duuude…I loved this show when I was kid. Loved it.
There was also another really cool show about this guy who had a glove with special powers and he was actually a descendent from reptilians. Anyone remembers that? I think it was produced by Spielberg.
Edit: I can’t find the damn thing.
But in the mean time, I remembered another show that was the best cartoon/anime show I have ever seen. Evangelion. I actually re watched the whole show a few months ago.