My modest review of 'Serenity' on October 5 didn't go into detail on the philosophy of the movie, but one of the two philosophical themes I mentioned was Mal's embodiment of rational self-interest as a philosophy of life. Then along comes John Coleman to say man's highest motivation is not self-interest, but "love and belief." What gives? Had we both seen the same movie? The answer, of course, is yes. But each of us had much different preconceptions against which we weighed the events of the film. Where Coleman sees sacrifice and belief, I see choice and values.

I agree with Coleman's point that there can be no love without belief in something, but I'm not willing to endorse a belief in just "anything." This is what leads, as Coleman admits, to a force that can be either the greatest good or the greatest evil. A textbook example of the latter is the belief system of islamofascists that somehow inspires them to love... DEATH.

A further example of Coleman's flawed analysis of the Serenity characters' motives is his completely baseless characterization of their loves as "unconditional." This just prior to the aforementioned belief prerequisite. Maybe he meant pseudo-conditional instead. No, the film's heroes loved who and what they loved only because those people and things were of value to them. I'm not talking about commercial value... something to be traded. I'm talking about the "big" values - the priceless ones - life, liberty, happiness and the recognition of those values in other people. This is a highly conditional love.

Then there is the issue of "true belief." As I recall, this was Book's explanation to Mal for why the Operative pursuing River was such a formidable foe. But the point was not that this "true" belief was virtuous, rather that it was dangerous. It enabled him to murder children if necessary to further the goals of his cause. Thus, another islamofascist parallel.

I do believe my counterpart has admirable intentions. He at least acknowledges the existence of good and evil. His problem is that his value system is shaped by altruism (unconditional love) and blind faith (true belief.) That may be what moves him to his personal notion of greatness, but it isn't what drives a man of principle to wager his net worth toward defeating an entire government structure founded upon an immoral ideal.

You always get me thinking, jg, I'll give you that...

Yup, there is a whiff of Altruism (should I call it "the A-word?) in Coleman's review that may not be visible in Mal, but I still don't get your flat rebuke of alt****m in all forms.

[Spoilers ahead, but we've been good on this site, if you ain't seen it yet, I dunno...]

Why does Mal "aim to misbehave" when he does? He risks the near certainty of losing his ship, his crew, and the ignominy of being tortured and eaten by rievers.

At that point, and as I've made the case with our U.S. military heroes, it's exceeded rational self interest, if it's not a-------m, it's certainly some form of doing something to benefit others.

I'm so glad you're engaging me on this on JK. It's too good a subject to let fade into "blognominity."

"Why does Mal 'aim to misbehave' when he does?" An excellent question for which I have the answer. Recall the context: Mal and Serenity had just returned to Book's settlement to seek refuge. On their prior visit Book had told him, "The Alliance can't find us here." Mal attempted to, as Book had, "go away and be left alone." But despite how certain Book was that they were safe, the Alliance's thugs STILL found them and STILL murdered them all. Yes, there was a trace of revenge in Mal's pronouncement but, selfishly, he knew that if he tried to hide himself and his from the Alliance they could never be safe. Or at least, could never live in peace knowing the threat was always there. THIS is what caused Mal to "misbehave" and THIS is why US troops went to Afghanistan and Iraq and...??

Now you may choose to see the actions of these men as altruistic, and some of them may feel that to some extent, they're out there risking their lives "to protect their countrymen back home and around the world." But how many of them would not also say they're pursuing evil and confronting danger now in the hope of destroying it, so they can return home to a life of peace without fear? In the final calculation, the best (and fiercest) soldiers are the ones who love not death and destruction, but life and happiness on earth.

In conclusion, because others benefit from the actions of heroes, both real and fictional, does not make such benefit their motive. The first and highest benefit goes to the hero himself. And as proof that Mal doesn't have an altruistic bone in his body I'll remind you of what happened when the man from the bank tried to climb onto Mal's "mule." Mal told him how to save his OWN life, then kicked him off. Wheedon thought this scene so important he had Zoe question him about it in the next scene. "But you left him there to die," she said. "That ship carries four," he said. "We were full and I'm not about to risk my crew when I don't have to." (Or something like that. I don't have the transcript.) This is one of the things I most loved about this film. The philosophy was not just correct, it was explicit.

By the way, did you know that "Zoe" is Greek for "life?"

John, you're missing the character development of the film.

At the beginning, Mal is certainly self focused, caring only about "me and mine." But it is precisely as he leaves this behind that the film moves forward. When he brings River back to his ship after what she did at the bar (the beginning of all his troubles), was that rational self-interest? When Jayne - the true voice of a Randian, and hardly put in a good light - asks why he did it, Wendon makes a point of focusing the camera on a knowing glance between Mal and Zoe, as if to say that Zoe was right to call him on his earlier selfishness. Mal, it seems, recognizes his mistake and refuses to repeat it. That he is no longer seeking his own interest (at least primarily) is confirmed when he refuses to give River up to the Operative. The rational thing to do would be to drop her like a hot potato.

In short, Mal (and especially Jayne) begins as something of a Randian, but the film as a whole (and the series it is based on) is a pretty clear rejection of that view as insufficient.

Belief (and sacrificial love) is presented as necessary, even if it can be abused. The Operative's belief is certainly condemned, but it is Mal's (and the other's) own belief in something more important than themselves (the Truth?) that leads them to oppose and defeat him. The film raises questions about belief, love, freedom and control, but it doesn't fully answer them. It certainly doesn't offer any defense of rational self-interest. Mal, too, is willing to die for his belief, even if that isn't "plan A."

In fact, without a tacit admission that there is a standard of good and evil that is more important than self-interest, the plot (not to mention real life morality) simply would not make sense. Since this affirmation of a fundamental standard of good and evil is itself a belief, self-interest is, at best, a side show to the film's real focus on belief. Thus, John Coleman's review is, I think, substantially correct. Though I suggest it needs a little expansion here: http://cruxmag.typepad.com/situation_critical/2005/10/serenity_revisi.html

I see that I've struck a nerve with my criticism of "true belief." As I compose my response to Ken, Dagny reminds me, "we want him to keep coming back to the site and commenting." While I agree with that, it's often impossible to completely challenge someone's belief system and keep him engaged in rational dialog at the same time. I'll just give it my best, and most diplomatic, effort and let the chips fall...

Earlier I observed that John Coleman saw 'Serenity' as a story of sacrifice and belief rather than choice and values. Ken takes this same worldview even further, describing it as sacrifice and belief TRUMPING choice and values. Citing no more than his interpretation of a "knowing glance" Ken insists that I've misinterpreted Mal's "misbehavior" and that it is, as JK suggested, "certainly some form of doing something to benefit others." But where JK casts this self-sacrificial behavior as "exceeding" rational self-interest, Ken argues that the entire idea of rational self-interest is "insufficient."

To his credit, Ken attempts to explain how it is insufficient: "...without a tacit admission that there is a standard of good and evil that is more important than self-interest, the plot (not to mention real life morality) simply would not make sense." But while Ken is fast and sure in his criticism of rational self-interest, he's not so confident in offering the "sufficient" alternative - one that "fully answers" the questions of "belief, love, freedom and control." His best suggestion is "the Truth." In 'Serenity's' example, the truth is, as Samizdata's Paul Marks put it (see 'Serenity Review', 10/10/2005), the Alliance central government "wishes to create a better, more civilized world (or rather worlds) and (...) is prepared to violate the nonagression principle in order to achieve this objective." (Note again, the Islamist parallel.) But Ken didn't refer to the "truth" he said, "the Truth" with a capital T, like "Him" or "God." (We call Him "NED" around here, meaning "non-existent deity.) So in the end Ken takes nothing more from this film than a duel between competing true-beliefs and, not unlike the Christian crusades against the Muslims of their day, the "good guys" win. Why? Because they believe "in something more important than themselves." This could conceivably explain how our heroes defeat the primative, range-of-the-moment Rievers, but not the Operative who gave us numerous lectures about the superior virtue of HIS true belief.

I give Whedon much, much more credit than this. As Book cautioned Mal, "True belief cannot be defeated, it can only be destroyed." This is because "true" belief means "unquestioning" belief - anything that opposes the doctrine of that belief is, by definition, wrong. But how did Joss end the film? [Major spoiler alert!] When Mal had the Operative dead to rights and raised the sword high in a two-handed grip, with every justification to kill in defense of himself and humanity, Mal plunged the Operative not into death, but into bondage before the video of what resulted on Miranda in the name of his own "true belief." The true-believer was forced to watch the horror that waits as the ultimate end of his highest value: A "better, more civilized world" through the suppression of human ambition. But ninety-nine percent of humanity will, when their ambition is removed, refuse to fight - for their neighbor's life, their loved one's life, their own life... or ANYTHING else. (The other one percent? They become Rievers.) This resulted in the Operative abandoning his pursuit of River.

Thus Mal had not destroyed true belief, he defeated it (also giving River liberty instead of "dropping her like a hot potato.") He did this not by the force of some "superior" true belief, but using reason and reality to show the Operative how his belief was wrong. For the Operative to recognize his error and submit to the overwhelming power of reality in contradiction to his belief required one thing: rational thought.

This brings me to what I consider the most pernicious element of Ken's entire entry. Whether by ignorance or hostility, Ken dismisses Ayn Rand's philosophy as nothing but "me first." He insinuates that Rand held no moral values, no "standard of good and evil that is more important than self-interest." He presents Jayne as "the true voice of a Randian." But Jayne starts out closer to a Riever than a Randian. Rievers kill for sport and for spoils. Jayne too will sometimes kill for spoils, which distinguishes him from Mal or any other Randian. Rational self-interest justifies killing only in defense and not as a means of personal gain... even if that gain is necessary for survival. Randians draw this distinction because it is rational: If every human were a Randian there would be peace and commerce and progress and life; if every human were an altruistic true-believer there would be war and slavery and taxes and mass-murder.

Zoe and Mal's "knowing glance" implies an inconsistency in Mal's treatment of River versus the stranger at the bank, but Mal had made no mistake. Despite River's actions at the bar she was still a member of his crew, and therefore a part of "me and mine." Mal's uncertainty was not the validity of self-interest, but whether River posed a future danger to the rest of the crew. He dealt with her transgression by laying down the law with her and her brother. In the end keeping her proved to be in his, and the crew's, self-interest.

For more on the the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which she called, "Objectivism" see: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

Comments closed on this post. Post future commments on the new thread at: http://www.threesources.com/archives/002077.html (Or scroll to November 6 above.)