Transformers and Philosophy

by Shook, John, Swan, Liz

  An ethical philosophy that is duty-based is called a “deontology.” Deontologists argue that right things to do are obligations—once we know the right thing to do we must do it. The foremost Deontologist was a man named Immanuel Kant. Kant provided us with one of the most rigorous ethical systems. When we consider the strict code of duty and loyalty that the Autobots follow, we will see that Kant’s theory—Kantianism —effectively describes the ethical system that the Autobots follow.

  Kant argued that we should be rational and that we should let logic and rationality guide our ethical beliefs. Kant thought that if we recognize that something is right, then we also recognize our obligation to do that right thing. It made no sense to Kant for us to claim that something is the right thing to do and then decide not to do it. In the same way, it is wholly irrational for a person to recognize something as wrong, and then do it anyway. To say that something is wrong means “this is something that should not be done.” So, it is clearly irrational to do that thing that we just said we should not do. It is then, our obligation to do the right thing.

  Why Optimus Prime Always Does the Right Thing

  Kant argues that if we are going to follow what is right, then we should do so universally—in all cases. Of equal importance is the fact that for a rule to be a rational rule, it must be one which can be applied rationally in all cases. Kant argued that if a rule can only be used sometimes, it makes no sense. So Kant created what’s called the “Categorical Imperative.” Categorical Imperative simply means “universal rule.” It is a rule which can and should be applied in all cases. We should only act on those rules which can be applied rationally in all cases. So Kant has a great respect for rationality and so, anything which has that ability to be rational should be respected according to Kant, even aliens.

  Kant tells us that this universal rule can be translated in a few different ways, the most popular of which tells us that we always treat rational beings as ends in themselves, never solely as a means. This just tells us that we should never use a thinking thing just to get what we want. For Kant, this meant that we have to respect people; we could not treat them as mere objects. We can see how, then, the Autobots fit easily into Kant’s system. If they simply stole energy from Earth, they would be treating humanity as if it were just a means to an end. In the same way, the Autobots cannot ignore the human casualties that might arise from their fight with the Decepticons because, once again, that would be treating rational beings as if they were just objects. The fact that we are weak and frail compared to the Autobots is irrelevant when considered by the Categorical Imperative because all that matters is that we are thinking things: our differences, and weaknesses are irrelevant.

  Who Wins: Autobots or Decepticons?

  So the fundamental question presents itself: “Who’s right?” Are the Decepticons right in arguing that they should only concern themselves with their own wellbeing or are the Autobots right in arguing that they must do their duty, no matter the cost to themselves? It might seem at first glance that the Autobots must be right, especially given the stake that humanity has in the fight. If the Autobots lose, humanity will be eradicated or enslaved by the Decepticons. But, isn’t that just an egoistic concern? Which means the Decepticons might actually be right! Maybe Starscream is just too big-mouthed for his own good. Perhaps Megatron gets egoism right. He seems to be what philosophers call a Rational Egoist. Megatron is different from Starscream. He has respect for those who can force him to show it—even sometimes for Prime. Unlike Starscream who just announces his egoism to the world, Megatron actually has the power to back it up.

  A famous Rational Egoist, Ayn Rand, argues that we should all be egoists, much like the basic normative egoist, but she argues we should do so because it is rational. Rand thinks that no one else can help you other than yourself. After all, the only person who can get into your own head is you! So she says it’s irrational to try to help others as you can’t even really know what they actually need anyway. But this is in direct contradiction to Kant’s, and Prime’s, own rational system. So which system is the most rational?

  Rand argues that when we try to help others, we are actually doing them a disservice and showing them disrespect because they can succeed on their own. To assume that they need our help is actually harmful to the needy. Her own rule is almost the exact opposite of Kant’s. She sees no reason not to use others to get what you want unless they can demand or force you to do what they want. We might even argue that the reason why this war between the Autobots and the Decepticons continues on and on is only because Prime is unwilling to do what he must to win. He’s had the opportunity to kill Megatron, but his own sense of duty stopped him. Might he, then, be responsible for many innocent deaths because of his own weakness?

  Megatron tells Prime in the recent Michael Bay film: “You still fight for the weak; that is why you lose.” Perhaps he’s on to something. Maybe the most rational thing to do is seek your own interests, but play the game wisely. If you can’t win, like Starscream, perhaps you should keep your mouth shut. But if you can win, like Megatron, then do what you want. The problem, of course is that this does not seem to lead to a very fulfilling existence for rational beings as a whole. Perhaps a couple of super strong beings who can force others to do their will, like Megatron or Unicron, would do quite well, but what reason would the rest of us have to agree with this? Perhaps Starscream says it best when he says, “I will rule the Universe. Even if I am the only one left in the Universe.” It seems that Randian egoism is unlikely to lead to a world of peace or harmony.

  In the end, the choice of which system, and who to join, Autobots or Decepticons, is really a question not of which system is best, but which world you most want to live in. Both systems have arguments for and against them. But, they clearly lead to two different places. Kant provides us with a world of peace and loyalty, but a great deal of obligation and responsibility. Rand provides us with power and success. If you want peace, join Prime and likely die with him fighting for those who probably don’t deserve your help; if you want power, join the Decepticons—but remember if you do that, you’re alone. Either you are the best and first among the Decepticons or you end up like Starscream, dead—and even your fellow Deceptions will be glad when you’re gone.

  12

  Beyond Good? Beyond Evil? Beyond Your Wildest Imagination?

  ADAM BARKMAN

  “Beyond Good. Beyond Evil. Beyond Your Wildest Imagination”—so reads the promotional poster for the 1986 Transformers: The Movie. While, from a marketing perspective, this catchphrase does a good job of promising fans something more than the weekly monotony of Autobots versus Decepticons, it also alludes to German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous book Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future.

  This raises a few important, interlocking questions. First, in Transformers: The Movie, and indeed in the entire 1980s cartoon series, are we supposed to think of good and evil as relative, subjective terms, as Nietzsche does, or are we supposed to think of good and evil with reference to something like an objective, universal moral law, as Plato, for instance, does? Second, if good and evil in Transformers does in fact imply a universal moral law that binds all sentient beings, then what other types of universal principles or archetypes might we also find in Transformers?

  Nietzschean Superman or Platonic Guardian?

  According to Nietzsche, morality is relative, meaning that because (so he states, but never argues) there is no universal moral law which speaks with an absolute voice, people have to create their own morality. Nietzsche’s story of how morality developed begins with people recognizing that joining together in community is a good way of increasing their chances of survival. However, over the years as people began to work for the greater good of the community, they started to identify “conscience” with the will of the community and obedience to it—shortly after called “virtue”—as the highest good. Eventually, people forgot the subjective origins of thei
r morality and started to speak of it as “universal.”

  Now such people, says Nietzsche, are typically followers of “slave-morality” or “herd-morality” since, based on “false” universal moral principles, such as mercy, sympathy and humility, they value taking care of the group as the highest moral good. Recognizing the ignorance of the “slaves” or the “herd,” the “masters” or the few who subscribe to “master-morality” make no distinction between power, beauty, nobility, and moral goodness and so tend to look down on the “slaves” as weak, ugly, base and despicable. While Nietzsche himself doesn’t explicitly identify himself with master-morality, he does envision his ideal man, his “superman,” as a person with unbounded freedom, creativity and power to live his own life as he, free from all moral considerations, chooses to live. Thus, when Nietzsche speaks of standing beyond good and evil, what he has in mind is rising above the herd morality, which in his opinion reduces everyone to a common level, favours mediocrity and prevents the development of the superman.

  But is it possible to stand beyond good and evil—to transvalue values as the philosophers say? According to the Greek philosopher Plato, it is not. For Plato and for the vast majority of the philosophers up until this century, something like a universal, invisible, immaterial moral law exists that, contra Nietzsche, is not created by people, but rather is discovered by the mind upon introspection. Principles of this law, such as it is always wrong to murder for profit, are the basic axioms or foundations of all moral thinking and consequently should provide us (via our conscience) with general guidance as to how we should live our lives. Since this law and its principles are invisible, immaterial, and universal, they in no way depend on space and time and are absolutely binding to all beings who can comprehend them—to gods, men and even, if they exist, rational robots.

  So does The Transformers’ universe support Nietzsche’s assertion that there can be something beyond good and evil, or was that just movie marketing? In order for Nietzschean philosophy to be the favoured philosophy of The Transformers, we would have to see evidence that morality is constructed, that the amoral or immoral superman is admired, and that followers of herd morality—those who value mercy and self-sacrifice—are fearful and ignorant. On the other hand, in order for Platonic-style philosophy to be the favored philosophy of the transformers, we would have to see evidence that certain moral statements can be universally agreed upon, that the Nietzschean superman is a villain, and that followers of the universal moral law—those who value mercy, self-sacrifice and so on—are wise and admirable.

  “Thrones Are for Decepticons”

  In the episode “Fire in the Sky,” the Decepticons unearth the transformer Skyfire, an old friend of Starscream who had crashed to the Earth before the civil war between the Autobots and Decepticons had broken out. Being an old friend of Starscream, Skyfire naturally trusted his friend when he said that the Autobots were evil and the Decepticons were good. However, shortly thereafter, Starscream ordered Skyfire to hurt some innocent human beings and kill a few captured Autobots. Because Skyfire knew that hurting innocent beings was immoral—not just relatively, but objectively—he refused, saying simply, “It is wrong.” Plato would have applauded, and so, I hope, would all of us.

  In another episode entitled “War Dawn,” we are told of a young robot named Orion Pax, who admired Megatron for his immense power. However, once Megatron revealed himself to be a greedy robot who steals Energon and kills and injures those who get in his way, Orion Pax, who is later rebuilt as Optimus Prime, tells us, “I was wrong, my friends. I admired Megatron merely because he was powerful; I failed to see how he used that power.” The point is clear: Megatron, like the Nietzschean superman, is a villain because he does not feel bound by regular morality and simply covets and uses power to satisfy his own “hunger” (“More than Meets the Eye, Part 2”). Optimus Prime, on the other hand, is shown to be the universally admired one, for it is he who “cares a lot for his fellow robots” (“More than Meets the Eye, Part 3”); it is he who tries to stop the Decepticons “before they destroy the world” (“More than Meets the Eye, Part 2”); it is he who keeps his promise, even to his enemies (“Heavy Metal War”); it is he who is willing to save another even if it means sacrificing himself (“The Search for Alpha Trion”); and it is he who, like the ethical guardians of Plato’s Republic, does not covet power, but accepts the burden of leadership with great humility, declaring, “Thrones are for Decepticons” (“Triple Takeover”).

  But What about Unicron and the Quintessons?

  Now some might object and say that universal morality may apply to the Decepticons and the Autobots, but not to others. However, such an objection is quite ridiculous, for if there is a universal moral law, then it must be universal. Hence, neither Unicron, whom the 1986 movie poster declares to be beyond good and evil, and the Quintessons, who say that the good of the Autobots and the evil of the Decepticons make “no difference at all” to them (“The Killing Jar”), are free from the universal moral law. Both may talk as though they were, both may act as though they were, but they are not. Hence, the Quintessons are quite clearly shown to be evil in simply a different mode than the Decepticons, and the writer of Transformers: The Movie, Flint Dille, says that Unicron is not beyond good and evil but is simply “so evil” that even Galvatron and Hot Rod are willing to join forces to defeat him (“Transformers: The Movie; Twentieth Anniversary Special Edition, Movie Commentary”).

  But Didn’t Optimus Prime Support a Kind of Relativism When He Asked, “In This Vast Universe Is Anything Truly Forever?”

  Another objection that people might have to my strong division of Decepticons-relativists-villains and Autobots-universalists heroes is from Optimus Prime himself, who, in the episode “Heavy Metal War,” asks, “In this vast universe is anything truly forever?” While I will address the specifics of this quotation a little later, perhaps one of the things we could see this question asking is whether morality is something that should be judged, not specific to the individual, as a moral relativist like Nietzsche sees it, or universal to all rational beings, as Plato sees it, but rather specific to a given culture—where a culture is a semi-stable, but not universally stable, entity. In other words, should the rightness or wrongness of a given being’s beliefs and actions be evaluated solely in terms of his own culture?

  This objection is an objection from what is known as cultural relativism. According to cultural relativism, the problem that we all face is that of ethnocentrism, which is when a given individual feels that his group is at the center of everything, entailing, among other things, the belief that his group’s morality is truer and better than anyone else’s. Ultimately, what lies at, or near, the heart of cultural relativism is the denial that any culture or sub-culture can know any principle as self-evident, such as those who support universal morality pretend to do. To a cultural relativist, the claim by any culture to have access to universal, self-evident knowledge is misguided and dangerous, for this claim often turns into a form of imperialism, where the group in question tries to impose its view of morality on other cultures. Hence, the cultural relativist advocates tolerance through ethnography, the process of living among other cultures to better understand them, and ethnology, the process of comparing and contrasting a wide range of cultures in a fair way.

  However, while both ethnography and ethnology are important methods of increasing our knowledge of the world, which, in turn, usually makes people more sympathetic and just, cultural relativism as a whole has two serious flaws, both of which, as we shall see, Optimus Prime and the Autobots seem to recognize.

  The first flaw in cultural relativism is this: if the cultural relativist denies that people can know self-evident truths that can be universally and cross-culturally applied, then how can the cultural relativist advocate universal toleration? The cultural relativist has no defense against the charge of self-contradiction, for it is easy to see that the cultural relativist himself is intolerant of any society t
hat lacks the cultural relativist’s particular—twentieth century, western, secular—view of tolerance. The cultural relativist, in other words, becomes an agent of imperialism by the very philosophy that he created to stop it. Thus, the cultural relativist is like the pacifist Autobot First Aid, who, through the belief that true peace can never be achieved by fighting, refused to help the Autobots in a crucial battle against the Decepticons, the ultimate result of which was less peace than before, not more (“The Ultimate Weapon”). However, unlike the cultural relativist, who sticks by his guns, First Aid later came to see the self-defeating nature of his philosophy through the recognition that mere peace is not the goal, but the right kind of peace—peace achieved and maintained by the universal principles of justice and mercy.

  And this leads to the second flaw of cultural relativism, which is that the principle of tolerating all cultures will ultimately tolerate the intolerable. In order to illustrate this, let’s consider the cultural history of the transformers by means of a reductio ad absurdum. A reductio ad absurdum (‘reduction to absurdity’) is a special type of logical argument which begins by assuming the truth of the thing it wants to disprove in order to show how absurd it would be if the thing were true. So, let’s assume that cultural relativism is true and now turn our attention to the cultural history of the transformers.

  By piecing together various episodes, we know that in the beginning, the Quintessons brought the supercomputer Vector Sigma to the planet Cybertron, which the five-faced creatures converted into a massive factory for producing robots (“The Key to Vector Sigma, Part 1” and “The Five Faces of Darkness, Part 5”). Although we don’t have all the details, we know that the Quintessons produced two general types of robot: consumer robots and military robots. However, when these two types of robot developed a high enough level of intelligence, they overthrew their Quintesson masters and established a “Cybertron Law” (“Heavy Metal War”). Yet eventually the military robots, who became known as the Decepticons, became ambitious for power like their former Quintesson masters, and so attempted to enslave the consumer robots or Autobots. This resulted in the Cybertronian civil war that finally ended with the destruction of Unicron.