Terminator and Philosophy: I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am (32 page)
Read Terminator and Philosophy: I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am Online
Authors: Richard Brown,William Irwin,Kevin S. Decker
BOOK: Terminator and Philosophy: I'll Be Back, Therefore I Am
4.36Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
1
Throughout this chapter, I’ll refer to the general wrongness of killing while keeping in mind that there may be some cases—such as killing an enemy combatant in a just war or an assailant in self-defense—in which it would be morally justifiable.
Throughout this chapter, I’ll refer to the general wrongness of killing while keeping in mind that there may be some cases—such as killing an enemy combatant in a just war or an assailant in self-defense—in which it would be morally justifiable.
2
Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae
, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros., 1948), Ia-IIae, Q. 94, a. 2; vol. 2, p. 1009.
Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae
, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros., 1948), Ia-IIae, Q. 94, a. 2; vol. 2, p. 1009.
3
Ibid., Q. 123, a. 4; vol. 3, p. 1703.
Ibid., Q. 123, a. 4; vol. 3, p. 1703.
4
As one astute fan noted on the
Imdb.com
Web page for
The Terminator
, Dr. Silberman has this conceptually backward. He should’ve said “proactive abortion,” since proactive is preventive while retroactive is after the fact: “Abortions in themselves are retroactive.” See
www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/goofs
.
As one astute fan noted on the
Imdb.com
Web page for
The Terminator
, Dr. Silberman has this conceptually backward. He should’ve said “proactive abortion,” since proactive is preventive while retroactive is after the fact: “Abortions in themselves are retroactive.” See
www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/goofs
.
5
See John Stuart Mill,
Utilitarianism
, ed. George Sher, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001), 7.
See John Stuart Mill,
Utilitarianism
, ed. George Sher, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001), 7.
6
As the nitpickers will no doubt note, the Terminator can’t self-terminate. But he can request that Sarah terminate him at the end of
T2
, and he can willingly sacrifice himself to destroy the T-X in
T3
. For more on the Terminator’s sacrifice, see Daniel P. Malloy’s chapter in this volume, “Self-Termination: Suicide, Self-Sacrifice, and the Terminator.”
As the nitpickers will no doubt note, the Terminator can’t self-terminate. But he can request that Sarah terminate him at the end of
T2
, and he can willingly sacrifice himself to destroy the T-X in
T3
. For more on the Terminator’s sacrifice, see Daniel P. Malloy’s chapter in this volume, “Self-Termination: Suicide, Self-Sacrifice, and the Terminator.”
7
Don Marquis, “Why Abortion Is Immoral,”
Journal of Philosophy
86 (1989): 189.
Don Marquis, “Why Abortion Is Immoral,”
Journal of Philosophy
86 (1989): 189.
8
Epicurus, “Letter to Menoeceus,” trans. Cyril Bailey, in
Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues
, ed. Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009), 178-179.
Epicurus, “Letter to Menoeceus,” trans. Cyril Bailey, in
Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues
, ed. Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009), 178-179.
9
Lucretius,
On the Nature of the Universe
, trans. R. E. Latham (New York: Penguin Books, 1951), 122.
Lucretius,
On the Nature of the Universe
, trans. R. E. Latham (New York: Penguin Books, 1951), 122.
10
Lucretius,
On the Nature of the Universe
, 125.
Lucretius,
On the Nature of the Universe
, 125.
11
Plato,
Apology
, in
Five Dialogues
, trans. G. M. A. Grube, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), 40c-e; p. 43.
Plato,
Apology
, in
Five Dialogues
, trans. G. M. A. Grube, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002), 40c-e; p. 43.
12
Fred Feldman,
Confrontations with the Reaper
(New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1992), 207.
Fred Feldman,
Confrontations with the Reaper
(New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1992), 207.
13
Jeff McMahan, “Death and the Value of Life,” in
The Metaphysics of Death
, ed. John Martin Fischer (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1993), 241.
Jeff McMahan, “Death and the Value of Life,” in
The Metaphysics of Death
, ed. John Martin Fischer (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1993), 241.
14
George Pitcher, “The Misfortunes of the Dead,” in Fischer,
The Metaphysics of Death
, 161.
George Pitcher, “The Misfortunes of the Dead,” in Fischer,
The Metaphysics of Death
, 161.
15
For more on the metaphysics of time travel, see Kristie Lynn Miller’s chapter in this volume, “Changing the Future: Fate and the Terminator.”
For more on the metaphysics of time travel, see Kristie Lynn Miller’s chapter in this volume, “Changing the Future: Fate and the Terminator.”
16
See Feldman,
Confrontations
, 154; and Thomas Nagel, “Death,” in Fischer,
The Metaphysics of Death
, 65. The same may be true for certain types of benefits that make an overall life better off than if they didn’t occur.
See Feldman,
Confrontations
, 154; and Thomas Nagel, “Death,” in Fischer,
The Metaphysics of Death
, 65. The same may be true for certain types of benefits that make an overall life better off than if they didn’t occur.
17
Pitcher, “The Misfortunes of the Dead,” 168.
Pitcher, “The Misfortunes of the Dead,” 168.
18
McMahan, “Death and the Value of Life,” 262.
McMahan, “Death and the Value of Life,” 262.
19
L. W. Sumner, “A Matter of Life and Death,”
Noûs
10 (1976): 161-162.
L. W. Sumner, “A Matter of Life and Death,”
Noûs
10 (1976): 161-162.
20
Nagel, “Death,” 62.
Nagel, “Death,” 62.
21
See Kai Draper, “Disappointment, Sadness, and Death,”
Philosophical Review
108 (1999): 389-390.
See Kai Draper, “Disappointment, Sadness, and Death,”
Philosophical Review
108 (1999): 389-390.
22
Robert Young, “What Is So Wrong with Killing People?”
Philosophy
54 (1979): 519.
Robert Young, “What Is So Wrong with Killing People?”
Philosophy
54 (1979): 519.
23
Given that the events in
T2
alter the timeline such that Judgment Day comes much later, it may be correct to judge the victim’s death on August 28, 1997, as a misfortune for her, since the many more years of life she would’ve enjoyed might outweigh the fiery death she’ll have to endure later on.
Given that the events in
T2
alter the timeline such that Judgment Day comes much later, it may be correct to judge the victim’s death on August 28, 1997, as a misfortune for her, since the many more years of life she would’ve enjoyed might outweigh the fiery death she’ll have to endure later on.
24
Draper, “Disappointment, Sadness, and Death,” 409.
Draper, “Disappointment, Sadness, and Death,” 409.
25
I am most grateful to Richard Brown, Kevin Decker, and Bill Irwin for helpful comments and editorial finesse on earlier drafts of this chapter.
I am most grateful to Richard Brown, Kevin Decker, and Bill Irwin for helpful comments and editorial finesse on earlier drafts of this chapter.
16
SHOULD JOHN CONNOR SAVE THE WORLD?
Peter S. Fosl
Hello? Hello? Can somebody hear me? . . . Connor, can you help us?
—
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Shortly after 6:18 PM on Judgment Day, 2003, safe behind the rocky buttresses and steel blast doors of Crystal Peak, the call to fulfill his destiny as leader of the human resistance literally comes to John Connor via the civil defense radio network. The intrusion of the plaintive voice from Montana into the cavern, however, actually marks for John the culmination of a special period of time that began just prior to the rising of the sun that day, when the Terminator announced to John at the veterinary clinic, “It is time.”
Like a giant magnifying glass focusing all of the sunlight within its scope onto a single searing spot, the call from Montana that makes its claim upon John concentrates his whole life into a single, momentous choice: yes or no? Become the leader of the human resistance and accept at least the probability of a violent death in 2032 at the hands of the very Terminator that just saved his life? Or huddle silently beneath Crystal Peak with Kate Brewster facing an uncertain future, while the machines march victorious outside?
Trembling with anxiety, John picks up the microphone and responds affirmatively to the call, acknowledging that he’s now in charge and that he will help. There’s an ancient Greek word that describes the sort of weighty moment in which John Connor finds himself when the call comes to him at Crystal Peak—
chairos
.
1
This word means, roughly, time understood in terms of its qualitative
significance
rather than just its quantitative
passage
. It indicates a moment when something of great importance is realized; for example, the moment when another person with the initials “J. C.” was supposed to have realized his destiny by suffering crucifixion.
chairos
.
1
This word means, roughly, time understood in terms of its qualitative
significance
rather than just its quantitative
passage
. It indicates a moment when something of great importance is realized; for example, the moment when another person with the initials “J. C.” was supposed to have realized his destiny by suffering crucifixion.
Moments like the one John is facing don’t happen every day. Some moments are just moments: the clock ticks; the fingers thrum the desktop; the car rolls along. Another day, another dollar. Other moments, however, are not mere moments: they are special, weighty. They
matter
. And the way each of us deals with a
chairotic
moment determines the course of our futures, determines who we are. “Will you marry me?” “Will you accept this job?” “How do you find the defendant?” “What’s it gonna be, boy, yes or no?”
2
matter
. And the way each of us deals with a
chairotic
moment determines the course of our futures, determines who we are. “Will you marry me?” “Will you accept this job?” “How do you find the defendant?” “What’s it gonna be, boy, yes or no?”
2
The moment of
chairos
that John Connor faces at Crystal Peak piques my philosophical curiosity. Sure, we know what he
will
do; but what
should
he do? Most of us are familiar with the predictable plot trajectories of mainstream Hollywood movies. And given what we’ve seen in all the clues that the
Terminator
movies have presented, it’s hardly a surprise that John responds positively to the chairotic question put to him. The
Terminator
movies are suspense thrillers, not mysteries. But from a philosophical point of view, can we produce a compelling account of why John Connor
should
accept the helm of the resistance, and with it, the likelihood of a martyr’s death? Is John actually
obligated
to respond positively to the call? Does he, in fact, have a
duty
to lead the resistance? Would there be anything morally wrong with his saying no?
chairos
that John Connor faces at Crystal Peak piques my philosophical curiosity. Sure, we know what he
will
do; but what
should
he do? Most of us are familiar with the predictable plot trajectories of mainstream Hollywood movies. And given what we’ve seen in all the clues that the
Terminator
movies have presented, it’s hardly a surprise that John responds positively to the chairotic question put to him. The
Terminator
movies are suspense thrillers, not mysteries. But from a philosophical point of view, can we produce a compelling account of why John Connor
should
accept the helm of the resistance, and with it, the likelihood of a martyr’s death? Is John actually
obligated
to respond positively to the call? Does he, in fact, have a
duty
to lead the resistance? Would there be anything morally wrong with his saying no?
Of course, wondering whether John ought to respond positively or negatively to the call assumes that he has a choice in the matter. In the first film,
The Terminator
, the machines seem unable to alter the course of their own future, or at least unable to alter their past.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
, on the other hand, seems to dilute this message a bit and closes with the suggestion that our present (the machines’ past) may be altered, but without any assurance one way or the other that this will change the future.
3
The third installment,
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
, shifts this ground even further, letting the viewer know that changing the present
can
positively alter the future—but not to the extent that we had hoped. Judgment Day, we learn, has not been prevented or avoided, only postponed.
4
The Terminator
, the machines seem unable to alter the course of their own future, or at least unable to alter their past.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
, on the other hand, seems to dilute this message a bit and closes with the suggestion that our present (the machines’ past) may be altered, but without any assurance one way or the other that this will change the future.
3
The third installment,
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
, shifts this ground even further, letting the viewer know that changing the present
can
positively alter the future—but not to the extent that we had hoped. Judgment Day, we learn, has not been prevented or avoided, only postponed.
4
We don’t quite know, however, just how far the future can be altered or whether Judgment Day could have been stopped with the right strategy. But we do know that despite the elimination of Miles Dyson, what John and Sarah could find of his research, and the two Terminators themselves, Skynet is nevertheless built, and the coming of Judgment Day, like that menacing storm with which
The Terminator
closes, rolls down upon the world like a juggernaut.
5
This sense of the inevitability of the future leads John Connor to suffer a kind of
angst
—dread and foreboding, with the sense that he bears the weight of the world. Is this the proper attitude to bring to this chairotic moment?
The Terminator
closes, rolls down upon the world like a juggernaut.
5
This sense of the inevitability of the future leads John Connor to suffer a kind of
angst
—dread and foreboding, with the sense that he bears the weight of the world. Is this the proper attitude to bring to this chairotic moment?
At the beginning of
T3
, we find John tormented by his role in the world’s grand drama. Even though he and his mother survived past August 29, 1997 (what Kyle Reese told Sarah would be Judgment Day), and though John has “erased all connections with the past,” he still doesn’t “feel safe.” For some unknown reason, he “feels the weight of the future bearing down” on him; and in an attempt to avoid the burden, he keeps “running, as fast as [he] can,” living off the grid, speeding along on his motorcycle to “anywhere, nowhere,” like his mother before him, out of the cities and into the natural world, only able to see in front of him as far as the opening in the darkness illuminated by his headlamp.
T3
, we find John tormented by his role in the world’s grand drama. Even though he and his mother survived past August 29, 1997 (what Kyle Reese told Sarah would be Judgment Day), and though John has “erased all connections with the past,” he still doesn’t “feel safe.” For some unknown reason, he “feels the weight of the future bearing down” on him; and in an attempt to avoid the burden, he keeps “running, as fast as [he] can,” living off the grid, speeding along on his motorcycle to “anywhere, nowhere,” like his mother before him, out of the cities and into the natural world, only able to see in front of him as far as the opening in the darkness illuminated by his headlamp.
But then, out of the darkness, from beyond the reach of the light, something intrudes, throwing itself squarely into the path of John’s flight. Not just something, but a living being bearing a moral claim. In its vulnerability and in the urgency of its dangerous situation, the deer that appears makes a claim on John. He finds that he must act, even at the cost of his own safety, to respond to the deer’s claim and not run it down.
6
He is, like Saint Paul, “knocked off his horse.” This moment, of course, foreshadows the moral claims that reach out and find John under Crystal Peak despite the attempt by Kate’s father, General Brewster, to place Kate and John beyond the conflict’s reach. In the structure that unites the films, it seems that John is the one who must answer the call of both past and future history.
7
And the terrible weight the future places on him seems to be his alone to bear, whether he wants it or not.
6
He is, like Saint Paul, “knocked off his horse.” This moment, of course, foreshadows the moral claims that reach out and find John under Crystal Peak despite the attempt by Kate’s father, General Brewster, to place Kate and John beyond the conflict’s reach. In the structure that unites the films, it seems that John is the one who must answer the call of both past and future history.
7
And the terrible weight the future places on him seems to be his alone to bear, whether he wants it or not.
Still, you’ve got to wonder: if destroying the Terminators, Dyson, and the records at the Cyberdyne building didn’t stop Judgment Day, then why should John’s refusal to answer the call or even John or Sarah’s premature deaths at the hands of Terminators (had they succeeded) stop the victory of the human resistance over the machines? Remember that the future that the T-101 relates to Sarah and John includes not only the rise of the machines but also their impending fall. So, since Sarah and John’s altering things didn’t stop the machines from rising, why should the machines conclude that the T-X’s altering things would stop the human resistance from prevailing? The T-101 tells John in
T3
that Judgment Day is “inevitable.”
8
So, isn’t the resistance’s victory inevitable, too? Didn’t the machines learn anything from the events of the first and second films?
T3
that Judgment Day is “inevitable.”
8
So, isn’t the resistance’s victory inevitable, too? Didn’t the machines learn anything from the events of the first and second films?
John has good reason indeed to dread the suffering of the approaching struggle. But it’s not reasonable for him to believe that the success of the human resistance in the future depends solely upon him. Should John die or should he say no to the call, another leader, perhaps the caller from Montana, might well rise up in John’s place. Perhaps the Montanan might prove to be an even better leader than John. And while John’s refusal might conceivably
postpone
the humans’ victory, there’s little reason to believe that it would finally prevent it. John, so far as I can tell, would do better to abandon the weightiness that burdens him and embrace a bit more of what the novelist Milan Kundera calls the “lightness” of being.
9
postpone
the humans’ victory, there’s little reason to believe that it would finally prevent it. John, so far as I can tell, would do better to abandon the weightiness that burdens him and embrace a bit more of what the novelist Milan Kundera calls the “lightness” of being.
9
And, of course, as far as alternative leaders go, there’s Kate. By the end of
T3
, she has pretty well demonstrated her bravery by fighting John, the Terminators, and even the mini-HK. She has also proved her resilience by dealing unbelievably well with the deaths of her fiancé and her father, not to mention the realization that her world is about to end. Nevertheless, the film positions Kate only as a subordinate to John, as “second in command.” She even seems, once safe inside Crystal Peak, ready to quit the resistance and “just let it go.” The leading female human of
T3
, then, rather than establishing an independent life of her own, is simply transferred from the authority of her father to that of her husband—who as a boy, remember, had silenced the excesses of his mother’s feminist rant when she confronted Dyson in
T2
.
10
Finally, there’s the shrieking, ball-busting “bitch” T-X (worse than any of the male Terminators), who, after being tossed through the urinals (the place of men), is destroyed by her male counterpart. In the patriarchal universe of the
Terminator
films (so far), men put women in their place, for only men can save the world.
11
Kate, then,
does
have something to feel angst about.
T3
, she has pretty well demonstrated her bravery by fighting John, the Terminators, and even the mini-HK. She has also proved her resilience by dealing unbelievably well with the deaths of her fiancé and her father, not to mention the realization that her world is about to end. Nevertheless, the film positions Kate only as a subordinate to John, as “second in command.” She even seems, once safe inside Crystal Peak, ready to quit the resistance and “just let it go.” The leading female human of
T3
, then, rather than establishing an independent life of her own, is simply transferred from the authority of her father to that of her husband—who as a boy, remember, had silenced the excesses of his mother’s feminist rant when she confronted Dyson in
T2
.
10
Finally, there’s the shrieking, ball-busting “bitch” T-X (worse than any of the male Terminators), who, after being tossed through the urinals (the place of men), is destroyed by her male counterpart. In the patriarchal universe of the
Terminator
films (so far), men put women in their place, for only men can save the world.
11
Kate, then,
does
have something to feel angst about.
Other books
Waiting for Jo by srbrdshaw
What Lies Inside (A Blood Bound Novel, Book 1) by Myers, J.L.
This Chance Planet by Elizabeth Bear
Arranged by the Stars by Kamy Chetty
Dustbin Baby by Wilson, Jacqueline
Grey Zone by Clea Simon
Dispossession by Chaz Brenchley
Challenge by Montgomery Mahaffey
The Actor and the Housewife by Shannon Hale
Analog SFF, September 2010 by Dell Magazine Authors