Fernando Alvear is a Philosophy PhD student at the University of Missouri, in Columbia, Missouri. He mainly works on issues at the intersection of Epistemology and Philosophy of Language.
Is there a fictional superhero whose philosophy you find particularly righteous or agreeable? If so, who and why?
I am unsure what would be considered a “superhero philosophy”, but if I had to name a superhero I find interesting for their life and actions, I would say Dr. Strange. I particularly like his story of conversion. He starts as an annoying guy that loved fame and wealth, and ends up as a master of mystic arts. I think I like that because it’s relatable to some extent: I think we all have deep attachments to seemingly good things that in the end are the cause of deep unhappiness. I also like him because his power does not seem to emanate “from him” so to speak, but is the power of magic that somehow he knows how to master and use.
Conversely, is there a certain fictional villain whose philosophy you find inexcusable or vile? If so, who and why?
I think that all villains have lives that are in some sense vile and inexcusable. So maybe I would mention a supervillain that is inexcusable because he is not a supervillain: Loki. I do not like Loki’s character as supervillain, maybe because his maleficence arises from an superfluous hurt of feeling less loved than Thor by his father. I think that a good supervillain does bad things mainly because he/she thinks they are some kind of end in themself; Loki does not seem to fit that idea (at least to me). It is impossible to fight against internal wounds and win. Maybe that is what I find dull and inexcusable in his character as supervillain.
On the flip side, are there any superheroes whose philosophy you cannot stand? Do any seem misguided or even intolerable?
I do not make much sense of Thor as a superhero, so I would mention him. He seems more like a fictional character with superpowers, and that is not necessarily what I take to be a “hero” (for instance, Gandalf is powerful, but not a hero). A hero, I think, is someone that does something supererogatory in a selfless way, fighting evil in the attempt to protect others. I assume that this is a necessary component of being a superhero, and I do not see that in Thor’s character.
Following that line of logic, are there any supervillains whose philosophies have seemed excusable or even justifiable?
It is a common trope that villains act in such vicious ways because of their troubled past and personal history. We see this trope in our habitual attributions of blame: an agent’s actions seem less blameworthy when we identify a dimension of victimhood in them. I think something like that happens with the latest Joker, for instance. Maybe because of this, I find it more interesting to note supervillains that seem excusable not because of victimhood, but because of their brilliance. So, for instance, I would mention Moriarty, who is characterized as a criminal mastermind who is ruthless and extremely dangerous. The fact that you can’t beat him with pure strength makes it much more interesting. However, I do not know if he fits the bill as a supervillain (I think he should, though).
If you were a superhero, is there a guiding philosophy you would like to adopt? Consider Captain America’s loyalty and firm morality or Batman’s harsh vengeance and strict no-kill policy as examples.
I disagree about Captain America’s firm morality! But anyway, I would rely heavily on virtue ethics. I think since utilitarianism and deontologism are very rigid and strict, they are both subject to very challenging counterexamples that would frequently arise in a superhero situation. So I think I would adopt a moral framework that emphasizes virtuous character, mainly because it allows me to make moral judgments according to particular situations, without assuming that only one guiding principle would unify all morally appropriate acts.
Do villains deserve mercy, or do they pose a threat just being left alive? Would you follow a firm no-kill policy like Batman? Or would you slip into grey areas where killing is permissible, like Iron Man?
In the fictional world in which there are superheroes and supervillains, I would not adopt a firm no-kill policy. Since we can think of extremely dangerous situations produced by villains, I think prudence and practical wisdom in those extreme contexts would call for extreme measures as well. I feel much less inclined to do the same in the actual world, though, because we have the means to prevent people from harming others while at the same time giving them a minimal sense of respect and dignity. So I oppose the death penalty, but only contingent to the actual world.
Would you rather be a superhero, or does being a supervillain appeal to you more? Why?
I would be a superhero. Sadly, evil in this world is too real to be appealing. But of course, I would not be a naïve superhero. I like the idea of a superhero that instantiates practical wisdom, that can understand and see what is important and worthwhile as to minimize the amount of supernatural interventions.
What philosophical advantages do you think superheroes have over supervillains, if any? Conversely, do villains benefit more from their lack of moral tethering?
I think that, generally, it’s much easier to do wrong than to do right, so I would say superheroes have a “philosophical” superiority, so to speak. They usually are confronted with attaining peace and solving pressing problems, and that is a hard task to achieve. I assume those tasks do not only require good intentions and physical strength, but also strong critical and intellectual skills.
Consider Heath Ledger’s Joker. His philosophy was complete and total chaos and anarchy. Is a lack of guiding morality more appealing than having one? Does having “rules”like Batman make one less free than the Joker, or does it make their life more worth living?
I think moral realism is true – which means that there are such things as moral properties and moral facts. If this is true, then I think a life with no morals would be prone to make a lot of mistakes about the right actions and motives.
I see that a lack of morality gives some illusion of freedom to some, but I doubt that a substantive notion of freedom would not include truth and knowledge in its conditions of attainment. So a real “free life” should also be a life with some kind of error-avoidness built in. On the other hand, I agree that rules by themselves make someone less free, so that also is not very appealing. But rules are not necessary components of a morally-proper life. I think that what makes a life more worth living is an understanding of what is truly valuable and important, and I think that grasping that is a path to a more substantial state of freedom, which can subsequently be an important component of a life worth living
For fun, which superpower(s) would you like to have?
Time-travel, so I can avoid missing deadlines!
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.
