Hey Wisecrack, Jared here, and today we’re talking about one of the more thoughtful Marvel
properties out there: Daredevil. And no, NOT the Ben Affleck one. Also, spoiler alert for all of you that
haven’t binged both seasons yet. Matt Murdock, Blind Lawyer, and human lie detector… is
a vigilante: the Devil of Hell’s Kitchen.
The very concept of justice is based in the idea that law ought to be fair. This is why
justice is personified as a blind woman holding scales and a sword: to weigh guilt and to
execute said justice. Its no coincidence that Matt Murdock is a blind lawyer that beats
people up in his Pajamas.
The other element the show places significant emphasis on is the fact that Matt is a Catholic.
The choice to name a catholic superhero Matthew after the Apostle and Evangelist is quite
apt. As a tax collector Matthew would
have a similar reputation to lawyers today. The Book of Matthew does quite a bit of commentary
on greed and social justice. Matthew 25: 31- 46 sounds a whole lot like a justification
for Pro Bono Legal work and Matthew 23:16 deals explicitly with corruption and blindness.
In fact, the promotional material for the second season was heavily influenced by religious
art including Caravvagio Michaelangelo’s The Last Judgement, and Rubens’s Saint Sebastian,
which echoes Claire’s fears about Matt. Whether it be divine law or man-made law, the central
theme of Daredevil is Justice. So lets get to it, Welcome to this Wisecrack edition on
The Philosophy of Daredevil. Daredevil addresses a serious problem with justice: legal liability,
whether or not a guilty party ought to be held responsible for their actions.
Sure it seems simple enough, somebody goes on a killing spree… they deserve to be punished,
right? But that narrative is complicated by one of the central questions in Daredevil:
Are people responsible for their life situations? In season two, Nelson and Murdock attempt
to use PTSD as a defense for Frank Castle, saying that Frank doesn’t know the difference
between right and wrong, and thus, he’s not responsible for his actions.
When little Frankie Castle balks at this, they reword their defense, to “sympathetic
storming”, a diagnosis where the sympathetic system is on a heightened state of alert due
to extreme trauma and emotional disturbance. Again, the idea is: Frank Castle is not responsible
for his actions. The show asks: is a person still to blame for their actions if they aren’t
free to chose the person they have become?
Wilson Fisk is conditioned into a world of violence by his abusive father until he, well,
snaps. Electra is presented as an emotionless killing machine that can do nothing but murder
because of her nature as the Black Sky. Elektra is literally predisposed to be evil, and a
significant portion of the second season revolves around the question: can she exercise her
free will to deny her destiny?
Frank Castle has experienced the complete horror of war, only to return home and see
his entire family violently gunned down. Can one really blame him for being vengeful?
And then there's Karen. We've already seen her murder one person. And the show constantly hints
at her mysterious dark past.
Karen has to believe that someone like Frank Castle isn't all bad. That he isn't defined by his deeds.
Because if he is, she is, and always will be a murderer.
Philosophically speaking, the idea that all decisions are determined by previous causes is called determinism.
Determinists don’t really believe in free will. All actions are just the consequence
of previous actions. Each choice a person makes is impacted by previous life events.
In a deterministic universe, concepts like responsibility and punishment don’t really
make sense because if we’re just a product of our past, then we don’t really CHOOSE
to do the things we do. And how can we be punished for something we didn’t choose?
Matt represents a different view of criminal justice: Libertarianism: which believes in
the ability to choose other than your determined nature. Libertarians are of the hopeful sorts.
I mean… Matt literally wears rose-colored glasses. Matt presents an option whereby people
can elevate themselves beyond their determined condition or environment. It’s what Matt
is going on an on about on the roof with the Punisher, about the redemptive spark inside of
a person, where someone isn’t all bad, that they can choose of their own free will
to be different.
While Matt is supposed to be the example to prove determinism wrong: Matt has the devil
inside him, whatever that means. He wants to kill people like Fisk, but he chooses not to. Does
he act of his own free will or is Matt merely un-free in his Catholicism? Is his choice
not to kill the Kingpin a decision that he makes freely or does he merely make this decision
based on the events that led to him accepting Catholicism and all of its precepts?
Vigilantism causes controversy because the vigilante, being outside the legal system,
doesn’t have authority to distribute punishment. There’s no due process or impartiality.
Vigilantism is common in comic books but in most cases the hero isn’t in a position
to be harmed by being outed as a vigilante. Electra is silly rich. Bruce Wayne and Tony
Stark are billionaire playboys. Superman can get shot in the eyeball and be fine. Matt
Murdock on the otherhand, is a blind defense lawyer who gets paid in bananas and casseroles.
There is actual risk for Matt if people find out who he is. It’s part of why the Daredevil is the man without fear.
Matt’s motivation for risking so much is echoed by a Thurgood Marshall speech from 1992 about dissenting against fear.
While justice Marshall may not be calling for vigilante justice he is calling for an
end to fear and apathy—to not turn a “blind eye” to injustice. Though vigilante violence
is still extra-legal, the question: what makes a person good is a central idea of the show—and
while it’s a little heavy handed—they make it clear that Matt Murdock is just a
bad day away from becoming Wilson Fisk or Frank castle.
Most superhero narratives play up the cliché of good and evil. There’s a pure heroic
protagonist and a corrupt and vile antagonist. In Daredevil, however, this elementary distinction
is blurred by Kingpin, Stick, Electra, and the Punisher, who all occupy moral gray areas.
They don’t set out to do evil, they validate their decisions by appeals to a greater good.
For the Kingpin it is the glory of his city. For the Punisher, he is merely doling out justice, for Stick
and Electra there is a great war between the Chaste and the Hand. That they have to deal with.
What separates Matt from Karen, The punisher and the Kingpin is faith— Matt is a Catholic,
whereas all the others profess they aren’t religious. Orphaned after the death of his
father, he is raised by nuns, attends church regularly and makes an effort to be a good
man. Which is funny because Matt chooses to dress up like the devil and kick the shit
out of people. And so for Karen, The Punisher, and Kingpin there is nothing besides the corrupt
law to keep them from killing. No divine law that makes taking life unjust.
Each season Matt tackles different adversaries, but the actual enemy doesn’t really matter.
What matters is Matt’s struggle with his inner devil—with his desire to bring Justice
to his city by any means necessary… except killing… Matt is a good catholic boy who
likes hurting people but has a real problem killing people. Something about “Thou shall
not kill”?
Except that he doesn’t choose not to kill—he kills Nobu three times but conveniently forgets
about it every time he does so. He lights him on fire, he throws him off a three-story
balcony, then he chucks him off of a roof, and at no time does he express any guilt for
doing so… so maybe he does have the devil in him…
A great example of the dichotomy of Matt's relationship to the law happens early in season 1.
When he exercises his ability as a defense attorney to defend a murderer he knows is guilty, then turns around
and doles out some street justice as soon as he leaves the courthouse.
Or how he fights the Punisher and then defends him in court in season 2.
There is a constant refrain from characters in the show and that is: Daredevil’s tactics as
a vigilante are half measures. Fisk argues that what’s dangerous about Matt is not
that he wears a cape or mask, Daredevil is dangerous because he believes one man can
make a difference. For Fisk, it’s only through sweeping structural changes that come about
by through influence; power, money and eating the same omelet everyday that real change can take
shape.
Fisks’s argument is echoed by both The Punisher and Stick: that Daredevil’s vigilantism
is insufficient. Matt plods through life like his father, a boxer who slides through life
taking on each opponent one by one, fight by fight. For Stick and Punisher, Daredevil’s
insistence to not kill limits his ability to effectuate change. Daredevil’s perps
end up back on the street to continue to rape, kill, and murder. In many ways the yellow
seen everywhere can be read as more than just an homage to the primary colors of the comic
books: it speaks to what Daredevil’s frenemies imply… that The Devil of Hell’s kitchen
is really a yellowbellied coward.
In a criminal justice sense, Daredevil justifies his actions through a utilitarian approach,
His idea of justice relies
on rehabilitating, incapacitating and deterring the criminal. Punishment is justified by a
forward-looking prediction to stop future harm for the sake of all of society. An action
is just only if it advances one of these goals. Like imprisoning the Kingpin and the Punisher.
Sure there isn’t due process, a jury, or a judge but this is a question of philosophical
justification. Daredevil does what’s needed in a predictive sense—he protects the neighborhood
by beating the sh*t out of people. Whereas the Punisher represents a more retributive concept
of justice which closely aligns with a deontological or Kantian approach to justice.
For Immanuel Kant, it’s not a question of protecting society based on the consequences
of punishment. Retributive justice is concerned with deserts, no not ice cream, just deserts:
getting what a person deserves. Punishment isn’t used to help society so much as it
is to assure that a person gets what they are due. In fact, for the retributivist it
would be UNJUST or immoral to do otherwise. It is similar to the concept of an ‘eye
for an eye’ or Lex Talionis: A system of justice “which requires the infliction upon
a wrongdoer of the same injury he has caused another.
So, yeah, the Punisher… Punishes people. Whether it’s the Kitchen Irish, the Dogs
of hell or members of his ex-military outfit, Punisher acts to right the wrong done to his
family. There is no legal recourse—he ‘just does’ … he insures that people get what
they deserve.
Daredevil presents the story of a conflicted hero, torn between his duty to the church,
the legal profession, and his desire to stand up for those that are unable to stand up for
themselves. Sure Daredevil may be a Batman rip off but it did generate the source material
to create the teenage mutant ninja turtles. While all of this is great, what makes Daredevil
a phenomenal series is that at its heart the show is about kicking ass. In a hallway, in
alleys, stairwells, living rooms, and cellblocks... it just kicks ass.