I would like to look back at the scene from X-men, where,
during the kidnapping of Rogue from the train station, Charles Xavier holds
Magneto at his mercy. Knowing Charles as well as he does, Magneto calls his
bluff by holding the surrounding police force hostage. Thus, Charles is left
with two choices: release Magneto, or kill him.
Now, at this point we’re fairly familiar with Magneto as a
character. Experiencing the Holocaust as a child defined his life, and he’s
very paranoid when it comes to seeing the worst in a government. As such, he
easily jumps to the extreme in the grand debate of Mutants vs. Humans, and
seems willing to do anything to “save” the mutants from the humans in power. In
the case of the movie, this is evidenced by his decision to sacrifice a
teenaged girl in cold blood to further his plot.
Additionally, in X-2, we see that Magneto is willing to
escalate when he orders a brain-washed Charles to kill all of the humans. In a
word, Magneto is genocidal. Therefore, the question remains: Should Charles
have killed Magneto when he had the chance? More than that, how does the
decision to not kill affect Charles as a hero figure? Should heroes be willing
to kill their monsters – to kill one to save a hundred? Well, I’ll let you
answer that. Although, during the assault on the school in X-2, Wolverine seems
to think so.
That being said, I feel this question is a little harder to
find an answer for within the context of X-men. After all, Charles and Magneto
were once fast friends, and it’s also a matter of discrimination – which could make
either choice justifiable. In X-men, I feel the line is blurred a bit more than
it needs to be. So I now ask the same question in a different context: Batman
vs. The Joker.
It is safe to say that The Joker is – in all of the DC continuities I can think of off the top of my head – an omnicidal maniac, who will do whatever he can to rile up Batman. The Joker possesses few, if any, redeeming qualities. Meanwhile, Batman “never” kills – he very rarely does, but let’s ignore that for now – because it’s against his moral fiber. Therefore, taking our definitions and discussions of what a hero is, should a hero be willing to kill in what is clearly the defense of others? How does making such a decision affect their being a hero in our eyes?
Personally, I’m of the opinion that a hero should – which is
not to say that they should go on killing sprees – because a situation
sometimes calls for it. For such an example, I jump back to Batman vs. The Joker.
I feel like Gotham would be a much saner and safer place without The Clown
Prince of Crime. But I am also of two minds when it comes to answering this
question, because it does make me
question Batman’s integrity as a hero. He’s already a frightening vigilante,
and being willing to take that extra step would make him even easier to fear.
Sources:
X-Men. Dir. Bryan Singer. 20th Century Fox, 2000. DVD.
X2. Dir. Bryan Singer. 20th Century Fox, 2003. DVD.
You pose an interesting question when you ask, “Should Charles have killed Magneto when he had the chance?” I am not so sure that he should have. I do not think it is in Xavier’s character to do so. Did killing Magneto have the potential to save hundreds of lives? Possibly, but if he had would Xavier still be the character he was created to be? I guess the question I have is, is Xavier capable of killing? Does he have the same level of fear and hatred that enables Magneto to make those permanent decisions? Perhaps he does and this is merely an issue of the history he has with Magneto. Furthermore, if Xavier had killed Magneto would that have changed the way his team looked to and followed him?
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the Trolly Problem in Ethics, where one must decide whether to save an individual or a group of people. If Xavier chooses to save the rest of humanity, he will be choosing to kill Magneto.On the other hand, if he allows Magneto to live, Xavier is agreeing to put the lives of everyone else at risk. There is no clear answer to Xavier's Problem or the Trolly Problem, but we can look at both through two different ethical theories. The first, a deontological view, would say that killing is universally immoral therefore killing Magneto to save the rest is immoral. The second, a consequentialist view, would say the end justifies the means therefore killing Magneto is the moral choice in order to ensure the safety of the majority. Both views make a good case, but there is no clear solution to these types of problems.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about Batman refusing to kill the Joker is an interesting one - does his consistency in his refusal weaken or strengthen his heroism (if that's how you view his actions) or his cause? Popular (in-universe) opinion sees Batman as a vigilante, like you said, so would killing the Joker merely further that perception or would it lessen it? The people of Gotham could see themselves as rid of an evildoer, or they could see it as further proof of Batman's "amoral" brand of justice - or murder. In the case of the X-men, and Charles in particular, I think that being a leader - and we heavily associate heroes with leaders - means seeing situations as clearly as possible and being willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. The real question, though, is this: what is the greater good, and who decides it? Who decides what's right and what's wrong? Who has the power to make those decisions?
ReplyDelete