The invasion of Earth by an alien race, which would consume one percent of all humans to take their bodies and infiltrate governments so it can impose peace and prosperity on humankind, poses a moral dilemma. Assuming the aliens successfully infiltrate the government, it would imply that humans will have limited or no control over the operations of the state. At the same time, the invasion means killing at least one percent of humans to take their bodies. Therefore, the competing need in this scenario is whether killing the one percent is justifiable for peace and prosperity. The central issue suggests that one percent of humanity should be sacrificed for peace and prosperity in all other nations to achieve a noble end. Would it be morally justifiable for aliens to occupy one percent of human bodies so they can impose peace and prosperity on humankind? The idea of aliens occupying the Earth raises various ethical issues. The first issue is that of autonomy and consent. The plan of the invaders includes killing and taking over human bodies without their consent. Therefore, the aspect of invasion calls for questions regarding individual autonomy and the right to consent, initiating a discussion on the ethical dilemma posed by such measures in times of perceived international crisis. In addition, the conflict between utilitarian ethics and deontology adds another dimension to ethical problems. In contrast with the former approach, which justifies ‘sacrificing’ a few for the greater good of society, the deontological view holds that human beings ought not to be used in such a manner. This philosophical dispute makes the necessity for a subtle and thorough ethical answer evident. The concepts of moral ethics are examined from Superman’s and Batman’s perspectives as experienced in the movie Justice League.
Ethical Philosophies and Superheroes
The iconic figure that symbolizes hope and justice stands for the utilitarian view within the Ethics League – Superman. Utilitarianism holds that an outcome is morally right or wrong based on the outcome. A morally right action would benefit the largest population (Ale et al., 2023). However, Superman usually supports consequentialism – the principle which emphasizes benefits to humanity. Ethical strategy is characterized by long-term interests of the largest number, which often implies easy but morally dubious choices. When analyzing the scenario of an extraterrestrial invasion, Superman might claim that sacrificing a percentage of people is necessary to prevent devastation and disorder across society, as he would support a selective sacrifice. He mentions, “It’s not about what can or can’t be done. It’s about what should be done. And what should be done every single time, is protect the innocent.” (Netflix, n.d., 00: 47)
On the other side of the ethical coin in Ethics League, Batman represents deontological ethics. Deontology emphasizes the relationship between duty and morality of actions. According to Tseng and Wang (2021), actions are morally independent of outcomes, implying that some acts are morally obligatory. Batman observes a strong code of morality, setting lofty values on personal liberty and arguing that some actions are right or wrong no matter what. Batman would passionately denounce sacrificing innocent lives without their willing consent in response to the invaders’ plot. Rather, he would argue for other solutions, such as technological countermeasures, strategic partnerships, or political approaches. The portrayal of Batman assumes that there are no justifiable means if an existential threat exists.
In building the Ethics League, Superman’s utilitarianism and Batman’s perspective of deontology included tension dialectic into an ethical discourse that resembles moral choice negotiation between multiple perspectives when faced with difficult morality decisions. For instance, he mentions, “The line between good and evil is thin, but that does not mean we give up on trying to draw it. Every life matters, and that’s all that matters (Justice League, 2017).” The emphasis on every life implies that Batman values each person. The reaction to the alien invasion would involve a middle ground between these different ethical issues, attempting to balance individual rights and collective human benefits.
How Each Superhero Will Approach the Ethical Dilemma
Within the Ethics League, the influence of Superman’s utilitarian perspective could lead to contemplating a difficult decision: a deliberate one percent population sacrifice to halt the extraterrestrial invasion. Driven by selflessness, Superman could claim that this sacrifice has to be made not to prevent the world from plunging into mass devastation and anarchy. He says, “Hope. It’s the light that never goes out. It’s the reason we keep fighting, even when there seems to be no chance of winning. It is why I stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves (Justice League, 2017).”
Under his leadership, the League would look at the ethical implications of such an action regarding overall human welfare as their ultimate goal. The debates would be based on the consequentialist perspective since, first of all. Just as the League has to decide whether sacrificing some lives to save many is morally acceptable.
On the contrary, Batman, as representative of deontological ethics in Justice League, would not allow for the sacrifice of innocent ones without their consent. Advocating for alternative ways to explore, Batman would first value individual freedoms and prefer preventive solutions that preclude the terrible fate of losing lives in exchange. This may include concentrating on technological defenses, reconnaissance, or diplomacy. Batman’s way emphasizes the fact that moral rules have to be followed even in case of existential danger, and solutions should not compromise ethical values.
The two perspectives represent the embedded difficulties required in responding to complicated moral issues. When the League struggles with the dilemma of alien invasion, they become chatters on various ethical perspectives and show that one approach cannot be missed, considering every point of view. The ethical debate in the League and its consequences represent an important lesson that different perspectives should be considered, especially when faced with difficult ethical decisions. It highlights the importance of collaborative decision-making involving different ethical philosophies as they navigate this complex landscape of moral decisions, seeking justice and working towards a greater good.
References
Tseng, P. E., & Wang, Y. H. (2021). Deontological or utilitarian? An eternal ethical dilemma in the outbreak. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8565.
Ale, B. J., Slater, D. H., & Hartford, D. N. (2023). The ethical dilemmas of risky decisions. Risk analysis, 43(2), 219-233.
Netflix (n.d.). Justice League. https://www.netflix.com/title/80187362
write