Nathan Key

My good friend Chris has argued for some time that the right to life is a progressive rights issue rather than a Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal issue. Today, I want to add some of my own thoughts to what he's already begun.

* * *

The founders of the United States of America, as influenced by Hobbes and Locke, were certain that human beings were, at the very least, entitled to three thing: their Life, Liberty, and Property (yes, I'm aware of that famous "Pursuit of Happiness" line, but the rest of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Articles of the Confederacy, etc don't really spend much time on happiness so I think it was a flowery line they meant but didn't really care about.).

They didn't always uphold these rights (i.e. slavery), but I believe they made a pretty noble go at it and in the process laid the groundwork for the progressive rights and liberties that we enjoy today.

But these three are not always equal to each other in importance. At least, they aren't equal once you begin to interact with other people. Eventually, when other people enter the mix, there's bound to be some sort of conflict when two people have competing interests and a "right" to their actions or person. So when these rights conflict with each other, we need to have a keen understanding of which rights are the most important to uphold.

I think that the way that they are articulated in the Declaration of Independence and outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America serves as a valid hierarchy.

Thus Life come first, then Liberty, then Property.

Therefore, I have the right to use a gun (property). I have the right to point it in any direction (liberty). But, I don't have the right to pull the trigger when another man is standing in front of me (life).

Therefore, I have the right to use my body sexually (my person=my primary property). But, I cannot use my sexuality in a way that deprives another person of their choice (rape deprives another person of their liberty).

As rights have become more and more progressive, we've decided that even animals have the right to life and liberty. A person cannot attack or abuse an animal without paying fines or serving prison sentences (in extreme cases). In fact, if PETA has their way, we won't be allowed to use animals for food or clothing if they have to give their lives for us to use them.

So we see that the right to life is becoming progressively more and more important in our hierarchy. We value it above all other rights.

Except the lives of those who haven't been born yet.

* * *

NOTE: What comes next is written toward our POLICY on abortion and NOT toward those men and women who are actually deciding whether or not to have an abortion. Please accept this distinction because I am not trying to compare women who are making tough choices to either of the criminal examples that follow.

* * *

We never allow a rapist to argue- "it's my body, I get to choose what to do with it" if he violates another human being's right to liberty. His derogation of another person's rights is unacceptable.

Likewise, we never allow a murderer to argue- "it's my property and liberty at stake here, I can shoot wherever and whenever I want" if he violates another another human being's right to life. His derogation of another person's rights is also unacceptable.

But for some reason, when it comes to the lives of unborn children- we still value the property (mother's body) and liberty (choice) of individuals rather than the life (the right to be born once conceived) of children.

Do dogs really have more of a right to their own life than embryos do?

* * *

Now, before I get a bunch of comments on Women's Rights and how a reversal of Roe V Wade would be a step backward for women...

I completely understand the limited rights that women have had in the duration of the history- especially in conjunction with pregnancy. Please understand that this is not an attempt to "put women in their place" or limit their ability to choose.

This is a discussion on Universal Rights and whether or not life is more important that property and liberty. So, if you're really offended that I'm bringing this up- I'm really sorry that you feel this way but I'd love to hear a sound argument for why an individual would deserve to have their rights to their body and their choices protected over the actual life of another human being.

Also- Please understand that this is not an attack against every single abortion decision. Aborting a pregnancy should never be completely off the table! For there are times when it needs to be available.

For instance:

When the life of a woman is put into danger by the life of an embryo, I believe that she's entitled to make the choice to terminate her pregnancy. This falls into the same category as when the need arises to separate conjoined twins. There is usually a risk of losing one of them in the process, but when two lives are at stake it's a different discussion than when it's just one life at stake.

Or to put it another way, there is a different dilemma in life vs. life rights than when it's property rights or liberty rights vs. life rights.

But for the purpose of this discussion, I believe that life trumps property and liberty every time. Therefore, without bringing religion into the mix at all, I believe that as people who respect Human Rights we need to rethink our policy on abortion.

But that's just me... What do you think?

My son is one year old today.
Happy Birthday, Kiddo!

"Who are we saving them from?" asks NiteOwl in a moment of concern.

"From themselves." Answers the Comedian as he takes a drag from his cigar, grins like a fool and tosses a smoke bomb toward a young man. As the bomb explodes we see that he's been spraying 'Who Watches the Watchmen' on the darkened wall of an alley.

* * *

When viewing Watchmen in the Theater, I was struck by how dark their world truly was. One film critic remarked that it was the darkest, most serious superhero film ever made- one without "comic" appeal. There wasn't even a moment of jest or comic relief to break up the brooding tension. It was serious, slow, and violent.

I'd honestly be surprised if anyone outside of fans of the graphic novel could sit through it without being bored to tears or utterly confused. At 2:35 it's a long trip through the darkness of man's heart.

About halfway into the film (when I was sitting there thinking, "yup, it's pretty much the same as the book only trimmed down to the point where it's going to seem ridiculous to all the people who haven't bothered delving into the real version") I suddenly became really overwhelmed by the words Nietzsche put in the mouth of his Madman Character to mourn the loss of God. I firmly believe that although he was convinced that God did not exist that he was equally convinced that the idea of God was a good thing and that in killing the idea of God, the would would be worse off:

"Where is God?" [The Madman] cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?"

Do you hear the sorrow in his prose?

This profound sense of loss that Nietzsche relates in his parable was also indicative of the film Watchmen. In it there is a heavy sadness. It's a world where men have usurped the law and enacted their own sense of justice. They're a cold bunch, full of flaws. They're practically criminals (some of them, like Rorschach are definitely criminals) and they rule the world around them- sometimes reluctantly- as it slips further into perversion and debauchery.

* * *

My own personal opinion is that this film is a great picture of what happens when men abandon God and set themselves up in His place. It becomes a terrible place where violence begets violence and the only way to find peace it through fear. Adrien knows this, and that's why he enacts his master stroke- blowing up the world to save the world.

The apostle Paul knew it too. In fact, much of the first chapter of his letter to the Romans seems to give a similar picture of darkness and fear. The world does become colder when its inhabitants try to play Ubermensch. That's just the way it works.

* * *

A few questions to wrap up WATCHMEN WEEK:

1. Whether or not you believe in God- do you believe that the idea of God is a good thing that should be mourned when it's missing from society?

2. Do you think that people respond better to fear or love?

3. Have you ever read a philosopher you disagreed with and found some truth there regardless?

* * *

* Those who avoid reading Nietzsche because he's associated with the phrase "God is Dead" miss out on a lot of his great contributions to Philosophy. It's true that he was an Atheist- but if we consider his teachings without condemning his beliefs, he's actually got a lot of interesting things to say about what life is like when people reject the idea of God.

One can reject the idea of God without debating whether or not God exists- for "killing God" in society or in your heart doesn't depend on His existence. Plenty of people who believe that God exists still reject Him. So talking through Nietzsche doesn't mean that we become Atheists, it means that we admit that we live in a culture who have in some ways "killed God" by ignoring or rejecting Him outright.

This is going to be a very short post today because my parents are on their way over to help us celebrate ONE YEAR with our little boy Ethan. Hopefully, tomorrow I'll be able to finish a post I've been working through in Nietzsche's superman and the dark nature of the Watchmen World. Until then, here's some brief thoughts on fear...

* * *

At the end of the film version (the ending is different than the book, in case you didn't know this), Lori wonders if peace will truly last. Dan answers by muttering a line that's stuck with me this past week: "As long as people think Jon's watching us, we'll be alright..."

Jon is blamed for the destruction of cities all over the world. So as long as he's still out there- an enemy waiting to strike- perhaps the world had better behave.

* * *

Or to put it another way: "as long as people are scared of some mutual enemy- we'll be alright."

* * *

Pluggedin-Online made the assumption that this was a subtle reference to God- the Old Testament version that many see as vindictive and fearful. Does Jon represent "god" for a lot of people? An omniscient being that dishes out punishment whenever we cross Him?

My friend Seth made another connection. The WTC towers (featured prominently at least 3 times in the film) allude to the fact that this film is about terrorism. Perhaps Jon represents Osama Bin Ladin and other terrorist cells? As long as we know he's out there, planning and plotting, are we liable to let the government do what they will with our lives?

At the end of Watchmen, we're left with a really important question:

Do we tell truth and reveal the reality of the situation? or Do we keep silent and let everyone believe what they want about the things that have just occurred?

For those of you who have NO idea what I'm talking about- at the end of Watchmen, Adrien Veidt blows up New York City (and a few other cities in the movie). It's his master plan to create peace... In a world on the brink of nuclear war, he creates a bigger, badder enemy who is able to wipe them all out. The unification of fear is a powerful thing.

But for the plan to work, no one can know that it was masterminded by Adrien. They must think that it was an Alien Invasion (in the book) or Jon's frustration (in the movie).

World Peace hangs delicately on ignorance.

Rorschach, who doesn't have the ability to get beyond the black and whiteness of the issue, is bound and determined to tell the world what has transpired. He pays for it with his life.

* * *

In the Christian Bible, there's a passage where a prostitute named Rahab lies to protect the lives of some Hebrew Spies who are hiding with her in the city of Jericho. Later, in the letter to the Hebrews, the writer tells us that she is to be praised for her FAITH by hiding and protecting them.

Her lie is actually considered Faith?

It's so strange that in a book that's used to promote honesty and truthfulness (we swear on the Bible to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" in court) such a contradiction would occur. I wonder if it's possibly that our understanding of truthfulness and honesty is a little smaller than what's required of us? Perhaps there's more to THE TRUTH than simply speaking accurately about events that have transpired.

Perhaps The TRUTH is bigger than a specific event?

* * *

What do YOU think?

1. If you knew that peace had been obtained through a lie- would you expose it?

2. What if it were economic gain that secured your job in a company? Would you keep silent so you could keep your company in business?

3. What a friend or a relative committed a crime? Would you make their actions known or stay silent to protect them?

4. What if (and here's the biggest Ethical Dilemma) there are Nazis at your door asking about the Jews you have hiding in your attic? Do you tell them the truth, or lie to protect the lives of those living with you?

5. When is it OK to lie? When is it wrong?

"Evil, Evil Adrien Veidt.He's like Hitler, only a little less mustached."
That's what many people will say on their way out of the theater after viewing Watchmen. And anyone who skimmed through the book probably has a similar opinion- they've missed out on the subtle (and often not so subtle) hints that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons dropped throughout the novel, pointing us to Hiroshima & Nagasaki rather than the Third Reich.

NOTE: These hints are practically missing from the film entirely- so don't bother looking for them.

The most telling hint is the logic that Adrien uses when revealing how important it is for him to perpetuate mass murder- in order to save humanity. His conversation is similar to what I imagine the American War Room was like when they were deciding to drop nuclear warheads on Japan during WWII.

* * *

Historical Fiction: President Truman and the War Room

General 1: "Mr. President, do you realize how hard our boys fought to secure Iwo Jima? We lost more soldiers capturing that island that the entire Allied Forces spent trying to invade Normandy!"

Truman: "Yes, General. I understand, but I don't see why this means that we need to destroy an entire city with nuclear weapons."

General 2: "Sir, we had to kill almost every Japanese Soldier! They wouldn't surrender. 21,000 Japanese soldiers were on that island when we landed and we only managed to save 1,000 of them. They wouldn't stop- they wouldn't surrender. Imagine what sort of battle we're in for if we try to take this to the mainland?"

General 1: "Mr. President, this bomb is going to SAVE lives. Not only American lives, sir- but Japanese lives as well. If they're willing to fight until it's hopeless, we're simply speeding up the process here and helping them see that they're outnumbered and outwitted."
Truman: "You men think that killing thousands of innocent people is the only way to ensure surrender?"

General 2: "I'm thinking about it in terms of acceptable loss. We could go in there, kill millions of Japanese and American soldiers in a ground war that could last years on end. Or, we could drop this bomb, sacrifice a few hundred thousand people and ensure their surrender within weeks."

General 1: "I think those are acceptable losses, Mr. President."

Truman: "Gentlemen, you make a compelling argument. I'll give you my decision in the morning."

* * *

OK, this isn't exactly the same conversation that Adrien Veidt has with the other Watchmen as he reveals his plan to blow up New York City (and a number of other cities, too, in the film)- but the logic is close enough to serve our purposes.

Adrien's really did want to save lives through violence and it was this same line of reasoning that allowed the United States to drop nuclear weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. So when we finish reading (or watching) Watchmen, a question should be raised (and isn't whether or not Adrien is good or bad. He is fictional so ultimately it doesn't really matter. Instead, a better question to ask is whether or not our own decision to drop Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ethical and appropriate. After all, our decision cost hundreds of thousands of REAL lives, while Adrien's only represents fictional characters.

* * *

What do you think?

1. Was is a good decision to drop Nuclear Weapons on Japan?

2. If Yes, what do you think about Adrien's Decision?

3. Does the fact that Adrien is a single person making this decision rather than an entire country make any difference in how you answer?

Final Thought: Adrien is probably the biggest vigilante of them all because he doesn't simply limit himself to micro-justice, but fights for peace on a global level... interesting...

This week, I'm going to delve into the movie Watchmen. If you haven't seen the movie or read the comic then you'll probably want to avoid my blog for a few days- especially since I'm not going to do the *Spoiler Alert* thing- save this disclaimer. We're dealing with source material that's a quarter century old. It's open game as far as I'm concerned...

* * *

I had a friend walk out of the movie Watchmen during the scene where The Comedian attempts to rape the Silk Spectre. Another friend of mine sent me a text message moments before I went to see the film, warning me that the movie was one long depiction of violence against women (based on that scene and a few others where women are hurt, killed, or beaten).

Having read the graphic novel prior to viewing the film, I knew that these particular scenes would be in the story, so I went anyway, because I wanted to write about it this week.

As it turned out, however, the film version was a bit more intense (and less meaningful) than the novel and so I'm not really sure how I feel about the choice to include these scenes.

In the book, violence against women (by one character) was an important piece of the story- not because of the actual acts of violence- but rather because these acts spoke volumes about the man who was doing them. The man who attempts to rape a fellow vigilante, later kills a pregnant woman in Vietnam (pregnant with HIS child), and also seems to enjoy lobbing smoke grenades into a crowd of protesters. He's depicted as a monster who is trying to save the world from monsters.

It's ironic (or at least strange coincidence).

This entire character description is there so that we can delve into the way that another character, Lori (the Silk Spectre 2), is dealing with her own emotions about this monster of a man. She is the daughter of the woman he tried to rape and she knows about the violence he perpetuated against her mother. She knows this man is a horrible wretch of a person and in the wake of his death there's anger simmering within her toward him and confusion over why her own mother doesn't seem to hate him any longer.

When she discovers that he is actually her father (not by the rape, but through a different encounter with her mother), it's a twist almost as grand as Darth Vader's revelation that he is, in fact, Luke's father. We feel the despair set it and the absolute hatred that she must feel toward this man- and also the miracle that out of such a brutal man could come such a wonderful woman.

The film, however, didn't do a very good job dealing with these conflicting emotions. It didn't dwell on Lori's story enough for us to really understand how The Comedian's life (and death) were bothering her. Thus, the violence perpetuated against women and the revelation scene that this monster was, in fact, Lori's father seemed pretty cheap and contrived (especially to anyone who hadn't read the book before going to see the film).

Rather than irony, the violence was reduced to the insertion of some action into the plodding narrative. Not meaningful or useful as far as I'm concerned.

* * *

This morning, I read a stunning article by Mary Mackey about women, violence, and film. You can read it here.

If you don't feel like reading it, here's a short summary: Mackey makes the argument that Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a symbol of how men view women; as meat, meant to be slaughtered and tormented so that the males of our human race can feel powerful and strong.

* * *

I wonder if that's how my friend felt when she saw the violence perpetuated against women in the film Watchmen?

I believe that in the graphic novel this violence had a point. I'll get into it later in the week, but a lot big theme of Watchmen is picturing the sorrow that Nietzsche felt over "the death of God." The fact that these "gods" have fatal flaws that make them violent and gruesome was practically the point.

But in the film version, this explanation seems flimsy.

Why, then, included any of these scenes at all? Couldn't Zach Snyder figure out a way to vilify The Comedian in some other way if he wasn't planning on making these acts of violence mean anything? Or was that his point- to create a world of meaningless violence?

* * *

Hopefully you took the time to read Mary Mackey's article. After digesting her assessment of violence against women and the (unintentionally) meaningless violence against women in Watchmen:

1. Do you feel that it was a poor choice to include these scenes in the film version of Watchmen?

2. What could Director Zach Snyder have done differently to either eliminate or redeem his use of violence against women?

3. Do you feel like this is an overreaction? Why or why not?

Does One Man Have the Right to Decide What's Right For All?

I'm going to be honest for a moment here, I'm playing catch-up on Season 3 of Heroes and so I've only seen one of the episodes in chapter four. That said, I'm speaking from the vantage point of ignorance, and Nathan Petrelli may have sprung off into a different realm by now... who knows.

But, I digress.

Throughout each season of Heroes, Nathan Petrelli seems to be the object of an awful lot of attention, appropriately so, seeing as he's either running for elected office or in a position of power and influence. Season One saw Nathan being used as a pawn by The Company and Linderman and in the first portion of Season Three, it seems Nathan's father has similar intentions.

And eventually, they get to him.

Where I left off, Nathan has basically declared war on his own kind. He's become a one man army, hunting down those with abilities in an attempt to save them from themselves (and also spare the rest of humanity). The first episode of Chapter Four looks an awful lot like the current political ideology regarding Terrorism since 2001- round up anyone suspicious before they can harm themselves and others!

But rather than getting into an ideological discussion on whether or not it's appropriate to preemptively detain innocent people (just in case they are a danger to others), I want to steer the discussion in a different direction.

Here's the question:
Who has the right to make such a bold proclamation?
In the United States, we practice a modified version of democracy called a "representative democracy." This means that we elect public officials who we trust to be "our voice" on matters of public policy. Hypothetically, these elected officials are supposed to act in the interests of the people they represent (although they rarely do). So, as an elected official Nathan Petrelli, is supposed to be acting not only on his own behalf- but on behalf of anyone who has elected him.

But here's the thing- Nathan's first "election" was rigged, and now he's in the senate by appointment. So, he was never actually elected as the voice of the people... This means that although he's in a position that's typically seen as a representitive role, he is in fact, there on his own. He's being given the power to make choices on behalf of people who didn't choose to have him there.

That being the case:

- Who is Nathan accountable to?
- Does he have the right to wage war on people with abilities?
- Do his actions actually represent the America he lives in and "serves" or are they his alone?

Will Our Questions Ever Be Answered?

Although Heroes is mainly a show about humans with supernatural abilities (or evolved abilities depending on which way you look at it), within this backdrop the creators have used this platform as an arena to explore some of the basic questions we all have about life and philosophy. Questions like:

Why do so many among us go so horribly wrong? What makes some walk the path of darkness while others choose the light? Can we ever hope to understand the force that shapes the soul? Does the hero or the villain inside us win the day? What happens when trust is lost? Where do we run, when things we believe in vanish before our eyes?

Sci-Fi in particular has always been a playground for philosophical speculation because there's the ability within fiction to create similar worlds with just enough difference (whether it's the future or another planet or a dystopia) that we can detach ourselves from our current situation and explore issues of humanity with an open mind.

That said, a constant theme in Heroes is our understanding of good and evil. With each episode, new depth is added to every character- making them good one moment and then evil the next. We are always left wondering: Is Sylar really a bad guy or is he simply misunderstood? Is Nathan Petrelli going to further his career or look out for those in need? Is Noah really protecting Claire or is his harboring her for his own benefit? And is "the Company" an entity of evil or is it really making the world a better place?

While it seems confusing at times, the struggle within each character over their "dark side" really echoes the world we live in. It would be nice if everything were black and white with a firm divide between good guys and bad guys- but the reality we live with is that each one of us has a little good and a little evil dwelling within us.

We aren't perfect and we aren't perfectly bad, either.

And so throughout history, humans have asked these questions and wondered about what the answers are. And after a few thousand years of asking, we're no closer to solid answers than when we began. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether God made us this way or whether we choose this ourselves or whether there is no ultimate meaning to anything other than living and dying well. Every answer, no matter how thoughtful and researched leaves some room for doubt.

No, we won't have answers- but we can still ask the questions. And that's what makes philosophy fun. It's a practice of prying into the human condition and figuring out what sort of puzzles we can get ourselves into.

Philosophy takes faith, too. Faith that even if we don't have all the answers, we can continue to ask questions even when resolution eludes us.

For today's blog to work, I'm going to ask my Creationist friends to remember that the world of Heroes is a fictional place where evolution is active and changing people into the "next form" of humanity. This isn't the world that God created, it's the world that Tim Kring created and in it- evolution is the force that changes our DNA. Please consider this before jumping to the conclusion that I've lost my faith (or whatever).

* * *

Does Sylar have an Evolutionary Imperative to Murder?

Sylar, one of the major villains in the Heroes World, is notorious for splitting open the heads of individuals with special abilities, rooting through their brain, and taking their "powers." Instead of feeling remorse over the resulting death of the individuals whose brain he has compromised, Sylar's greed propels him to lustfully hunt down those with abilities so he can claim their power as his own.

Some argue (in fact, I think he's argued) that it's an evolutionary imperative. He was born to take what belongs to others and he's merely living out his purpose by killing and taking.
Does this sound at all similar to the logic the Third Reich used to perpetuate genocide? Anyone?

Two main philosophers have a hold on what we might refer to as "Evolutionary Ethics." The first is Charles Darwin, who argued that human beings (the sociable creatures that they are) must adhere to a path of mutual cooperation in order to survive. In other words, humans are a herd animal that thrives and survives by creating and defending their own lives and the lives of those in community with them.

Darwin, therefore, would argue that for sociable creatures to murder each other would be evil because it would threaten the ability of the species to survive.

The other philosopher who concerned himself with "Evolutionary Ethics" is a man by the name of Herbert Spencer. Spencer is, of course, known as the father of Social Darwinism- that cruel ethic that some use to rationalize the holocaust and any other ethnic cleansing. In it, he argues that since the strongest ideas and cultures are the best ones, that aiding those who are weak, impoverished, and old is destructive to that which is right and good. Or to quote him: "to aid the bad in multiplying, is, in effect, the same as maliciously providing for our descendants a multitude of enemies..."

Back to Sylar- In light of both these philosophers, Sylar is evil incarnate. If he were killing normal humans, we might be able to rationalize that he's protecting his own species and destroying those weaker than himself (thus reconciling Darwin and Spencer). But he doesn't kill anyone without abilities (unless they get in his way). His only interest is in devouring his own species so he can take their abilities.

So, I'm going to postulate that in the Heroes Universe, Sylar is the worst offender of all because according to Evolutionary Ethics- he is destroying the possibility for his own species to thrive and survive. Instead of destroying the weak, he preys on the strong and in doing so, he's the worst of all possible characters.

Sylar does not, in fact, have an imperative to kill.
He has an evolutionary imperative to protect- as we all do.