Black Mirror and Philosophy

Dark Reflections

David Kyle Johnson, William Irwin, David Kyle Johnson

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781119578239
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

A philosophical look at the twisted, high-tech near-future of the sci-fi anthology series Black Mirror, offering a glimpse of the darkest reflections of the human condition in digital technology

Black Mirror ?the Emmy-winning Netflix series that holds up a dark, digital mirror of speculative technologies to modern society—shows us a high-tech world where it is all too easy to fall victim to ever-evolving forms of social control.In Black Mirror and Philosophy, original essays written by a diverse group of scholars invite you to peer into the void and explore the philosophical, ethical, and existential dimensions of Charlie Brooker's sinister stories. The collection reflects Black Mirror 's anthology structure by pairing a chapter with every episode in the show's five seasons—including an interactive, choose-your-own-adventure analysis of Bandersnatch —and concludes with general essays that explore the series' broader themes. Chapters address questions about artificial intelligence, virtual reality, surveillance, privacy, love, death, criminal behavior, and politics, including:

• Have we given social media too much power over our lives?
• Could heaven really, one day, be a place on Earth?
• Should criminal justice and punishment be crowdsourced?
• What rights should a "cookie" have?

Immersive, engaging, and experimental, Black Mirror and Philosophy navigates the intellectual landscape of Brooker's morality plays for the modern world, where humanity's greatest innovations and darkest instincts collide.

SEASON 1

1
The National Anthem and Weighing Moral Obligations: Is It Ever OK to F*ck a Pig?

Brian J. Collins with Brandon Boesch

So it’s a statement. That’s what this was all about: making a point.

(Alex Cairns, Home Secretary)

The National Anthem, which was our first gaze into Black Mirror, was disturbing to say the least. Prime Minister Michael Callow awakens to discover that someone has kidnapped the beloved Princess Susannah and will kill her unless Callow has “full unsimulated sex with a pig” live on national television. An attempt to capture the kidnapper as well as a plan to digitally simulate the sex act fail, and Callow ends up going through with it. To top it off, the kidnapper releases Susannah thirty minutes before the deadline. However, since everyone was at attention “watching screens” (as if they were all “singing the same song [the national anthem]”) to see whether Callow would f*ck a pig, no one noticed until the ordeal was over.¹ It turns out, the whole thing was orchestrated by Turner Prize‐winning artist Carlton Bloom (who killed himself as the broadcast began) to make a statement about society’s depravity.² We’re left wondering: Is he the sick one for demanding such an act? Or are we, the viewers, the sick ones for staring at our screens and trying to watch it?

More disturbing than the episode’s depiction of bestiality is the fact that it depicts how we suspect society would respond if such a thing happened. Like Bloom, creator Charlie Brooker is making a statement about the depravity of society. But he’s also raising a number of difficult philosophical questions: What is the nature of moral obligations and how do we decide between them when they conflict? Would it be OK to do something that would otherwise be immoral, like having sex with a pig, to save someone’s life? Could you bring yourself to do it? Could you forgive a loved one who did? Should you watch if it were broadcast? And why would Bloom, or Brooker for that matter, want to subject people to such shocking and horrific imagery in the first place?

Weighing Moral Obligations

Moral obligations sometimes conflict with one another. Many situations, including the extreme one Callow faces, call for us to weigh different goods/values/interests against one another to determine what the right thing to do would be. Of course, we might ask about what we want to do or what we would do. But if we are interested in knowing what the right thing is, then we are asking what philosophers call a “normative” question: What should we do? This requires us to consider the morally relevant aspects of the situation and weigh them against one another.

In the extreme case presented in The National Anthem, the primary moral considerations in play are 1) the personal interests of Callow and his family, 2) the personal interests of the princess and her family, 3) the public interests of the society and the royal family, and 4) the morality of bestiality. The question of weighing these types of moral considerations highlights a debate in ethical theory between consequentialists, deontologists, and virtue theorists.

Consequentialism is the ethical view that the moral rightness of an action is to be judged solely on the consequences of that action. One simplistic consequentialist theory is hedonism. Advocated by the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE), hedonism claims that pleasure is the only thing of intrinsic value and that we should always choose the action that maximizes pleasure. Contrary to common belief, however, hedonism is not the pursuit of unadulterated physical pleasures. In fact, Epicurus led an extremely tame life of simple pleasures taken in moderation. Epicurus advocated protecting oneself from pain and procuring for oneself stable and meaningful relationships. From the Epicurean perspective, protecting his relationship with his wife should be a key component in Callow’s ethical calculations.

More complex consequentialist theories have been defended by canonical philosophers like Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), as well as contemporary philosophers like Peter Singer and Julia Driver. Roughly put, according to the consequentialist, an action is judged on its consequences, and the right action is the one that has the best consequences and brings about the most good (pleasure plus other things of value). A consequentialist would suggest that Callow should take into account all relevant factors and do whatever produces the most overall good. For example, Callow might go through with it because the pain caused to him and his wife is not as severe as the damage that would be caused to society and the princess by her death.

In opposition to consequentialism is deontology, the view that rightness and wrongness do not depend on consequences but instead depend on duty. A person doesn’t need to know the consequences of lying, cheating, or killing to know they’re wrong. The most famous deontologist, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), argued that because one cannot “will” that everyone perform such actions (they cannot be universalized), actions like lying, cheating, and killing are morally wrong. Kant also argued against treating others only as a means to an end.

With this in mind, one might assume the deontologist would say Callow should not go through with it because f*cking a pig is intrinsically wrong.³ However, preventing someone’s death when it’s possible to do so seems to also be a duty we all have. One of the classic objections to Kant’s theory is that it gives us no way to determine what we should do when duties conflict. Consequently, subsequent deontologists like W.D. Ross (1877–1971), John Rawls (1921–2002), and Onora O’Neill were much more moderate in their prescriptions. They suggest that when duties come into conflict we should consider the moral weight of each. In this way, it might be morally permissible (or even required) to do something that ordinarily would be wrong. So, if saving the princess has greater “moral weight” than refraining from bestiality, the deontologist could prescribe doing the former (even though bestiality would still be intrinsically wrong).

The third main contender, virtue theory, rejects both the consequence‐focused and duty‐based approach. The virtue theorist contends that the primary focus of ethics should not be actions. Rather, the focus should be on virtues and the moral character of the person performing the actions. Like its competitors, virtue theory comes in different variations, prescribed by the likes of Aristotle (c. 384 BCE–c. 322BCE), G.E.M. Anscombe (1919–2001), and Philippa Foot (1920–2010). But essentially, the primary ethical concern of virtue ethics is acting on and developing moral virtues (like courage, generosity, and trustworthiness). Right actions are not the focus of ethical inquiry but follow from having the right type of character. The virtuous person sees what to do (what the right action is) in situations with ethical implications.

One of the common objections to virtue theory is that it does not answer the pressing moral question: What’s the right thing to do in this or that situation? It simply suggests that you should develop a virtuous character within yourself so that, if faced with this or that situation, you will know what to do. In the situation facing Callow, the virtue theorist would say he should do what a morally virtuous person would do, but the theory wouldn’t be specific about what that was. This, many would argue, isn’t helpful. Often, however, the virtue theorist is satisfied to accept this complaint and redirect the discussion back to the virtues that people should be developing or to the type of action that a morally virtuous person would take in such a situation.

With all this in mind, to understand these ethical theories better and maybe determine whether Callow did the right thing, let’s look at how they are employed by different individuals and groups in The National Anthem.

“The world’s bloody broken”

At the start of the episode, all the characters seem to be self‐interested hedonists. Callow doesn’t want to f*ck a pig on live television – “Page one, that’s not happening.” He assumes it would ruin both his and his wife’s life. Likewise, the royal family is self‐interested. “I trust you’ll do everything in your power to get her back,” the queen tells Callow, implying that he should f*ck the pig if that’s w...