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.

Is Our Identity Linked to Memory?

If so, then The Haitian character on Heroes has the ability to completely erase entire or selected memories from anyone he wishes- with a mere touch.

Descartes, as we know defined existence by the value of thought, not memory. He figured that even if he were simply a brain in a vat with false memories fed into him that he could at least argue his existence- even if the rest of reality were a lie. That said, we know that erasing memory doesn't erase existence. Even those "in the Matrix" exist, they simply don't understand the reality they live in.

But could removing a person's memory, in fact, erase that person's identity and character?

Perhaps this is why Alzheimer's patients seem like completely different people? Perhaps this is why memory loss in trauma victims can lead to personality changes?

But is it always a bad thing?

Remember Regarding Henry when Harrison Ford's character becomes a caring loving father who does what's right by his family instead of being a philanderer and "bleed 'em till they die" lawyer? His memory loss made him a better person.

There's a whole lot of questions that need to be answered when it comes to memory, identity, and philosophy. Here are a few...

* * *

Questions for consideration:

1. Is there any memory that defines who YOU are? If you had the chance to remove it and be someone different would you choose to do so?

2. What if we could take away memories from hardened criminals, start them from scratch with a fresh start? Would you be willing to give them a second chance if you knew they had no way of knowing who they were and what they had done?

3. Are people who lose their memory still the same people they were prior to memory loss?

4. What about people who lose the ability to make and create new memories (think Memento or 50 First Dates)? Are they defined by who they were or who they are?