Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Dominance of Amorality or How to be a Superhero
Do you realize how difficult it must be to become an amoral person in a Judeo-Christian country? Depending on your viewpoint about morality, it seems like you would have to be raised in a cave to avoid exposure to moral and immoral ideas. And then I realized that the usual places where a child would receive moral instructions are disappearing: the nuclear family (which is falling apart), religious institutions (which are denigrated and ridiculed), and the education system (which has been corrupted by Marxism and other socialist ideologies).
Instead of growing up with traditional morality, people are free to make up their own beliefs and standards. And some do. But I’d like to step back and spend some time looking at the outcome of creating our own morality, and reflect on the daunting path we have to travel to overcome the dominance of amorality and resurrecting the commitment to morality.
First, I’ve always had difficulty understanding the definition of amorality. How can people admit they have no moral distinctions or judgments, ideas which are neither moral nor immoral? Even if the usual learning venues aren’t available, there are a myriad of social and cultural avenues for being exposed to morality.
Or are there?
The blatant denial of G-d, never mind religion, is probably the most obvious absence of a model for morality. When you don’t have G-d to set the moral standard, who or what will? One of the most obvious cultural examples that came to mind is the superhero. And we just happen to have a new Spider-Man movie that’s been released.
Now I admit I’m not a fan of superheroes (although I did have a crush on Superman on television). All that aside, what does admiring a superhero have to do with the absence of G-d? I propose that for many people, the superhero becomes their G-d.
It’s important to distinguish between admiration for some of the traits of the superhero, and actually worshipping the hero himself. From reading some reviews of Spider-Man: No Way Home, Spider-Man is a flawed but powerful hero—just the kind of approachable deity that many people would prefer. He could be your next-door neighbor, or your co-worker. He could even be you:
‘No other superhero has this many defeats, blunders and outright fiascos to his name,’ he continued. ‘Superman always saves the day. Spider-Man usually does too — but often at a terrible personal cost.’
It’s those flaws that allows this comic book character to continue to resonate with fans 60 years after his debut, Singer says. In ‘No Way Home,’ Parker makes many mistakes, but he never stops trying to fix them.
Beyond these factors, I understand the movie focuses on illegal immigration. One review that struck me makes a revealing point about illegal immigration:
‘If we send them back, they’ll die,’ Peter states at one point, summarizing the moral obligation to help those dispossessed individuals fleeing tyranny and oppression. The movie’s climactic battle takes place at the Statue of Liberty, with Peter explicitly drawing attention to how the monument is a beacon to ‘second chances.’ It is a living reminder of America’s often unfulfilled promise to those ‘masses yearning to breathe free.’ It’s a refreshingly bold take for a movie like this.
So, let’s see what we have here: a god-like figure who suggests we are betraying our US tradition and heritage; a reviewer who wants to make sure that we admire this god-like hero who wants to let immigrants stay but has no idea what to do with them (according to the movie description), while throwing in anti-American comments, too; but the important point is that the superhero wants to be compassionate and help them. The cost and consequences are irrelevant.
* * * *
What does all this have to do with amorality? It demonstrates the degree to which our culture is floundering to find heroes to admire, but those following the Left have no idea of how morality factors in. Instead, they can be their own gods, make their own contrived moral choices. They believe they are empowered to decide what is right or wrong or good and bad. They’ll lead riots or burn down buildings for the benefit of society; or they’ll attack conservatives to drive out evil. Or they’ll let some superhero like George Floyd step in for them and they’ll just admire him from a distance.
Ultimately, though, my hope is that those who think they follow in the paths of superheroes with their own narcissistic, righteous beliefs will realize that the outcomes aren’t real. The spiritual rewards are empty. The accomplishments are destructive and alienating. But one day they may suspect they’ve been misguided. Finding one’s way to true morality has no entrance fee or operating hours; one only has to take the first step. Those who do are the real superheroes.
And G-d will be waiting.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, J! Fascinating.
The old school super-heroes always stood for Judeo-Christian morality and hated Nazism and Communism. It was the villains who denied traditional morality and wanted to recreate the world in their own moral sentiments.
Funny how things change, isn’t it, Henry? Thanks for the comment.
Is it amoral to want X-Ray vision? (Asking for a friend.)
Not exactly as I saw it. Spidey realizes he messed it all up. He concedes as much. And he “fixes” it in the end NOT by breaking things, but by sacrificing himself – all of his relationships – in order to save others. The wiser authority accepts his sacrifice, and makes it happen.
Spidey realizes he did the right thing, knowing that his earlier fame was not worth the cost to those he loved. His own story is more tragic, and poignant.
Captain America represents old fashioned 1950s protestant morality only he is cool with black and gay people.
He messed up the first time by ignoring the voice of authority. When he tries to fix things, he again ignores the voice of authority by keeping the spell in the box (and consigning the wizard to a limbo like existence until needed.) Finally, at the end, the wizard comes back and points out the only way to save the world, which involves Spiderman sacrificing his relationships, but the wizard thinks the sacrifice too great. Spiderman nonetheless accepts the sacrificial path, which is to his credit, but also goes to show that Spiderman was the moral superior to the authority all along (since he has a great enough soul to embrace the sacrifice that the wizard discounted) and is vindicated in retrospect in ignoring the wizard’s authority.
I don’t disagree that the story is tragic and poignant. My only point is that it fits the reigning moral orthodoxy of our culture that holds that salvation is not found in submission to greater and wiser authority (say, God), but in discovering our own noble natures within through trust in our personal moral intuitions, even if they lead us to make mistakes. Spiritual growth happens in making and learning from those mistakes, and discovering the moral resources within ourselves. This is the opposite of what the classical Western tradition teaches, but it’s now our cultural orthodoxy.
I am intrigued and grateful for such a thoughtful exchange, @iwe and @jclimacus. Not having seen the movie, I won’t weigh in, but I so appreciate your suggesting the different ways we can understand ideas emerging from filmdom. Thank you.
I am still figuring out the point of the movie. All the villains were taken from their respective universes at the moment of their death. Dr Strange wanted to send them back and then they would die in their respective universe. Spiderman in this universe with the help of the other Spidermen spend a great deal of effort to “cure” each of the super villains. The “cured” villians were then sent back to their respective universes at the moment of their death to die “cured”?