“I HAD TO BECOME SOMETHING ELSE”:
TV VIGILANTES AND MORAL DILEMMAS
By
Anouska van den Berg
S2359693 MA Dissertation LAX999M20 20 Credits Dr. A.M. Martinez 2 May 2017
16,488 Words
I declare that this dissertation is my own work except where indicated otherwise with proper use of quotes and references.
Contents
Introduction……….. 2
“Doing the Right Thing”: Moral Dilemmas and the Consequences………… 12 Partners in Crime: The Importance of Secondary Characters……….. 24 Crossing the Line: The Moral Justification of Killing the Enemy………….. 33 Conclusion……….. 48 Appendix……….. 50 Works Cited………. 54
Introduction
Jessica Jones is not an average Private Investigator; she has extraordinary powers, not unlike those of a superhero. However, even though Jessica has super strength she suffers from a traumatic event in her past. She encountered a man called Killgrave who, like her, has
superpowers (for characters and relations see Appendix A). He is able to mind-control people into doing whatever he wants and he did the same to Jessica. He made her do his dirty work, including killing an innocent woman, and he even raped Jessica. What makes matters worse is that Killgrave has returned to town and he is determined to have Jessica by his side again. As Jessica is the only person he is not able to control (anymore), he controls other people to stalk her and even makes people kill themselves to get her attention. Jessica desperately tries to warn people around her about the harm this man can do, but people do not believe her. The people who do believe her do not have the power to do anything to help. Jessica cannot go to the
authorities as she does not have any evidence of his crimes. In other words, Jessica has run out of options. She decides to take him on by herself and get the confession she needs to prove her accusations so the authorities can put him away forever. She kidnaps him and tries to make him confess on camera what he did to her and his other victims. She locks him into a soundproof room and tries to make him confess by torturing him with images from his past as well as a very physical form of torture; she electrocutes him and throws him around the room, beating him up to get him to stop denying his crimes. It escalates so far that Jessica’s sister Trish (who supports her) decides to turn the switch and electrocute both Jessica and Killgrave to stop Jessica.
However, Jessica will not stop until she finally gets the confession she wants from the man that
has been tormenting her for years. He has to be stopped and if the police cannot do anything she will force the confession out of him (“AKA Sin Bin”).
Jessica Jones is a good example of a vigilante. She is frustrated with the legal system as it fails to support her. Nobody believes her when she tells them Killgrave mind-controls people into committing crimes and even killing themselves or others. There is no proof he manipulated her and even raped her. In other words, Jessica has nowhere to turn to when Killgrave starts coming after her again. She decides she has to fix this problem herself. She is the only one that seems to be able to resist Killgrave’s mind-control powers and therefore she is the only person who can get close enough to him to do anything. Not to mention she has superhuman strength, so she can use her powers to stop him. She cannot do it the legal way so she finds a way outside of the system and takes on the responsibility to stop him. By deciding to take justice into her own hands she has become a vigilante.
Vigilantism has been an important part of American culture since the Revolution.
Richard Maxwell Brown explains that violence is essential in U.S. national existence and this is noticeable in their “most heroic episode,” the Revolution (3). Stephanie Juliano adds that “there has always been a need for vigilantes” (45). She also takes the Revolution as an example to explain vigilantism. As Juliano states “when American colonists felt the British government was taxing them unfairly, people began to smuggle goods and destroy shipments” (45). Moreover,
“when desperadoes plagued the western frontier, society began to change its code of conduct from a mandatory duty to retreat when faced with conflict to allowing handguns and
confrontation during a fight, even if the fight resulted in death” (Juliano 45). Brown suggests the importance of these historical events is that they
show as a grand model for later violent actions by Americans on behalf of any cause-law and order, for example- deemed good and proper, for a salient fact of American violence is that, time and again, it has been the instrument not merely of the criminal and
disorderly but of the most upright and honorable. (4)
In other words, violence in the form of vigilantism has been condoned at some points in American history for the sake of the “greater good” or the good of the nation.
Although the vigilante is a key figure in American culture, the concept is not specific to the United States. Vigilantes can be traced back throughout international folklore, with the key figure being the British folk hero Robin Hood; the outlaw who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. Robin Hood is the recognizable vigilante as he embodies the concept that vigilantes take justice into their own hands (and therefore act outside the law). Stephanie Juliano provides a more specific definition of what a vigilante is:
Simply put, a vigilante is someone who breaks the law… in favor and/or pursuit of some personal justice…To a vigilante, the law is always flawed in some way. Even to a person satisfied with the law, no one could claim that the legal system is perfect. What
vigilantes do, however, has little to do with the law itself, as a codified set of rules, but rather with the justice the law fails to achieve. By and large, vigilantes are law abiding citizens, except in their vigilante behaviours, which they may consider as a cry for reform or a necessary evil. (46-47)
Vigilantes do not necessarily disagree or revolt against the ruling government. They try to personally solve the problems they notice within society and try to achieve some level of justice for society as a whole as well as some form of personal justice within the existing system.
Famous American vigilantes attracted sympathy for this reason. James A. Buccellato explains that “reading the outlaw as a sign brings to the surface what is ultimately a political situation: the uneven distribution of power” (272). He continues to say that “by committing acts of theft and violence against private property and the merchant class, outlaws like Billy the Kid and Pretty Boy Floyd challenged the sanctity of core liberal values” (Buccellato 272). Vigilantes generally surface “during times of severe socio-economic anxiety” (Buccellato 278).
For bandit sympathizers, the outlaw only targets the economic institutions responsible for producing social hardships and thus deservers admiration. Detached from formal political decision-making, bandit sympathizers experience the outlaw signifier as a type of
symbolic compensation. In other words, at least someone is striking back at the power structure responsible for producing economic hardship. (Buccellato 279)
Therefore, vigilantes do not only surface during times of great hardship or social distress they also gain sympathy from the public during these times. The general unrest and dissatisfaction with the government and the social system in the respective era plays greatly into the sympathy and even popularity of vigilantes.
Considering the importance and recurrence of vigilantes in American culture it is not surprising vigilantes are common in U.S. popular culture as well. Vigilante heroes surface throughout popular U.S. literature, movies and TV series. This ranges from figures like Zorro (created in 1919), to Dirty Harry (1980s), to vigilante/serial killer Dexter (2006). There is a range of different stories centered on, or somehow involving vigilantes taking justice into their own hands. The genre that works especially well with the concept of vigilante heroes and makes full use of them is the superhero genre (in comic books, films, and series based on these comic books). These comic book heroes originated in the late 1800s but they did not gain popularity
until the 1930s (Růžička 46). These superheroes “reflect and commentate on current happenings and illustrate unique views of the world – where good (however it is defined) still always
prevails” (Růžička 48). As Růžička explains, therefore “it is not by chance, that they found an audience during a time of economic recession. Perhaps they were meant to intervene, if not as saviors of the economy, as saviors of all that is good and guardians of a better future” (46). The superhero comics of each era reflected American society and its problems in the respective era the comics were published. This is not only noticeable during the economic recession of the 1930s for example but also in the comics of the 1980s. Mike S. Dubose explains:
they were particularly vital in the eighties. In the previous decade, America had been victimized both abroad (the 444-day kidnapping of American embassy employees in Iran) and at home (with double-digit inflation and an oil shortage), and the country suffered from the resulting low self-esteem. (915)
The crime rate went up and “fear of crime seemingly gripped much of America” (Scully and Moorman 634). As Tyler Scully and Kenneth Moorman illustrate “with a number of Americans losing faith in the abilities of the legal system to protect them from the criminal element, both fantasies of fighting back and actual episodes of vigilantism occurred” (634). Most of the comic book superheroes would technically already qualify for the label of vigilante as they all seek out justice because they think the government or the police force is not capable. Most of them act outside of the law and use their powers to track down and defeat criminals. However, many of these heroes, for example Superman, did not receive the label of vigilante. The major reason for this is that these superheroes did not play judge and jury (Skully and Moorman 642). Heroes surfacing in the 1980s like for example the Green Arrow, or the Batman from the Dark Knight
Returns were labeled vigilantes and also seem more compatible with the idea of the vigilante because they moved away from that principle.
The rise of these vigilantes in the 1980s comic books reflected a deeper struggle within U.S. society. As Scully and Moorman explain, “the Vigilante can be seen symbolically as a metaphor for the struggle many Americans were facing themselves: Was it better to trust in the legal system, with all of its faults, or were the citizens the ones who would ultimately set society straight?” (644). These fictional vigilantes surfaced and gained popularity for the same reason actual historical vigilante figures did; the U.S. public was dissatisfied with how the system functioned and they lost trust in the system for solving these problems. People turn to heroes/vigilantes, either fictional or real, to solve the problems in society.
This is no different in contemporary society. With the more recent economic crisis, as well as the threat of terrorism it is no surprise the comic book vigilantes grew in popularity since the early 2000s. Especially the possibility of a sudden terrorist attack is often portrayed in recent superhero/vigilante stories, reflecting the fear of the audience. The stories not only reflect the possibility and the horrific effects of these attacks, they also show a hero fighting the ones responsible and in some cases even preventing attacks from happening. However, the heroes themselves have changed significantly. As Ahu Tanrisever explains, “In the post 9/11 decade of superhero action filmmaking, cinematic representations of superheroes have increasingly focused on the ‘dark’ side of their iconic protagonists” (180). In general, this means that the heroes show more “negative” emotions, like for example jealousy, anger or the need for revenge, as well as the principle that they do not shy away from killing or torturing their enemies. Moreover, the hero characters are presented as more “human” as their predecessors: they have feelings, fears and flaws as much as the average person. Tanrisever argues that “post-9/11 superhero films
acknowledge vulnerability of the hero, of the heroic body, and the nation-state-by engaging in a primarily psychological ‘deconstruction’ of the hero” (180-181). In other words, post 9-11 heroes as well as the nation are represented vulnerable, yet ready to take action when needed.
By focusing on contemporary TV series about superhero/vigilantes I will argue that the vigilantes in these series struggle more with the moral dilemmas that are created by becoming a vigilante than their heroic predecessors. I will use a case study of the series Arrow (2012 -), The Flash (2014 -), Daredevil (2015- ), and Jessica Jones (2015 -). These vigilantes are identified more as actual people that happen to have the skills to fight for justice and protect society rather than there being just a focus on their powers and skills. These characters are people with
emotions as well as a sense of guilt and responsibility which has an influence in their work as vigilantes. Moreover, they are people that are influenced, both directly and indirectly, by the people around them, especially friends and family, to a significant extent. These factors all play a significant role in the dilemma on whether or not it is justifiable to kill enemies if this means it will save people. They make themselves the authority who decides what is best for their
respective cities and if it is justified to kill their enemies if it saves lives. Although this is never an easy decision the vigilantes in these series clearly struggle with the idea and ultimately most of them act on the principle and cross the line. The representation of the moral dilemma on whether or not it is justice to kill criminals, especially if the justice system itself does not seem to function and it can spare hundreds of lives, signifies the struggle in post-9/11 U.S. society with justifying immoral actions based on the idea of the greater good.
I will demonstrate the significance of the moral struggles of these vigilantes by using the theory of moral psychology of superheroes by Peter DeScioli and Robert Kurzban, who identify
“three core features of moral psychology: 1) third-party judgment; 2) moralistic punishment; and
3) moral impartiality” (246). Third-party judgement refers to the idea that “superheroes meddle in interactions that don’t directly involve them” (DeScioli and Kurzban 252). Superheroes devote their time and even lives to fight crime, even when most of the time they are not directly targeted or even affected by the threats to society (DeScioli and Kurzban 252). Moralistic punishment means that superheroes punish criminals in a moral way; they defeat them and then let the justice system take over rather than taking violent revenge (DeScioli and Kurzban 253). Moral
impartiality refers to the idea that the superhero can separate his/her personal lives and emotions from the situation in order to make the right decision. “Moralists are expected to enforce moral principles regardless of who is helped or harmed by condemnation. This can require moralists to ignore kinship, friendship, or alliances, as well as requiring moralists to show restraint with personal enemies” (DeScioli and Kurzban 255). However, I argue that although these features seem to apply to many of the older representations of superheroes, the current vigilantes represented in these TV series only partly comply with these features, if at all. Many of these vigilantes, even when they are involved in situations that do not directly involve them, have personal motivations or backgrounds that directly influence their decision making and they are more likely to act out the punishment (or revenge) rather than leaving this in the hands of the justice system.
To signify the important role secondary characters play in the decision making of these vigilantes, I will use Stephanie R. deLusé’s theory that a superhero’s friends and family form the coping mechanism as they function to relieve the stress that comes with the responsibility of being a hero. These heroes come across a lot of horrible crimes and murders and are sometimes even responsible for a situation turning out the wrong way. These secondary characters help to keep the heroes sane and sometimes even help keep them motivated to keep going, even
indirectly as some of these characters are unaware of the hero’s extracurricular activities (deLusé 195). However, I argue that these secondary characters do more than just relieve stress as they are able to directly or indirectly influence the moral decisions of the hero or even serve as a motivation to either take the moral high ground or cross the line and kill their enemies.
The notion of vigilantism and the notion of trying to achieve justice by taking matters in one’s own hands, even if this means crossing the line and killing the enemy, can be linked to Giorgio Agamben’s work on “the state of exception.” The “state of exception” refers to the notion that specific situations nations act outside of the law if it is a matter of national security.
As Agamben notes “the state of exception presents clear analogies to that of the right of
resistance. It has been much debated, particular during constituent assemblies, whether the right of resistance should be included in the text of the constitution” (10). The idea of acting outside of the law for the greater good or to resist a certain part of society or the law in order to act for the greater good, is an aspect that can be easily linked to vigilantes and the dilemmas these
characters face to the level on whether they have a right to make moral decisions on life and death and if their decision can be considered the “right” decision.
Ultimately the changes in characters with regards to moral decision making in a post 9-11 society, as well as the aspect that their actions are not questioned within these fictional
narratives, reflects a moral struggle in U.S. society itself. In a world where terrorist attacks can happen any moment, committed by anyone, even people one knows and trusts, the actions of these heroes show a way for people to feel more safe in their own society. It gives a sense that someone is at least addressing and acting on this pressing issue. The growing number of situations where the hero decides to kill the enemy to make sure they cannot hurt anyone else shows that in contemporary U.S. society people are more inclined to accept the idea behind the
state of exception, and justify immoral actions on the basis of it working towards “the greater good.”
“Doing the Right Thing”: Moral Dilemmas and the Consequences
It is an exceptionally bad day in Central City. Criminal metahuman Mark Mardon returns to town to avenge the death of his brother. He has set his sights on the police officer he believes is responsible for his brother’s death. This officer is Joe West, the adoptive father of Barry Allen AKA The Flash (for characters and relations see Appendix B). Mardon manages to kidnap Joe and threatens to kill his daughter Iris as well as destroy the city with a tsunami he is able to create with his powers. Barry, as the Flash, is the only one that is able to stop the tsunami from hitting the city; if he runs fast enough across the coastline he can create a vortex that would take away the energy from the wave before it hits the city. However, when Barry tries to do this he runs so fast he runs back in time; back to the start of that day (“Out of Time”). When Barry returns to Star Labs to get to the normal superhero business of the day he makes the mistake of acting suspiciously. He knows about things before they happen and hardly tries to hide this. His friend and mentor Dr. Wells is able to figure out that Barry managed to go back in time and he warns Barry that he has to let everything take its course, exactly as it happened originally as changing any events could have disastrous effects: “time is an extremely fragile construct, any deviation, no matter how small, could result in a cataclysm” (“Rogue Time”). Barry now has to decide if he should listen to Dr. Wells to avoid making matters even worse but at the same time face the possibility that Joe and Iris will be killed as well as a big part of the city destroyed.
Barry decides to take the chance he got by going back in time and he stops all the events from the previous day from happening by taking out Mardon before he is able to kidnap Joe. Barry realizes this might have severe consequences but he decides he will find out a way to deal with those after he stopped the original crisis from happening (“Rogue Time”).
In this episode Barry has his first experience with time travel and therefore also faces the great responsibility it brings. Although he is advised not to change anything, ultimately it comes down to him. In this case, both the idea of the destruction of Central City and the possibility of the death of his family weigh heavily on him and this is what ultimately convinces him to ignore Wells’ warning and change the timeline. Even though the moral dilemmas displayed in The Flash are not always this heavy, they are frequent. Barry faces many situations where he has to make a decision on whether to act and how to act to save people and the city. The moral dilemmas even become more grave when it involves the lives of his friends and family as this adds an even more personal level to his existence as a vigilante.
Moral dilemmas are a part of every vigilante’s world. The fact that they have exceptional skills or superpowers qualifies them to stop powerful and extremely dangerous criminals but this also brings a heavy sense of responsibility. These vigilantes have to decide when they will act, for what reasons, and if they act they are faced with the responsibility of their actions. When vigilantes act and it makes matters worse and people lose their lives, they are often times blamed for it, and even blame themselves for what happened. Peter DeScioli and Robert Kurzban
categorize these aspects of moral acts of superheroes, as they argue “superheroes embody three core features of moral psychology: 1) third-party judgment; 2) moralistic punishment; and 3) moral impartiality” (246). In the series Arrow (2012), The Flash (2014), Daredevil (2015), and Jessica Jones (2015) all the vigilantes deal with moral dilemmas and the heavy burden being a vigilante brings in their own ways. However, the one thing all these vigilantes have in common is that regardless of their skills, experiences, or powers, they are all portrayed as human
characters, with human emotions but also the human aspects of being able to make mistakes and to take responsibility for those mistakes. Although they all comply with some of the three core
features of moral psychology DeScioli and Kurzban identified, in contrast to the classic
superheroes like Superman and Batman these vigilantes no longer fit this whole picture of moral psychology. However, complying to only some of these features is what makes them identifiable to the audience as humans who have character flaws too. This human aspect to the vigilantes is what makes the audience connect with them on a deeper level, they can identify with them and ultimately they are convinced that even though the vigilantes make mistakes they do it for the right reasons and even atone for their mistakes, which is the fine line that separates the vigilantes from the villains.
One of these vigilantes, Oliver Queen AKA the Arrow, or Green Arrow as he later renames himself, is the example of a vigilante that struggles with the moral question of killing his enemy on a frequent basis and has actually repeatedly crossed the line in the name of justice.
However, this moral struggle is very apparent in the character of Oliver Queen and it becomes clear that he suffers under the weight of the responsibility that comes with his secret identity and the consequences that follow. The moral questions that follow the situations he encounters are the exact questions that are represented to the audience when Oliver kills for the greater good as he does with villain Malcolm Merlyn in “Sacrifice,” but they are also the questions Oliver openly asks himself throughout the seasons (for characters and relations see Appendix C). As Katherine Marazi explains, “the secret identity in combination with anonymity provokes audience
identification because it signals the struggle faced in maintaining equilibrium between whom one truly is and who one is expected, or even wishes to be in various contexts” (70). This struggle is very visible within Oliver Queen as Oliver has to juggle his public identity of millionaire
playboy, as well as businessman, as well as his secret identity of the masked vigilante the Arrow.
The moral dilemmas he faces as the Arrow are even more intensified because his other identity often gets mixed into the situation. This complies with DeScioli and Kurzban’s first category of moral psychology in superheroes: “third-party moral judgment.” Oliver, like most heroes meddles “in interactions that don’t directly involve [him]” this is also what categorizes him as a hero (DeScioli and Kurzban 252). However, meddling in these situations and living a double live also proves troubling in Oliver’s everyday life as his two lives overlap too much. As DeScioli and Kurzban explain “devotion to crime fighting entails sacrificing career prospects, financial security, friends, family, and romance” (253). Oliver’s actions as the vigilante keep him busy which proves troubling in running his family’s company “Queens Consolidated.” As he is hardly there for business meetings and lacks any attention for the business it ultimately results in him losing the company to Ray Palmer in the third season. As Oliver keeps his identity hidden from most of his friends and family these relations also prove to be under pressure, Oliver has to lie occasionally about his whereabouts or actions which are partly responsible for his failed relationships.
Moreover, Oliver’s actions as the vigilante often puts his friends and family in mortal danger, for example, in the episode “Seeing Red” where his mother Moira Queen is murdered by his enemy Slade Wilson. This also leads to another category: “moral impartiality.” As DeScioli and Kurzban explain “moralists are expected to enforce moral principles regardless of who is helped or harmed by condemnation. This can require moralists to ignore kinship, friendship, or alliances, as well as requiring moralists to show restraint with personal enemies” (255). Slade Wilson used to be Oliver’s friend and turned out to become his enemy, attacking Oliver on a very personal level also because he is fully aware Oliver is the Arrow. By attacking Oliver’s family and even murdering his mother Slade is pushing Oliver’s limits, but regardless of these
actions, in “Unthinkable” Oliver decides not to kill Slade but imprison him with the help of A.R.G.U.S (a secret government agency) in a prison that can hold him. In this situation Oliver decided to stay on moral grounds. However, these situations weigh heavily on Oliver’s
conscience, especially since he has a big sense of responsibility that often wears him down.
Oliver’s sense of responsibility becomes especially apparent in the episode “City of Heroes,” where Oliver is shown to have returned to the island on which he was stranded for five years, after his friend Tommy Merlyn was killed in the events of the previous season. When Team Arrow members John Diggle and Felicity Smoke come to the island to convince Oliver to come back to Starling City he says “I can’t, my mission, my father’s list, it was a fool’s crusade, and I failed. Malcolm Merlyn destroyed the Glades, Tommy died, and the Hood couldn’t stop it.
So don’t ask me to put it on again” (“City of Heroes”). To which John Diggle replies, “This isn’t about you being the vigilante, this is about you being Oliver Queen” (“City of Heroes”). His family needs him as well as his family company. This makes him decide to give in to their pleas and come back home however, he refuses to go back to being the vigilante. When Oliver is attacked in a business meeting by a criminal group calling themselves “The Hoods,” who try to kill people they blame for the destruction of the Glades (a poor/criminal district of the city), he does nothing to stop them. When Diggle and Felicity confront him after the attack, they try to convince him to be the vigilante again and stop these people. Oliver answers “there is a part of being the Hood that neither one of you are considering: the body count” (“City of Heroes”). He reveals that when Tommy found out Oliver was the Arrow, shortly before he died, he called him a murderer and he feels that “everyone that I kill dishonors his memory” (“City of Heroes”). In this sense Oliver is not able to separate being the vigilante from his personal life. The death of
his friend was too close to his personal life for Oliver to be able to separate what has happened as something that comes with the job and is out of his control. In fact, he even blames himself.
However, when his sister Thea is targeted by the Hoods, Oliver decides to take action.
When he saves his sister he defeats the Hoods without killing them and he leaves them unconscious for the police to find them and arrest them. He has decided to return to being the vigilante again but to approach it in a different way: he wants to be the hero his late friend
Tommy could have been proud of. As part of this new approach he decides he no longer wants to be called “the Hood” (the name the police has given him) and he changes it into “the Arrow”
(“City of Heroes”). Oliver here decides to cohere to what DeScioli and Kurzban define as
“moralistic punishment” he goes after criminals and punishes them for their crimes but chooses the moral high ground and rather than be vengeful he merely stops the criminals and hands them over to the police (253). This is a major change from the first season as Oliver was less reluctant to kill in stopping criminals, something his friend Tommy judged him heavily for. Therefore, this episode displays the internal struggles of Oliver Queen well; he is a character that struggles with his identity as well as the consequences of his actions or the failure of stopping horrible things from happening. In this episode he manages to overcome the struggles and his feelings of guilt and become the vigilante again.
Oliver’s friend Barry Allen AKA the Flash approaches things differently. However, even though Barry Allen seems to be more innocent and naïve of a character compared to the darker Oliver Queen, he, as a superhero vigilante, does face significant moral questions in his fight against crime as well. The Flash was created when Barry Allen was hit by lightning caused by the explosion of a particle accelerator, which gave him super speed. Unfortunately, Barry is not the only one affected by the explosion; many people that were hit by the explosion show signs of
mysterious powers and mutations, and even though Barry chose to use his powers to help people, most of the people that were mutated use their powers for criminal activities or to act out their revenge for what happened to them. As is clear in “Pilot” the police force (where Barry works as a forensic crime scene assistant) is incapable of managing the threat these metahumans form to society. Barry Allen with his super speed seems to be the only one capable of stopping these metahumans and therefore he takes on this task with the help of his friends in Star Labs. Overall Barry manages to defeat the metahumans but generally he refrains from killing them, instead he locks them in a specially made prison in Star Labs. In this sense Barry Allen seems to comply with two core features of moral psychology set by DeScioli and Kurzban: “third party
judgement” and “moralistic punishment”. Overall Barry Allen’s moral dilemmas do not lie with killing criminals, at least not in a direct way, instead Barry faces the great responsibility of being able to travel back in time and therefore being able to change the future with great consequences.
Here it also becomes clear that Barry is unable to comply with “moral impartiality.” This is seen in the episode “Fast Enough,” Barry decides to use his speed to create a portal so his enemy (former mentor and friend) Wells can go back to the time where he belongs as well as giving Barry a chance to save his mother from being killed. He is warned by his friends and family that changing the past can create significant consequences for the world as it is, not to mention the fact that if he takes too long in the past, the earth could be destroyed by a massive black hole created by the portal to the past. Regardless of this immense threat to the earth, Barry decides to attempt to save his mother. He is later warned by a future version of himself to not save his mother and go back to his time to defeat Wells, which shows that the future version of himself knows the consequences of his actions and needs the current version of himself to go back and make sure the timeline stays the same. However, the wormhole Barry created to travel
to the past reopens when he returns to the present and turns into a black hole. Barry is able to close the black hole with his speed but not before one of his friends loses his life trying to help him. This situation shows the responsibility Barry carries on his shoulders with having the power to go back and even change time. In this instance he ignored the moral question of whether it is the right thing to do to save his mother if it means risking the earth and the consequences were quite severe, even though he managed to stop it from escalating in the end. In other words, because Barry did not show “moral impartiality” and made this mission a personal one to change the past for personal reasons, he was in fact punished for being selfish by not being able to change the past, bringing destruction on his city and even losing a friend in the process.
In contrast to Barry, Matt Murdock AKA Daredevil really sticks to society’s moral code and rarely does anything for selfish reasons. Regardless of the overall threat to society Matt Murdock is a vigilante that sticks to his principles. Murdock has first-hand experience with the failing of the justice system but on the matter of convicting criminals and murderers he leaves it up to the authorities. Blinded by an accident as a child Murdock acquired some special abilities, for example excellent hearing, however this did not help him when his father was murdered.
With his father’s murder unresolved as well as the ability to hear crimes taking place without people doing anything about it is part of the reason that motivated Matt Murdock to become a masked vigilante but it also inspired him to fight for justice in his job as an attorney. In “Into the Ring” when he starts up his law firm with his friend Foggy Nelson this becomes clear in the way he wants to run the law firm (for characters and relations see Appendix D). The strong moral code he applies in his acts as a vigilante also comes through in his job as an attorney. He explains, “my partner and I are having some disagreement about the direction of Nelson &
Murdock. I believe we are here to defend the innocent” (“Into the Ring”). Foggy answers that he
believes “the innocent includes everyone not yet convicted of a crime, you know, as the law states” (“Into the Ring”). In this sense Foggy seems more concerned about staying in business whereas Murdock sticks to his ideals in fighting for justice for the ones that deserve it. He also shows this in their first case, when they represent Karen Page, a young woman accused of murder. The case seems to be closed as the evidence against her is overwhelming. After talking to her they decide to do what they can in representing her. Foggy is ready to take every deal they can get but Murdock refuses and states he believes she is innocent. When people attempt to murder Karen Page, Foggy starts believing in her innocence as well and together they get her released and protect her. Murdock fights crime in Hell’s Kitchen as the vigilante, but as a lawyer he still remains motivated that the justice system is in place for something, and as a lawyer and a vigilante he tries to achieve justice both inside and outside of the law but always with his own moral code in mind. In contrast to the other vigilantes, Murdock seems to be the one that is able to mostly stick to all three features of DeScioli and Kurzban’s moral psychology; he fights crime in situations he is not directly involved in (“third-party judgment”), although he does get
involved in this directly when he decides to represent the people he is trying to protect as the vigilante in court, he catches and punishes the criminals but keeps them alive and let the authorities take over (even if they seem to be inadequate) (“moralistic punishment”), and to a great extend he shows restraint to his enemies even in personal situations (“moral impartiality”).
However, even though he is able to stay within the moral boundaries, it is impossible for him to truly stay emotionally disconnected when people get hurt, as he even admits to Foggy that he has been tempted to cross the line on several occasions (“Nelson v. Murdock”).
In contrast to Daredevil, as well as the Arrow and the Flash, vigilante Jessica Jones is mostly in search of personal justice. Regardless of her powers, Jones fights a personal battle for
justice rather than taking on the task to protect and save people, which means that “third-part judgment” does not really apply to her situation. Jessica Jones centers more on a woman (that happens to have superpowers) that suffers from PTSD after she has been mind-controlled and raped by the villain of the story: Killgrave (Nussbaum). Therefore, the show focusses more on the personal struggles of the main character and her ways of finding justice as well as finding a way to stop her harasser. In contrast to the other vigilantes described before, Jessica does not consider herself to be a hero and is not interested in being one. Throughout the season Jessica is faced with situations where she has to help people or is confronted by people that are affected by Killgrave’s mind control, however, she is the object of his attention; all the people Jessica comes across in her work as a PI, or the people who are murdered or in other ways hurt are all sent to her by Killgrave in his twisted way of bringing her back to him. However, this does have a great influence on Jessica. Even though she is not directly responsible for what happened to the people affected by Killgrave, knowing he committed those acts to get close to her or manipulate her does weigh heavily on her conscience. It is likely that Jessica keeps most people at a distance and usually tries to fight alone, for this reason; she is afraid that people close to her will get hurt. In
“AKA Top Shelf Perverts” she even goes as far as trying to get herself imprisoned in a
maximum security prison; this way if Killgrave tries to reach her he will be caught on camera, but even more importantly she thinks that distancing herself in this way will keep people she cares about out of harms-way. Jessica’s moral struggles are more related to her own survival and the protection of her family as she is not concerned with being a hero as much as the other vigilantes are, but she still faces the dilemmas of what consequences her actions can mean to the people she cares about. This is especially visible in relation to her sister Trish; as she has a personal connection to Jessica, Trish is a target to get to Jessica and is therefore targeted by
Killgrave multiple times. In the season finale Killgrave even kidnaps her and threatens to kill her if Jessica ever shows herself. In this moment Jessica makes the decision to break the moral codes that come with “moralistic punishment” and “moral impartiality;” in order to save a person she cares about deeply and to stop Killgrave from hurting more people, she kills him (“AKA Smile”). In Jessica’s case she felt the only way to resolve her problems and stop an evil man from hurting more people was killing him.
All these vigilantes are represented to be human and therefore identifiable for the
audience. Moral dilemmas and questions of identity are the main factors in how these skilled and powerful characters become human regardless of their powers and skills and the responsibilities that come with being a vigilante. Lawrence Rubin explains that superheroes have become “more complex and multilayered characters that, in spite of their inescapable disconnect from society, lived and functioned within it” (412). These characters are far from normal citizens and fight for justice in a way normal citizens cannot, however they still function within society. They all have their lives with families and friends and even have jobs. And even though they are skilled and powerful in their own way, they are not detached from human emotions. This is part of the appeal of today’s superheroes. The Arrow’s heavy sense of responsibility and an act for blaming himself, the Flash’s naivety and sometimes arrogance, Daredevil’s depressive attitude and Jessica Jones’ PTSD, all display the sense of human flaws in their own unique ways, which makes them more relatable. Even though they have these extraordinary abilities they are not perfect, they make mistakes and have character flaws like everyone has. Stephanie R. deLusé even argues that this is how the audience “can learn from superheroes about the stress of feeling alone in the world” (196). By showing the struggles with family and friends as well as their jobs while having a secret identity as a vigilante and still managing to stay on the moral high-ground
is a very powerful message to an audience, even if they cannot always comply with all the characteristics of moral psychology. As Stephanie R. deLusé continues, “the positive coping that superheroes demonstrate (compared to super-villains) helps us appreciate what our culture values in rugged individualism and pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps” (196). By facing all the difficulties in life, the several tragedies, as well as the weight of responsibility these heroes face on a daily basis while still (mostly) staying on the moral high ground is what makes them appealing to the audience. It shows that even through all the hardships in life it is still possible everything works out.
The moral struggles these vigilantes face in their fight for justice as well as in their personal lives makes the audience connect with them. These heroes show that it is possible to overcome difficulties in life, even when one makes mistakes or has some serous character flaws, it will work out, both on a personal level and a societal level. This is what separates these
vigilantes from the villains. Villains are often human too and even display human emotions and character flaws, however, they decide to handle things differently. Moreover, they often do not show any sense of remorse. Villains distance themselves from taking responsibility for their actions, even if they themselves believe they are doing the right thing, the audience is able to distinguish between the heroes and the villains simply through the presence of a moral responsibility. Having flaws and making mistakes and trying to right those mistakes is what makes these vigilantes heroes.
Partners in Crime: The Importance of Secondary Characters
Foggy Nelson (Daredevil’s best friend and business partner) arrives at Matt Murdock’s apartment. He knocks on the door yelling that he really needs to talk to him. He just found out William Fiske had a client of them, this friendly old lady, killed to be able to demolish the apartment building she was living in. Foggy wants to make sure Fiske will get behind bars for this and he needs his partner’s help. However, Murdock is not answering the door. Foggy hears a noise and he panics as it sounds like someone fell down in a bad way. He decides to break open the door to Murdock’s apartment only to find the apartment in ruins. Fearing for his friend he searches the apartment, crowbar in hand, ready to hit any intruder he would come across. A masked man, clearly badly wounded, stumbles into the room. “Where’s Matt? What did you do to him?” is all Foggy manages to say before the masked figure collapses (“Speak of the Devil”).
Foggy is ready to call 911, but the light on his phone reveals some of the figure’s facial features.
Foggy decides to slowly approach the figure and take of his mask only to reveal that the masked figure is indeed his best friend (“Speak of the Devil”).
When Murdock wakes up on his couch, fully stitched up, he is confronted with a very angry Foggy demanding answers. The most important thing for Foggy is that his best friend betrayed his trust. He feels like he has been lied to for the duration of their friendship and he is not sure if he can still trust Matt, someone he considered to be his best friend. After asking Matt about the truth of situations from their past, Foggy moves into something he is very worried about; whether or not Matt kills people. When he answers he did not kill the people Foggy listed, Foggy asks “what are you doing Matt? You’re a lawyer, you are supposed to be helping people!”
(“Nelson v. Murdock”). When Matt answers that in his way he is helping people, Foggy
interrupts him “in a mask! Do you know what they call that? A vigilante! Someone who acts outside of the law” (“Nelson v. Murdock”). This is where Foggy reveals that even though the law has not always worked out for them and their clients he still holds on to the law and dismisses the idea of acting outside of it. Matt affirms he has never gone as far as to kill anyone, but he admits he did want to, especially after one of their recent clients, the friendly old lady, was killed. Foggy angrily reacts to this confession: “It’s not enough to play judge and jury? You’ve got to add executioner to the list?” (“Nelson v. Murdock”). Matt tries to explain the situation to Foggy: “sometimes the law isn’t enough, the world we live in isn’t fair, and I’m doing
everything I can to make it a better place” (“Nelson v. Murdock”). Foggy dismissed this by confronting Matt that he sounds a lot like Fiske (the criminal boss terrorizing the city). To Foggy, Matt’s actions do not seem different from the actions of the villain.
Although Foggy and Matt work out their differences, and Foggy accepts Matt’s vigilante activities, this discussion as well as many similar discussions between them offers a way to have an open moral discussion about Matt’s actions. From beating up criminals (and thinking about killing them) to neglecting his daytime job, Foggy questions his actions and is able to point out things about Matt’s behavior that are morally questionable, better than Matt would be able to do himself. In a way, Foggy offers support as a friend and colleague, but he also functions as some form of moral conscience, helping Matt cope with the consequences of being a vigilante, as well as helping him grow as a person. Stephanie R. deLusé explains that superheroes lead a stressful life and need to find ways to cope with the stress that comes with the responsibility of being a hero, one of the most important aspects to cope with this kind of stress is social support (190). In Daredevil’s case Foggy plays an important role as social support for Matt. As deLusé explains,
“social support is, in short, making and keeping good friends. We don’t have to have a lot of
them as the key here is quality…we need folks to whom we can talk, who will listen to us talk, and, whether they know it or not, offer us some form of comfort” (194-195). Although deLusé argues that the characters in superhero stories function as social support, a way to relieve stress and help cope with the weight of the responsibility of being a hero, I argue that in the case of Arrow, The Flash, Daredevil, and Jessica Jones the characters who function as social support play an even more important role as they are able to influence the actions of the vigilantes, and even function as some form of moral consciousness in critical situations.
In Arrow the importance of the secondary characters is clear. Even though Oliver Queen AKA the Arrow or Green Arrow, comes across as a loner character who is able to handle problems by himself, his actions are heavily influenced by others. In fact, this is clear from the onset of the series. Oliver becomes the vigilante because of a mission his father gave him shortly before he died. As Oliver states in the opening monologue of the first season: “I will fulfill my father’s dying wish: to use the list of names he left me, and bring down those who are poisoning my city. To do this I must become someone else, I must become something else” (“Damaged”).
His father gave him a list with names of individuals living in Starling City who are responsible for several criminal activities, and as is revealed to Oliver later in the first season, involved in plotting to commit mass murder by levelling the Glades (the poor/criminal part of the city). His father and especially his father’s death is what directly motivates Oliver Queen to become the Arrow and fight crime in the city. However, his father is not the only person to have a deep impact on Oliver’s life and methods as a vigilante. When Oliver’s best friend Tommy Merlyn finds out Oliver is the vigilante he is very angry. In the episode “Darkness on the Edge of Town,” he even calls Oliver a serial killer and he makes clear that he does not want anything to do with him anymore. When Tommy dies an episode later, it deeply impacts Oliver and it weighs
on his decision to change his course of action and put a limit to the killing he does in the name of justice. As Lisa Rosenberg explains, “supporting characters can shine light on the main
character’s hidden humanity, offering a dramatic turnaround were none seems possible.” In Oliver’s case Tommy provides this “light” so Oliver is confronted with his own actions as well as motivated to change. Although in the case of his father and Tommy the influence is more indirect and subtle, there are people that influence him in a more direct way. When friend and ally Laurel Lance is murdered in “Eleven-Fifty-Nine” Oliver is furious and is ready to take revenge on the person that killed her (Damian Darhk), but his friends and allies seem to be even more convinced that this means Darhk has to be permanently stopped. His former fiancé Felicity Smoak even directly tells Oliver he has to kill Darhk, something she would normally strongly protest against (“Canary Cry”).
Even though the ultimate decision on how to act is Oliver’s to make, the support as well as the judgment of others is key in the decision. Stephanie R. deLusé explains that social support for superheroes is an important part of proactive coping (194). “Space, time, tools, clothes, and money are all important resources that we can think of as we develop our Spidey-Sense or gadgeteer’s tool belt. But there are resources that lay around us, or within those around us, that are as, or more, valuable” (deLusé 194). Oliver can prepare for his battles against criminals and cope proactively in this sense, but the people around him that help him, not just with his battles but also on a social interactive way are a more significant form of support for Oliver to deal with the stress of being a vigilante. It is quite some responsibility to take on criminals and make decisions on life and death on one’s own moral judgment; in this sense hearing the opinion of others can offer a voice of reason in some cases, and can even stop the hero from crossing the line. In this sense, Oliver’s friends and family do not only offer support as a form of stress relief
to keep him sane in his line of work, they are also able to influence his choices and even act as a voice of reason when Oliver seems to cross the line.
Much like Oliver, Barry Allen, AKA the Flash, relies on the help of his friends and family. Although Barry often goes against the advice of others and does what he thinks is best, sometimes with grave consequences, this is often linked to the desire to save his parents. Barry Allen’s mother was killed by a “speedster” (someone with super speed like Barry Allen) when he was young, his father was accused and convicted for her murder. Barry, being the only witness to his mother’s murder, knows his father is innocent and devotes his time to prove his father’s innocence. Becoming the Flash provides him with opportunities to help his father and even change what happened altogether. When Barry has the opportunity to travel back in time and save his mother in “Fast Enough,” he decides to take it, even though his family and friends warn him of the possible consequences it could have. When he actually reaches the moment his mother is being attacked he decides against changing the past and lets history unfold like it did before (“Fast Enough”). However, in the second season Barry’s father is murdered in front of him (“Invincible”). This has such a deep impact on Barry that he decides to run back in time once again and this time he does save his mother, therefore changing history and changing the timeline in a way that is still unknown (“The Race of His Life”). Barry Allen therefore seems to be unable to cope with the emotional stress of losing both his parents. As deLusé explains,
“‘shutting down’ for a while by temporarily suppressing unwanted thoughts or feelings around a specifically painful topic or trauma can be useful, as sometimes our minds and hearts need a little space and time to process before we can talk about or deal with something more directly” (193).
By going back in time to change the cause of his trauma, no matter the consequences for the timeline, Barry skips this step of dealing with emotional trauma. He is unable to accept the loss
of his parents and is willing to do anything to make sure he does not lose the people that are most important to him.
Even though Barry often acts naively in contrast to what others advise him, his friends and family still serve as a form of moral compass. Barry learns from his mistakes and builds on the actions of his friends and family to turn situations around. As August Merz explains,
supporting characters “provide the hero with perspective. If the lead is doing something stupid or is contemplating doing something stupid, the supporting character will usually try to persuade them to take a different course of action that will likely be better for everyone involved.” In Barry’s case, it is often only after the fact that the supporting characters of the show can take action and persuade him to make the right decisions. His family and friends are especially capable of putting him in his place when he becomes overconfident and therefore endangers himself and other people. Which is exactly what happened in “Invincible,” the episode where Barry becomes overconfident of himself and starts taking more risks. The team confronts him about it and warns him about the dangers that come with his new attitude. It takes a while (and a beating from a villain) for Barry to realize they were right but it is enough to change his attitude and act more responsible.
Matt Murdock, AKA Daredevil, much like Oliver Queen, is portrayed as a loner, able (or at least trying) to do all his vigilante work on his own. However, as seen before there are some characters that play a significant role as his friends but also as a moral influence for his
vigilantism. In “Nelson v. Murdock” Foggy confronted Matt with his moral questions, especially referring to the question of murder. Although Matt explains all his actions to Foggy and justifies them, Foggy, in a way, is able to still confront Matt with the fact that many of his excuses for using violence to fight crime, and even the willingness to murder to achieve justice, sound a lot
like those of a villain. Foggy does not stop Matt from being a vigilante and he even accepts the fact that his best friend is a vigilante later, but it is visible that Foggy’s judgment does weigh on Matt and he is therefore trying to comfort his friend about his actions and the morality of his actions. In the second season Matt has the problem of his vigilantism getting in the way of his job as an attorney and once again Foggy is the one that confronts him with his actions. Because of his vigilante actions Matt shows up too late for the trial of Frank Castle (the vigilante he is representing), leaving Foggy to improvise and do the opening statement on Matt’s behalf. When Matt’s vigilante friend Electra tries to help their case by threatening a witness and the evidence is declared invalid as a result, Foggy loses his patience and confronts Matt. He explains that Matt has let him down, both as a friend and business partner, he has shown to be unreliable and irresponsible (“Semper Fidelis”). Foggy has a deep impact on Matt’s life, both as a friend and business partner, and him confronting Matt on these occasions therefore has a big impact on Matt. Even though it does not directly change his behavior, it is visible that Matt is affected by Foggy’s words and is in fact trying to improve his behavior, even though this proves difficult with his vigilante double life. Losing Foggy as a friend therefore also impacts Matt’s ability to cope with the stress of being a vigilante. As deLusé explains, the superhero or vigilante’s, loved ones “… through providing him general social support, tips to help him be more self-aware, and adding to his role diversity in a healthy way… also help him combat stress” (196). Foggy
provides Matt with social support and also helps him be more self-aware but he is also not afraid to confront Matt with behavior he does not condone which in a way helps shape Matt’s character and even motivates him to change his actions.
Like Matt Murdock, Jessica Jones is an independent and somewhat loner character, however, Jessica Jones deals with a very personal enemy, someone who is directly targeting her,
which therefore creates a dangerous situation for people around her. For this reason, it is not surprising Jessica tries to go through life with the least social contact possible. deLusé explains that many superheroes “have to go it alone for a while (or in some ways), [but] they find ways to take strength from that, and, really aren’t so alone as they may think” (196). This is very true for Jessica, as she also finds out herself. Because of all the people around her that either die or are at least threatened Jessica decides to isolate herself as much as possible. Another reason for her to do so is the fact that her enemy Killgrave is able to influence people’s minds and can make them do whatever he wants. This aspect certainly results in trust issues and plays into her isolation even more. However, there are a few people around her that, even though can be influenced by Killgrave, prove to be significant social support. One example of this is Malcolm Ducasse, Jessica’s drug addicted neighbor. In “AKA 99 Friends” Jessica finds out that Ducasse is the one providing Killgrave with photos and information about her in exchange for drugs. Although Jessica feels betrayed she ultimately decides to help Ducasse overcome his drug addiction. After this Ducasse actually proves to be a trusted ally for Jessica, even trying to help her get rid of a body Killgrave left in her apartment to make sure she would not be accused of his murder (“AKA Top Shelf Perverts”). However, the one person that seems to play the most significant role in Jessica’s life is her sister Trish Walker. Trish is aware Jessica has powers and she is also the person that tells Jessica she should be a superhero. Trish is, like any other person, open to manipulation by Killgrave, and Jessica is therefore also very protective of her sister. Ultimately, when Killgrave decides to kidnap Trish and uses her as leverage to keep himself safe from Jessica, Jessica decides to cross the line and kill him as this is the only way she can stop him from hurting others as well as save her sister (“AKA Smile”). Even though Jessica portrays herself as a loner, someone who does not want social contact, there are several people that play
an important role in her life, providing her with the social support she needs to cope with her powers as well as the events in her past. Jessica needs, like many other heroes, someone who is able to provide a voice of reason.
Social relationships are important, even to vigilantes. As Christopher Peterson and Nansook Park explain, superheroes generally have problems in keeping social relations,
especially since this proves troubling when dealing with a secret identity (12). However even if the social relations they have are far from perfect they are still “infinitely rewarding” (Peterson and Park 12). These vigilantes, like everyone else, need social relationships to deal with the stress of everyday life as well as their secret life as vigilantes. The responsibility of being a vigilante and the consequences of their actions weigh heavily on their conscience, the friends and family, even if they do not know about their secret double life, provide the emotional support needed to deal with these responsibilities. These relationships are far from perfect and the death of the characters that provide the social support can have a significant influence on the vigilante.
Some characters even serve as some kind of mentor; as Lawrence Rubin argues, “the presence of the more mature and often times parental, figure reminds us that heroes are not born but made, and like the rest of us require nurturing and guidance” (416). These characters therefore have a significant influence in forming the character of the vigilante, they provide the support needed as well as the necessary voice of reason when the situation requires it.
Crossing the Line: The Moral Justification of Killing the Enemy
Starling City is under threat. Malcolm Merlyn threatens to destroy the Glades, ground zero for most of the criminals, murderers, as well as poor people in the city. Oliver Queen, AKA the Arrow, is the only person able to stop him. Together with his sidekick John Diggle, Oliver confronts Merlyn. Within a few minutes John Diggle is hurt and unable to keep fighting and it is up to Oliver Queen to stop Merlyn. Oliver follows Merlyn to the roof where the confrontation escalates and the two men fight to the death. Merlyn manages to overpower Oliver and it seems the Arrow is defeated. While Merlyn is holding Oliver down Merlyn tells him that he will make sure Oliver’s mother and sister will soon follow him in death, which triggers a flashback for Oliver. He sees his father telling him to survive so he can save the city. Oliver manages to grab an arrow and runs it through his own body into Merlyn’s chest, fatally injuring Merlyn. Oliver manages to tell him “thank you for teaching me what I am fighting for” before Merlyn draws his last breath (“Sacrifice”).
In the climax of this episode, the Arrow takes on the heavy responsibility of saving his hometown, even if this means he has to kill the person responsible for the threat. Throughout its four seasons, TV series Arrow has shown Oliver Queen to be a vigilante in search of justice, willing to do whatever it takes to achieve justice and save “his city.” Even though killing is not
“his opening move” as he explains in “Vendetta,” he is certainly willing to play executioner if it seems there is no other way to stop criminals like Merlyn. In this episode it becomes clear that law enforcement is incapable of stopping this threat. Malcolm Merlyn is presented as a highly skilled warrior, not afraid to kill people that get in his way. Oliver, as the Arrow, is the one to find out who Merlyn is and identify him as a threat to the city. Oliver is the only person who has
the skills that match Merlyn’s and therefore Oliver is the only one capable of putting an end to Merlyn’s attempts to destroy the city. Oliver does try to convince Merlyn that destroying the Glades would not solve the crime in the city. Even though the neighborhood is filled with criminals and murderers, killing everyone in that area would not solve anything and would be morally wrong. However, Merlyn is not open to this side of the story. His wife was murdered in the Glades and he blames the whole area for her death as nobody did anything to help her. For Merlyn this is a personal vendetta. Defeating Merlyn and handing him over to the police does not seem to be an option. In this sense, for Oliver the greater good outweighs crossing the line.
The act of killing someone for the greater good or facing the moral dilemma on whether or not to kill someone if this means one can save and protect people is not uncommon in the other TV series based on vigilantes. In Arrow, The Flash, Daredevil, and Jessica Jones the vigilantes all face the moral dilemma in their search for justice, including whether or not to kill their enemies. As Luke Evans emphasizes “each character, through their labours and failures embodies a set of vises and virtues that we can reflect upon in order to navigate our own way through the complexity of ethical and moral situations we may find ourselves in.” In the case of these vigilantes that also means they can make mistakes like anyone else, however, as they make life and death decisions on a daily basis, very often in a split second, the severity of their
mistakes can have major consequences.
Regardless of whether or not these vigilantes make the decision to cross this line, the Arrow, the Flash, Daredevil, and Jessica Jones all encounter moral dilemmas in their own way.
They all have a great (self-imposed) responsibility, as their choices decide the fate of thousands of people, and they act as the authority to make moral decisions on everyone’s behalf. When these vigilantes find themselves in the situation where the decision to take lives or torture
enemies for the sake of the greater good rests with them, they represent the phenomenon described by Giorgio Agamben as the “state of exception.” In theory this state of exception would justify an authority or a nation to transcend the rule of law and act for the greater good (Agamben 2). However, as Agamben argues, this idea of using this morally gray area in
emergency situations is no longer an exception, “it has become one of the essential practices of contemporary states, including the so-called democratic ones” (2). In the U.S. this is especially visible after 9/11, an example would be the U.S. Patriot Act of October 26, 2001, as in order to protect the nation “President Bush’s order is that it radically erases any legal status of the individual, thus producing a legally un-namable and unclassifiable being” (Agamben 3). This means that the individuals suspected of forming a threat to the nation do not have any legal protection. As Agamben explains “Not only do the Taliban captured in Afghanistan not enjoy the status of POWs as defined by the Geneva Convention, they do not even have the status of
persons charged with a crime according to American laws” (3). This, for example, made torture in Guantanamo Bay prison possible.
In the case of these TV series, the vigilantes act as the authority because their skills and powers are seemingly the only means of stopping the enemy and preventing catastrophes. In this sense they represent the phenomena in society where it has become normal rather than
exceptional to kill and torture to prevent disasters. Joanne Ostrow explains this phenomenon represented on TV and movies is “a sign of the audience’s maturity: pop culture has taken a step toward the realization that life is not black-and-white, that virtue can be a compromise.” The cause of this increase in “darker” characters, according to Carmen Petaccio, may be related to
“the advent of the age of terror, and the stories that audiences needed to hear in its wake. These were, of course, tales of impossible heroism in the face of evil, a commitment to ultimate justice
at all cost.” With this, heroes have become more vulnerable on a psychological level, they are shown to have feelings and problems just like everybody else, and even though they are willing to kill for the greater good this does not mean it does not have any effect on them. This increase in vulnerability, to Ahu Tanrisever is “the most distinct reverberation of 9/11 in US culture- a way of working through the ‘attack’ and ‘inflicted wound’ upon the US by incorporating this
‘weakness’ into representations of heroism and, thus, containing and controlling it through narrative” (245). In other words, the representations of these contemporary heroes seems to reflect the “trauma” of 9/11. U.S. society itself felt more vulnerable through the attacks and had to live with the fear while at the same time President Bush took drastic actions made within the state of exception’s gray area in mind to defend the nation. The representations of these ‘darker’
heroes fall in line with the same overall attitude. Even though the characters in these TV series visibly struggle with the responsibility of protecting people, especially when it requires them to make decisions on whether or not to torture, or even kill enemies because this seems to be the only way to stop them, the notion behind the normalization of the state of exception is never questioned. Rather, these TV series seem to reinforce the notion that immoral actions can be justified if it works for the greater good. This ultimately represents the overall attitude in post- 9/11 U.S. society to justify actions one could classify as immoral because it works towards “the greater good.”
The Arrow develops into a more morally aware character throughout the series and even decides to stop killing his enemies. However, when the city is under a major threat, the idea of killing for the greater good resurfaces. Oliver’s decision to change his way of handling criminals is mostly related to the death of his best friend Tommy Merlyn in “Sacrifice.” Oliver is a
brooding character, who blames himself for most of the death and destruction that came upon the
