As a philosophy major, I figured it was time to apply my knowledge to one of my other obsessions: comics. In studying ethics this semester, I was struck how closely Captain America and Iron Man personified two very different ethical stances: consequentialism and deontology, or roughly, ends vs. means.

First, some introductory comments and definitions. Philosophy is roughly divided into three categories: ontology, epistemology, and ethics. Ontology is the study of being, the status of our existence. Epistemology is the study of knowledge; what can we know and how do we know it? While these first two categories are rather removed from most real-life human problems, most philosophers must deal with them and create a foundation with which to address ethics. Ethics is simply, how do we deal with the rest of humanity? What rules should we follow to create the best society? What rules should I follow to achieve the greatest happiness?

Within ethics are a number of camps, but two of the most important are the consequentialists and the deontologists. The consequentialists say that what is important is our actions, and the outcome of our decisions. Hard and fast moral rules are often inappropriate to particular situations. One must judge every situation seperately, and determine the best course of action. A particular branch of consequentialism is utilitarianism. This is a very simple philosophy: every action you take should provide the maximum benefit to the maximum number of people. This sort of "moral calculation" includes the greatest pleasure/good and the least hard/bad. While some utilitarians allow certain rules of action when time does not permit a calculation (like saving a drowning man), these are merely rules of thumb and aren't meant to restrict one's normal judgments.

On the other hand, the deontologists have a very different view. One of the most important and famous philosophers to hold this view was a man named Immanuel Kant. This view holds that acting according to rationally derived moral principles is more important than a particular outcome. Kant said that the only thing good is the idea of the abstract "good will," which is good in and of itself, not because of a particular consequence. The primary tool he used is called the Categorical Imperative, which can be summed up as follows: "Do not perform any action that you would NOT wish to become a universal law." Breaking it down further, "categorical" means that the action is objectively true (true for all people at all times); "imperative" means that we are compelled to do it, it is our duty as rational and moral beings. What this means is that certain actions are morally, rationally always right or wrong. For Kant, lying is a good example. Testing lying against the categorical imperative, if we willed lying to become universally allowable, then the idea of truth would have no value. Therefore, lying must always be wrong, even if lying would save someone's life. For Kant, adherence to moral duty is the greatest good.

For those of you still reading this, :-), let's apply this to Captain America and Iron Man. In my view, Cap is in most respects a deontologist, and Iron Man a utilitarian. Let's look at some examples:

Cap is known for his extremely strict moral code. He believes that fighting for freedom and helping out the oppressed is always a good thing. No problem there. He also does not believe in killing under any circumstance, and will always aid an enemy near death. One might argue that by letting the Red Skull live, he is indirectly causing the death of the innocents, people that the Skull might kill later. Why not kill him now and save innocent lives? Cap would reply that it's not his decision to make; not only does he not have a right to kill someone, to make a judgment of whether or not they are fit to live, but in his heart, he holds the hope that all of his opponents will one day see the light. To Cap, every life is precious.

Turning to Iron Man for a moment, we see a man who has devoted his life to trying to improve the lives of humanity. Yes, he's a capitalist industrialist, but he's also a humanitarian and philanthropist. While he once thought that the best way to help the greatest number was to produced weapons for his government, in order to attempt to fight for freedom (in his eyes), he later renounced that view. Instead, he chose to focus his resources on providing technology that would help the world in other ways. But in both instances, he was acting according to the principle of greatest good for the greatest number. As Iron Man (he jets away...), he performs according to a similar line of reasoning as selling weapons to the government: he fights for freedom. Iron Man proved to be the ultimate tool a utilitarian could use; he could choose where, when and how he acted, something he couldn't guarantee with his weapons. With that much power and precision, the equations for "greatest good/greatest number" became very easy. Stop the villain; help the victims. This not only contributed to the general welfare, but it gave HIM pleasure as well, another important consideration of the utilitarian.

Now, let's consider three separate cases that challenged the ethics of both our heroes:

1) In the 320's or so of Captain America, the bomb-throwing anarchist Flag-Smasher had a number of hostages that he was threatening to kill unless Cap came out, essentially for execution. Cap infiltrated the complex, disguised as a guard, and finally came to the room with the hostages. There were three guards posted there. Cap knocked out one, and took out another with his shield. The third guard started firing on the hostages as per his instructions, and clearly killed one and was aiming at others. Cap had very little time to decide his next move. Dressed as a guard, Cap was carrying a machine gun, essentially as a prop. Cap quickly calculated that he could properly stop the guard without killing him, but it would take time, which would mean the deaths of several more hostages. Or he could shoot the guard, violating his own principles. A true deontologist would not have shot him; the deaths of the hostages would be on the head of the terrorist, not him. Instead, Cap makes a very utilitarian decision: he figures the life of the innocent hostages was more important than that of the bloodthirsty terrorist, and he shoots the guard.

Not surprisingly, this causes Cap a great deal of mental anguish, but to me, this firmly established Cap as a humanist, someone who believes that rationalism is only good so long as it helps, not hurts, humanity. In that adventure, Cap goes on to save the life of the Flag Smasher and other terrorists, a move which greatly confuses the utilitarian FS. Cap had a moral lapse (in his own eyes), but made sure that it was the exception to the rule rather than the start of a slippery slope.

2) In the 220's of Iron Man, Tony Stark is presented with a rather chilling fact: his technology has been stolen and used by supervillains to cause untold havoc and suffering. This hits Tony where he lives: his own inventions have been bringing pain to a great number, and he views it as HIS fault. So he takes it upon himself to erase the utilitarian imbalance he has created, by any means necessary. While Tony's guiding principle is noble (bringing happiness to others), he has no particular principles in how to bring that about. While he wasn't in the habit of killing super-villains, he did on some occasions get angry enough at certain villains to want to kill them (see the appearance of Midas, in the early 100's). But this was the first time that his great control over the means of creating happiness for others was taken away from him, and his narrow focus on ends (removing the threatening technology) obscured his increasingly questionable means until it was too late. Iron Man uses a device to short-circuit the technology of a few armored supervillains; no big complaint there, right? Stiltman and Controller were public menaces. But attacking Stingray (with no explanation) and then taking out the Guardsmen, that was another matter. His overriding utilitarian calculation--if my technology is out there, death and ruin will follow--outweighed in his mind the problem of the Guardsmen--keeping prisoners secure in the Vault, thus keeping the public safe. As a result, he ended up confronting the paragon of duty, Steve Rogers. Steve had just abandoned his role as Captain America rather than compromise his principles and work for the government, but was still working for the welfare of the American people. Put in Tony's situation, Cap would have tried to find another solution, one that didn't immediately endanger others. Essentially, Steve would have trusted his principles to make the right decision, whereas Tony trusted himself and his intellect. In Tony's case, they had never let him down before; in fact, in his own view, his alcoholism might have been a rejection of his intellect and self-confidence. But in this case, while he accomplished his goal and removed his technology, he caused a good deal of harm on his own, and furthermore permanently besmirched his own reputation.

3) The Galactic Storm dilemma. Here, we see Tony Stark as an ultimate utilitarian, once again reverting to a war model. During war, the rules change, and the value of life changes. Furthermore, Tony knew that he was near death, and so had to make a number of choices that he knew would cut down on his chance of survival, in order to increase the chances of survival for humanity as well as the Kree. This meant that his life was expendable, as were the lives of his team. He thought that quick, decisive action was necessary. He was constantly butting heads with Cap on this issue; Cap thought it wasn't RIGHT to keep your teammates in the dark, and Cap's principles held no matter the situation. Ultimately, the big division came when Iron Man was on the team that decided that the Supreme Intelligence should die. This was questionable as an act of utilitarianism, and I thought out of character for Tony, but it did make some sense in light of the "war rules" that Tony was playing by. The SI had caused the deaths of billions; that act alone demanded some sort of balance, not to mention future harm that it could have caused. Cap, as always, said that while that may very well be true, it wasn't up to them. Cap adheres to a rigid code; Iron Man does what he thinks is right for a given situation.

As an epilogue, Captain America #401 contained an intriguing tale wherein Tony Stark tracks Cap down at a bar and apologizes for his actions. Cap apologizes for his rigidity in judgment; he expects others to follow his code. This remarkable conversation showed, perhaps for the first time, that while extreme situations put them on opposite sides of the fence, they knew that their intentions were noble, and that perhaps they might not be right ALL the time. For both men, set in their ethical paths as they are, this was quite an admission.