Emerson Bodde is a PhD student in the philosophy program at Vanderbilt University. His research interests mainly revolve around the history of political philosophy and the development of socio-political concepts, with an emphasis on the 19th and 20th centuries. Bodde’s dissertation project in centered on reviving the mid-20th century debate on how class ought to be defined in political philosophy, in light of the recent reemergence of class-related theories of justice, social identity, and a relative absence of both clarity about the concept or continuity with the old debates. In part, this conceptual ambiguity can be alleviated by an interdisciplinary engagement by philosophy with the theoretical debates within both history and sociology.
Is there a fictional superhero whose philosophy you find particularly righteous or agreeable? If so, who and why?
Given my abiding interest in superheroes and villains as they relate to political ideologies, I have always found Captain America, especially his meta-history as a fictional character, as commendable. For those not informed on the history of the character, Captain America charts the notion of “American ideals” in interesting ways that reveals how those ideals often stand as a critique of that society itself: Captain America was a Nazi-puncher prior to WW2, and his post-war popularity as a the “Commie-Smasher” was so low that the character was retconned as an imposter (thereby introducing the “frozen-in-ice” story known from the films). Additionally, the character tracks the introduction of both the first black superhero mainstream comic (in a team up introducing the Falcon) and the first non-dismissive portrayal of a homosexual (in the character of Arnie Roth).
I point out this publication history because I find that the simple ethical ideal of the character — the American ideals of untrammeled equality and freedom that are so often unrealized are so integral to the character that even though comic book characters change so much between different writers and stories, the limits of the character are shown in what the limits of his characterization are. Of course, an idealistic Brooklyn youth growing up during the Great Depression and the New Deal progressivism would provoke narrative dissonance once he is made into a paranoiac patriot, seeking out oft-imagined dissent. Additionally, the ideal which is core to the character would more easily enable progressive milestones that, as a point of fact, was not accomplished with the more prolific Superman or Batman series. So if one tracks the “philosophy”of a superhero by the essential components and the limits of their character through countless authors, as a general notion, I find Captain America as the most righteous and agreeable, at least among the most popular and enduring superheroes.
On the flip side, are there any superheroes whose philosophy you cannot stand? Do any seem misguided or even intolerable?
In terms of eliciting a negative response, I was most frustrated with the character of Daredevil, at least in his portrayal in the recent Netflix series. The philosophical conceit of the character is obviously as the good Catholic deontologist, who simultaneously holds to a strict no-kill code of vigilantism and an abiding faith in the traditional institutions of criminal justice (i.e. the courts and the NYPD). Not only is there a patent performative contradiction here (the justification of the necessity of no-kill vigilantism conflicts with any possible justification of those institutions; the strict adherence to no-kill vigilantism on deontic grounds conflicts with the necessarily utilitarian justification of vigilantism, by definition). Thankfully, as the series progresses, the moral psychology of Daredevil is complicated (in reality, his vigilantism is more pursued for reasons of affective satisfaction than for an untainted pursuit of justice) and confronted in the character of the Punisher, whose less-complicated vigilantism pursues the criminals without the no-kill restriction (given the known corruption of the criminal justice system) and targets those within the traditional systems of power as well.
Though the series ultimately sides with Daredevil’s philosophy (just with a purified moral psychology), one cannot help but see the commitment to the no-kill doctrine as an inconsistent, destructive restriction on his ethical vigilantism which often endangers many through the escalation of violence without ever resolving the sources of crime, or at least the criminal actors themselves. One cannot help but obliquely read the text to condemn the no-kill doctrine of superheroes (or at least those without an overwhelming ability to end criminal activity without doing so, a la Superman’s overpowered status) as a defect arising from a perverted moral psychology of self-aggrandizement.
Following that line of logic, are there any supervillains whose philosophies have seemed excusable or even justifiable?
N’Jadka, aka “Killmonger,” from the recent Black Panther film is probably the least surprising answer to give, in terms of a justifiable supervillain, but that is because the character pumps our ethical intuitions so strongly about the notion of a superhero, but at the more realistic scale of nation states, rather than godly individuals. N’Jadka’s project of breaking Wakanda’s self-imposed political isolation, in spite of its technological capacity to prevent oppression of Third World peoples, the African diaspora, and others, is in principle a more noble cause than any of the protagonists of the film. Much has been written on the aesthetics of the film, the connection to actual black power movements like the Black Panthers, and the questionable choices of placing a monarch in league with a CIA operative in the role of heroes against a figure seeking to rectify the world-historical injustice of the various oppressions of African peoples.
The possibly novel point I find in this case is that the very appeal of the superhero concept, the rectification of one’s material or moral community through the introduction of some fantastic power, is exactly N’Jadka’s project, but at the world-historical scale. And perhaps more commendable than in the lone hero cases, the scale of the nation-state intervention he plots is precisely impossible without the participation of those he seeks to help (i.e. the diaspora must accept the aid to overthrow their oppressors) and is more comparable to real-world scenarios. It is perhaps telling that the film must end with this “villain” defeated through force, rather than an ethical response, like a violent resolution to global racism being rejected by those N’Jadka sought to help, perhaps because of the self-defeating violent actions he took in order to acquire the political power over Wakanda.
If the intervention of fantastical violence is rejected as ethically unjustified, where does pretty much all superhero literature stand? If the scope of the colonial oppression of Africa is not sufficient to justify this kind of action, what superhero is ever justified in tackling oppression, rather than just preventing natural disasters or runaway trains?
Would you rather be a superhero, or does being a supervillain appeal to you more? Why?
I would claim that the distinction between superhero and supervillain, more often than not, depends on whether the character acts to preserve the current social order, or to disrupt it (though this obviously fluctuates; Superman defends Metropolis from space aliens or a mad scientist, while figures like Daredevil or Luke Cage are out to undermine the criminal nature of their society, though in the name of ideals explicitly endorsed by the society of which they are a part). In other words, I would reduce the two terms into an entirely relative political distinction: does one fundamentally endorse, or seek to undermine, their society? Put in this way, I cannot help but think one abandons the philosophical tradition of Socrates if one self-conceives one’s philosophic work as not being somehow destructive of their society, whether be in terms of false beliefs, unjust institutions, or unethical practices.
Depending on where one falls on the debate of whether Socrates was genuinely corrupting the youth, or whether he ultimately served the good of the state and deserved reward, Socrates was either the superhero or supervillain of ancient Athens, or at least the Apology broadly fits in with superhero literature as a piece of Socrates fanfiction. Because I think the Socratic project was generally disruptive of an unjust state, and I believe this to be the heart of philosophy as a discipline of human action, and since I hope to live up to this discipline, I would rather be a supervillain, but hopefully one so successful that I effectively stop being one eventually.
For fun, which superpower(s) would you like to have?
Depending on the logistics, I would like the ability to stop time, and weary of time paradoxes that come with time travel, at least the ability to observe the past to an infinite extent (i.e. I can observe what happened in the space of my local environment 5 minutes, 1 week, or 1000 years ago).
Benefits: manipulating stuff when time is stopped, easy historical research, or instant mastery of detective work.
Drawback: temporal dissociation from the present and those around you (but again, this has already been a professional hazard for philosophers since Thales falling into a hole while contemplating, so I already have to endure such).
This section of the APA Blog is designed to share student reflections. We’d love for you to be a part of it. If you’re a student and would like to submit a reflection, contact Dr. Sabrina D. MisirHiralall at sabrinamisirhiralall@apaonline.org.
Elyse Purcell
Elyse Purcell is an an Associate Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy Department at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Oneonta. From 2017 to 2024 she served as the Secretary-Treasurer of the Central Division of the APA. Her research focuses on how various forms of disability present challenges for identity, moral personhood, virtue and social justice. Follow her research interests on Academia.edu.
Sean Petersen
Sean Petersen is a graduating English/Philosophy Major at SUNY Oneonta. He has presented at both English and Philosophy conferences and received academic achievement awards in both subjects. He aims to get his Master’s in Elementary Education and begin teaching. He is also a massive superhero nerd, and would probably be best friends with Spiderman.
