Joker – Parts Per Billion

Joker: Folie à deux – The Dark, Twisted Fate of Internal Conflict

The polarizing reception of Joker: Folie à deux shows how deeply we are attached to certain fictional characters. Whatever might be the reception of this film, the character design and writing of Arthur Fleck in Folie à deux will go down as one of the best representations of the psychotic villain in the history of cinema. Even though the film doesn’t cater to the fan service, it will definitely become one of the best depictions of the inner conflicts of a mentally challenged person swinging between reality and delusion. There is an interesting mental dilemma of identity common to both the Batman and the Joker. How they chose to deal with it made them who they are. The movie also points to the importance of inner compass for a healthy mental state altogether with surroundings nurturing empathy, kindness, appreciation, and love.

Character study of Todd Philips’s Arthur Fleck in Joker: Folie à deux

Recently Joker 2 or should I say Joker: Folie à deux released in theaters and people almost lost it. Most of the movie goers especially the comic book fandom was highly disappointed. There is another side of this same movie experience where people are really appreciating what the film presents in its narrative even though it is not completely loyal to the source material. Some are praising the liberties the film makers took to show the world what it means to become the truest of the villain of them all and why villains are praised more (maybe they deserve to be praised more) than the hero, even though hero wins in the end (this emotion is strongest in terms of the batman villains to be honest).

I am taking the side of what the Joker duo-logy presents itself to the audience rather than its correctness to the source material or the fan service. It is really a daring move from the creators of this second film to use all their creative power to show the world how dangerous character of Joker could be in real life. When I am saying this, I know fans can say that its just a movie and we only watch it for the sake of the entertainment; we do not want every movie to be a lesson on good or bad, right or wrong, truth or lie. But trust me when you are completely in the mood of bliss and entertainment, engrossed in the world created, even a lie would seem true and a wrong would feel right. It leaves an impression on our mind. A great entertainer can convince you to twist the ideas of certain truths in a person’s mind. Advertisements are a crude example to prove this point. Movies, cinema, stories are a potent media to change the minds, perspectives of the masses in an impactful way.

Mark my words, after few years of “marination” this movie will go as one of the best materials to study the writing and the design of a psychotic person. The movie will definitely regain its value as the ‘cult classic’ in coming decades. I am not saying that people are fool to not appreciate this film; I am saying that some of the things which disappointed people are actually way ahead of their time, people will take time to get comfortable around them and appreciate them.

The ability of movies like this to create a polarization of opinions amongst audience shows how potent the medium of cinema and storytelling is! We are humans – we love stories (especially those which unsettle us)

I am taking this opportunity to show appreciation for how the character of Arthur Fleck is written in this Joker Duo-logy. This is not the critic of what the comic book says and what could have been done in a right way to make movie goers happy. As the makers of these movies had already said, it was pretty clear that we are not in for what is generally expected from the mainstream, fan-worshiped representation of Joker from comics.

This is a story of a failed Joker to be very clear. The ways in which music and singing is injected in the narrative is highly effective. Most of the people found the musical aspect of the movie unnecessary and stretching but it had a proper intent. It is not draggy in any sense. You must understand how a psychotic person’s mind works in order to appreciate the whole movie.

(The fact that people despised this way of representing the Joker of Arthur Fleck, shows that most of us are sane and good-hearted people.)

I will be deep diving into the psyche of Arthur Fleck’s Joker and there will be heavy spoilers (if you care) I will try to touch the nuances in the character design of this Joker and why it all should make sense. For that you must accept that this is not the Joker which ‘our’ Batman had.

This is the Joker who found his way back to sanity but the society rejected him. (I will discuss this in detail further.)

Last warning – SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Me and My Shadow

The cartoon poses a question – if a person has multiple dissociated personalities inside him and one of the hibernating personalities made him commit the crime which is not who he is generally; then how should the person be punished?

The answer has many aspects.

If we are pardoning the person because he is psychologically challenged then the masses who are watching this proceeding would consider that even a heinous crime can go pardoned if the person is not sane. This creates a gray area for the real perpetrators to commit more heinous crimes. Judicial system is well aware of such consequences that is why an example needs to be put in front of the masses.

To show men that crimes can be pardoned, and that punishment is not their inevitable consequence, encourages the illusion of impunity and induces the belief that, since there are pardons, those sentences which are not pardoned are violent acts of force rather than the products of justice.

Cesare Beccaria

Next question-

The mentally challenged person who committed this crime is also a human being in the end. If we go on giving capital punishments to every human being fitting in similar situations, then what human part are we supposed to preserve of the humanity through law and order?

The answer lies in the psyche of this psychotic perpetrator.

The answer is what this psychotic criminal considers himself. Trust me this is not an easy choice. Bear in mind that this in not a normal sane person we are talking about. It is more difficult when such person is carrying multiple personalities inside him. It is difficult for such person to submit to only one identity out of the many he carries inside. One of the reasons for a person to undergo personality dissociation and have multiple personalities is to have a coping mechanism to outside events. Same was the case with Arthur Fleck, the personality of Joker was his coping mechanism against the society. They are polar opposites. His problematic childhood is the key reason.

Who is the real Arthur? – The interview with Dr. Beatty

This interview with Dr. Beatty should justify why the movie ultimately becomes a musical in overall. You will understand from this interview that the real opportunity for the personality of Joker to shine out was in the Murray Franklin show. Arthur was actually intending to commit suicide on national television but knowing this would eradicate the existence of the other personality – the Joker takes the charge of Arthur’s ‘body’. There he kills Murray and makes statement and vents out all those emotions he had suppressed. That is exactly why Arthur is not concerned and doesn’t remember that he murdered some people in that show; he associates to the music of the show on that day. Because in that musical moment he felt free.

Also, keep in mind that Arthur has other personalities other than Joker. His mother’s mirror personality is also inside his head. The changed accent of attorney in which Arthur talks with Mr. Puddles in not just a performance to mock the court, it is a personality Arthur created so that he can defend the adverse external conditions which Arthur is incapable of handling.

It’s not just about Arthur and Joker.

Joker’s (Not Arthur’s) Smoking Addiction

Psychotic person resort to a habit which helps them to relieve the suppressed emotions or identities. It could be any small habit and mostly would seem harmless. In this case it is smoking. In the first Joker movie smoking is just a way to release the tension in his mind but as the Joker’s personality gets the hold of his ‘body’ the smoking intensifies. In the interview with Dr. Beatty when she asks Arthur if she can talk to the Joker inside him, the gaze that Arthur throws at the recording camera is more than enough to let us know that the smoking personality was the Joker himself. (Joaquin Pheonix is just perfect here!)

There is also a moment in Arkham Asylum when Arthur is watching Harvey Dent’s statement implying that only a fool would consider Arthur a martyr, this further reinforces Joker to consider himself more powerful and influential. He is smoking there too.

Before going live in interview with Paddy, Arthur’s attorney Maryanne tells him to stop smoking in front of the camera during the interview because it makes him look like a ‘cavalier’ – reckless. This is exactly where we should get a clear idea. The Joker is reckless, carefree – ‘cavalier’. Smoking becomes an extension of this very idea of recklessness that Joker has in his personality.

But for the good of Arthur, he controls Joker inside during interview. The moment he realizes that it’s just to create sensation, the Joker takes control and again smoking starts.

When Arthur’s private diary is being read out loud in court and when Ms. Dumond is testifying, saying that Arthur’s whole identity that his mother created was fake; you will see that Joker is just there absorbing everything because all these things are very uncomfortable for Arthur to handle. Arthur cannot handle such public humiliation and identity crisis. Joker is truly his coping mechanism.

There is also a scene where the Joker breathes out the smoke into the Harley ‘Lee’. It is very dramatic and feels like they are exchanging their very souls, their identities. Now they are inseparable.

(Todd Philips deserves appreciation for creating such characteristic moments throughout the movie. There is one moment in the start of movie where Arthur gets a lip cut during shaving and the blood drop flows down his chin creating a sad face. It is impressively symbolic of the state of the mind Arthur is in. Applauds to Todd again!)

The ‘Kick’ Dance

The most characteristic attribute of Joker being present and active in Arthur is his dance. The specific step of kicking fiercely in the air is very poetic. This kick shows how reckless Joker is. The Joker is literally kicking the society which led to the downfall of an innocent person like Arthur, the society which created Joker himself. It is a tight slap to the degraded social system which led to the formation of such psychotic character.

Very subtle but the ‘kick dance’ has its purpose in the whole narrative and character of the Joker. Later ‘Lee’ mirrors the same dance showing that Joker and Lee are now in sync.

The Musical

I have never ever seen the medium of musical to demonstrate the state of the mind of the character especially a completely negative character. (I am not a big musical fan) Whenever I have tried to appreciate the musical it feels to break the continuity of the realism of the narrative and dreaminess of the character or given scene. Although there are many good examples where musical just fits in perfectly.

But, this musical in completely negative and dark setup is very impactful. I know most of the moviegoers absolutely thrashed the musical approach and underwhelming utilization of Lady Gaga but trust me it was all intentional. It was supposed to make you uncomfortable.

The unsettling musical is actually a peek into the psyche of Joker and how uncomfortable his character is. It’s a warning to those who glorify Joker as villain or consider him an anti-hero.

Every musical had clear purpose and it also landed perfectly. You have to be slightly ‘mad’ and must fool yourself for the given moment to appreciate importance of musical in the whole narrative of the Joker. I will reiterate that people not appreciating the Joker musical is a subtle proof that the real society we are living in is still in a healthy mental condition in overall. If you didn’t like the musical, it is totally fine, and that was the intent of the creators.

Joker strongly associates himself with music, that is the pivot of his identity. Music allowed him to express freely and also supported his recklessness. The moment he discovered ‘Lee’ in music session that bond with music got further reinforced. That is exactly why his delusions, their delusions are fully filled with music.

Now, it’s lyrics appreciation time:

The opening cartoon song

Everyone needs love
There are already enough mountains

What Arthur helplessly wanted was appreciation and love from his people around. “Mountains” used here and used extensively in further narrative of the movie indicate the hardships, difficulties in everyone’s life. Even after these difficulties, if you are loved you can come over these mountains. Sadly, exactly opposite happens with Arthur.

In later parts of the movie, where Lee says that we will build a mountain from hill. She is actually saying that we will raise chaos everywhere and make other people’s lives difficult because they deserve it.

The Arkham Asylum musical

For once in my life, I have someone who needs me
For once in my life
I won’t let sorrow hurt me
Not like it has hurt me before
For once I have someone
I know won’t desert me
And I am not alone anymore
For once I can say this is mine and you can’t take it

This is Joker singing in Arkham realizing that people may consider him a martyr and he has also got the company of ‘Lee’. The sense of belonging to something for a person like Arthur through accepting the identity of Joker made him feel invincible. This is exactly what is sung in this asylum scene. Arthur wanted somewhere to belong and someone to care for him in the end.

The ‘B-Ward’ movie scene –

When the patients are watching the movie where Arthur and Lee are sitting together there is musical which goes like this:

We are all entertainers
Everything that happens in life
Can happen in a show
You can make’em laugh
You can make’em cry
Anything can go
Anything

We must understand that there are lots of creative choices while making a sincere film. Even though it feels useless, this movie musical scene has a purpose. It is exact reflection of how Joker thinks. For him it is all a performance, it makes him free, same goes for Lee. But sadly, society questions Arthur if he is doing a performance and not Joker. The very lyrics here show why Joker is reckless. This delusion of performance enables him to remain carefree, reckless in the ‘real’ reality.

The Hotel Arkham Dance –

In our minds, we’d be just fine
If it were only us two
They might say that we’re crazy
But I’m just in love with you

This shows how pivotal ‘Lee’ is for Joker. She fuels him. As Arthur is meek, loveless and innocent nobody appreciates him, loves him or cares for him. Being bold, carefree, dashing through Joker, at least he gets ‘Lee’ to love him, appreciate him. The identity of Arthur needs something to lean on, to fulfill his humanly needs – mental and physical. These needs would only get fulfilled if Joker comes out as dominant one. If not Arthur then at least Joker would make this personality free. This song is just about that. Even though delusional but Joker gets all the mental support to justify his personality in reality through ‘Lee’.

The interview with Patty

Before this interview Arthur has full control over the Joker, he has suppressed him to demonstrate his innocence. But the moment Arthur realizes that this interview is just happening for the sensational content, he loses it all and allows Joker to take control. (while starting to smoke characteristically in front of the camera!)

I’m wild again
Beguiled again
A simpering whimpering child again
Bewitched
Bothered and bewildered
Am I
Lost my heart but what of it
She can laugh and I can love it
Although the laugh’s on me
I’ll sing to her
Bring spring to her
And long for the day
When I cling to her
Bewitched
Bothered and bewildered
Am I

Here, Joker is making statement that he is the in-charge of Arthur’s body thereby his complete identity. When he realizes that Arthur will not get any help and it is just a sensationalism in the society, Joker shows the society that he is not alone anymore for the society to take care of him, He has someone who care for him now. This is his way of telling the society that it can go ‘freak’ itself now. The society pretending to help him to create one more drama is a conniving move for Joker. So this song is the final warning to the society that he doesn’t need this pity help from the people. He has his ‘Lee’ to love and appreciate him.

Lee’s makeup song

Most of the scenes when Joker and Lee are sharing the screen while singing are the delusions running in the mind of Arthur. In the third act of the movie when Lee is singing alone while applying all make-up, she is alone. This is where the reality of what Lee is becomes clear.

What a world, what a life 
I’m in love
I’ve got a song that I sing
I can make the rain go
Anytime I move my finger
Lucky me can’t you see, I’m in love
Life is a beautiful thing
As long as I hold that string
I’d be silly so and so
If I should ever let it go

This clarifies that Lee is manipulating Arthur to reinforce the Joker in him and using him to justify her own delusions. She knows she has all the strings in her hands to create the delusions she wants with Joker.

The Guard’s humming in Arkham asylum in the last part of the movie

When Arthur truly accepts the reality and rejects the persona of Joker he is actually on the path to new and healthy life.

When Arthur is sitting in front of the TV in asylum after this event, the asylum guard Sullivan sings this near him and another guard asks him not to sing this again.

We are not crowd 
My echo, my shadow and me

The guard is hinting Arthur that reality is the only thing where we truly exist. Whatever Arthur thought of himself having a different personality to take charge of his body while committing a crime is just a lie. It’s Sulivan’s way to mock Arthur to show that he will get the punishment in the end by court.

Another guard fears that this might trigger Joker to defend the joke on Arthur that is exactly why he tells Sullivan not to sing it in front of Arthur again. This also shows that Arthur is really trying to bring himself back to reality as this doesn’t trigger him. There was some hope for his recovery.

The Cognitive Dissonance – inner conflict for real identity

During the proceedings of the court when the events of Arthur’s childhood are brought in light again to prove that the Joker is a defensive identity that Arthur has created to cope with the trauma and adversities in his life, you will understand that what Arthur lacked was clear identity.

The identity crisis actually led to the creation of intense defense mechanism through the creation of his shadow as Joker. There are specific reasons behind this:

Arthur learns that what his mother told him about his parenthood was a lie
He learns that even though his mother told him that his purpose was to make people happy, she was not a big fan of his jokes. Ms. Dumond in her testimony clarifies this, which shakes Arthur to core
Arthur had created his whole personality around making people happy. The career choice to become a standup comedian was all driven by this sole thing. This is what defined his life

But the moment when Arthur realized that all the truths on which he created his life and his character were lie, he undergoes cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a state when a person enters in paradox about the truths that made him who he is today.

Same cognitive dissonance happened for Batman when he learnt that his parents also took help of the very criminals he is fighting against today to hide their family’s dark truths in the past.

My point here is that both Batman and Joker underwent the state of the cognitive dissonance, the identity crisis, what they stand for. How they came out of this cognitive dissonance made them hero and the villain.

Batman chose to move away from the only motto of vengeance quoting that ‘Vengeance cannot change the past’. Batman then decided to stand as a symbol of hope for the degrading society.

Arthur – Joker in this case blamed society for the very state of mind he is in now. And there is nothing wrong in it. The very situations, events, people that Arthur got exposed to, made him chose that side. If he would have got proper support from the society and people, there really was a hope for him.

That is exactly why you must appreciate the act of Arthur to not become Joker in the end of this movie. Although the guards of Arkham had beat him to show that he is really weak in reality and Joke is not the reality. Arthur arguably had less privilege than Bruce Wayne to chose the right side and even after these hardships Arthur in this movie choosing reality of Arthur instead of delusion of Joker is a bold move. This makes Arthur’s character transformation far bigger, better and glorious than the transformation of Batman. (I am not saying that Joker is superior than Batman morally. I am saying the mental efforts that Arthur took to reject his Joker personality are way bigger, humongous than the mental efforts that Batman took to redefine his identity.)

There is very symbolic moment of Arthur running away from the Joker persona in the end of the movie to show how badly he wanted to escape that delusion.

You know what? This is exactly where the city of Gotham went wrong. People wanted an agent of chaos. Not the guardian of hope. Chaos is more sensational and attractive.

The Society and The Sensationalism

You should closely observe how Arthur behaves in the interview with Patty. He has dialed down Joker perfectly. But the moment Arthur understands that these people are not here to help him or work with him, they just want something sensational to show to the people watching TV, he loses the hope for the society. This is where Joker truly gets reinforced.

The way in which the character of Arthur Fleck is designed by the writers, it is a result of the overall failure of the social systems. The rising unrest in common people led to the reinforcement of Joker in Arthur Fleck even though he knew that he committed crimes.

Common people of Gotham somehow, anyhow wanted the rich and powerful people to be held accountable for the problems they were going through. Even though it was a group motive it was a very selfish motive. Joker doing certain murders was just a sensational direction people wanted so that they would get this feeling of redemption against the corrupt system.

Arthur was just a person in need of fame and appreciation for who he was. Only sad thing was that people only loved his Joker persona. That is exactly why Arthur chose the delusion of Joker to satisfy the delusion of redemption from riches for the society.

The real Folie à deux is not just about the shared delusion between Joker and Lee. It is between Joker and the society. It is between Todd Phillips’s Joker and the fandom. Deep down we too wanted this Joker to do some scandalous acts, exceptional crimes, and sensational interviews. We paid for the movie tickets to see the chaos that Joker creates in society thereby glorifying him as one of the best villains.

But, in reality we cannot handle such sensationalism. On surface it feels great while reading some spicy news, conflicts in our day to day lives but the moment they start affecting our very lives we know how horrible these things can turn out.

This movie actually made an effort to show how twisted a psychotic criminal is inside even though his life may seem sensational and happening outside.

The Loneliness and Kindness

There are many moments where Arthur clearly says that all he wanted was someone to understand him and love him for who he is. The only reason Arthur submits to Joker’s persona was the fact that this is what the surrounding around him wanted from him. The DA wants him to be the Joker so that they can punish him. This would also make him a martyr among the common people of Gotham. People of Gotham wanted him to be the Joker because it was their way to vent out their anger for the riches and powerful of the city. Harley wanted him to be the Joker because he symbiotically supported her delusions, he was ready to do whatever she wanted.

You will realize that there were also some moments where this was possible, it was possible to tell Arthur that he is not alone. Some events actually do happen but not everyone is thinking the same about him. That is what creates conflict in Arthur’s mind. There is a scene where Arthur is singing a book with good intent but the moment the guard mocks him, Joker takes over and signs maliciously.

You see this is intense when the person is challenged mentally, such people are ready to resort to any part of their persona provided that they get what they long for. That is successfully depicted in the psyche of Arthur Fleck.

Conclusion

A society on moral, social, political decline – a degenerate society – a society on the brink of collapse – will always reject Arthur and welcome Joker.

It is very evident from this duo-logy that the surroundings, society plays a crucial role in the character development of every person. We chose certain attributes of who we are based on what we actually want. This is decided by how society responds to our actions. Based on the such selected attributes, then our behavior, action on such attributes and the reaction from society on such action mold our personality. This is roughly how our personality, our identity is created. If we are fully dependent of society to define who we are, then our personality would exactly reflect what the society. That is what happened with Joker. Arthur was completely empty inside. You will see this when he accepts all his crimes honestly while ending with a Joke.

- Knock, Knock
- Who’s there?
- Arthur Fleck
- Arthur Fleck who?

It shows that Arthur accepted that he was nobody. Society just poured inside his empty jar of personality, made him the agent of chaos.

That is why having an inner compass is very important in personal development. Our internal beliefs may sometimes get challenged and it is completely fine to change them, upgrade them. But the moment one starts to pivot his/her identity purely on outside factors it may create internal conflicts, mental conflicts. That is where Arthur lost his battle for personal identity. Even though the ideas are fictional they prepare us for the adversities occurring in reality, that is for me is the real power of storytelling. May everyone in reality find their true identity in a healthy and sustainable way.

We are full of biases and we are always in search for the things which reinforce our internal belief system. It is a normal human tendency to justify one’s identity. Those who are ready to change and modify their understandings about the surrounding are closer to the reality and those who are stubborn to change their belief system will get hit by the reality until they have learnt their lesson.

This Joker movie indirectly keeps on highlighting how difficult it is to gauge what goes in the mind of a mentally challenged person. Most of the time our instincts repel us from such people but what such people need is a sense of being loved and sense of belonging. If they are felt loved in reality, maybe there is some hope that they will let go of their delusions. Being kind is the only way.

For me the movie actually presents a choice in front of the audience for the fate of the Joker. As a human being Arthur coming out of his Joker persona was a very healthy and hopeful character development. But that is not what we wanted from him. We, just like the people of Gotham city wanted him to create chaos. This movie shows that hidden dark part in our minds. I am not saying that all of us are sadistic. I am saying we all have a dark part in our psyche and its normal. Everyone should be aware of their own darkness to remain mentally healthy. It improves decision making.

My favorite moment from Warner Bros. Joker: Folie à deux

The Utility of Human Life and Morality

Why doesn’t Batman kill all his villains once for all? Why the sentence passed by judicial systems in certain heinous and extraordinary crimes feel unjust for the pain victim went through? How one can tell that given person was right or wrong when he/she had no intent of doing it? Can you just look at the end consequences of the actions and decide right or wrong for such scenes? Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of Utilitarianism tried to answer some of these questions but it revealed certain flaws in our ways of judgement. Even though hedonism and utilitarian philosophy create an objective model of morality, they fail to address the subjective and human aspect of any moral discussion. It reveals that the purpose of living is not mere happiness but self-improvement thereby mutual and overall improvement.

How to judge morality and its impact on human life?

The Moral Dilemma

A healthy sense of good and bad makes a society livable. There are some special, rare events that happen in the society we live which challenge our idea of what is good and what is bad. There are uncountable offenses and also in varying types which create problem of who should actually be punished and what should be the punishment.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.
Mahatma Gandhi

If this is really the case, the law and order should punish the victim in such a way that it prohibits the future perpetrators to not do such crimes again. But again, as this above mentioned quote goes if the punishment given for the crime is equally dangerous then what exactly are we trying to establish through such punishment?

It’s like that scenario where murdering a murderer creates a new murderer so the net number of murderers in the society remain the same. An Italian philosopher called Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria had given a thought on this. In his book ‘Of Crimes and Punishments’ he discusses that if the punishments grow on crueler and crueler the net mindset of people also grows crueler. It’s like how water levels itself irrespective of the depths. The baseline of what is right and wrong furthermore what is more wrong and what is more right shifts up. Crueler and crueler crimes reduce the sensibility of people of that society. This could be one reason why people always argue that the judicial system does not provide equivalent punishment as a justice to the victims of certain heinous, exceptional cases of crimes. (Although there are many other factors to make such decisions.)

“In proportion as punishments become crueler, the minds of men, as a fluid rises to the same height with that which surrounds it, grow hardened and insensible; and the force of the passions still continuing, in the space of a hundred years the wheel terrifies no more than formerly the prison. That a punishment may produce the effect required, it is sufficient that the evil it occasions should exceed the good expected from the crime, including in the calculation the certainty of the punishment, and the privation of the expected advantage. All severity beyond this is superfluous, and therefore tyrannical.”
Cesare Beccaria, Of the Mildness of Punishments from ‘Of Crimes and Punishments’

In similar spirit, the relationship between Batman and Joker can be understood. Joker never cares about killing people he will try to stretch the limits of batman in every possible sense where innocent lives are at stake. Batman has one solution to stop all this – to kill the Joker. But with a high moral ground Batman would never kill Joker. What is the motivation behind such character design of Batman. Batman knows that killing Joker would solve the problem once for all. Believe me, this is not just a fictional comic book scenario. The reality that we live in has uncountable such scenarios where exactly same decision dilemmas occur.

The famous trolley problem also points to somewhat similar moral dilemma. Where should the trolley be directed if one track has single person and another has 5 people tied to the track? Nobody wants blood on their hands.

But the same trolley problem becomes interesting if you start adding additional attributes to the people who are on track.

What if the single person tied to the track is a scientist with the cure for cancer and the track with five people are criminals? Then definitely you would kill the five criminals instead of the single scientist.

Did you notice what change made us to decide faster? The moment we understood the consequences of our actions we had the clarity of what is right and what is wrong. Our moral compass pointed to North the moment we foresaw the consequences of our actions.

The foundation of some of the principles of morality are based on similar ideas. Utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham’s an English Philosophers ideas have contributed to the ideas of morality for humanity, especially when we are talking about the human society as a whole. The ideas put by Jeremy Bentham also faced severe criticism, we will see those in detail too. But the key intention of my exploration is to understand how we create the meaning of Morality and how subjectivity, objectivity totally change the way we perceive morality. In the end we may reach to rock bottom questioning the morality itself to be nonexistent – and if morality is non-existent then what separates human beings from animals? (I hope to enter in this territory with some optimism, I don’t know where will it end.)

Utilitarianism

As I already explained in the trolley problem that by adding one simple, short part of information shifted our moral compass in (supposedly) proper direction. What did this information add in the dilemma to make it solvable?

The answer is the foresight of consequence. Once you saw the consequence it leads to you got the hold of what is right and what is wrong. You decided one side to be right and other one to be wrong. This foresight of consequence helped you to weigh the ‘right’-ness of your decision.

Utilitarianism is based on the measurement of morals based on the consequences of the actions you take. What is the other side of taking actions? It is ‘the intent’. This is where the fun game begins.

Many philosophers are always fighting over morals based on the intent of the person and the consequences of the actions they take. For example, thinking of murder (pardon my thinking) makes me less of convict than really murdering someone. My thinking has not led to the loss of the person I hate. Utilitarianism thus calls out for the construct of morality based on the actual actions and their consequences; it’s like saying ‘what a man is more about what he does instead of what he thinks’.

Hedonism, Utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham

Happiness is a very pretty thing to feel, but very dry to talk about.
Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham an English philosopher contributed to the utilitarian ideas of morality. He was not well appreciated in his home country due to the misalignment of his ideas of socio-political reforms with the British sovereignty of those times. The French translation of his works on law, governance gave him popularity in Frenchmen. Bentham was one of the people who pushed the political reforms during French revolution.

While reading Joseph Priestly’s Essay on the First Principles of Government, Bentham came across the idea of “greatest happiness for the greatest number” which motivated him to expand the ideas of utilitarianism.

Priestly brought the idea of “Laissez-faire” (‘allow to do’ in French)- a policy of minimum governmental interference in the economic affairs of individuals and society. Joseph Priestly developed his ideas of politics, economics and government based on the ideas created by Adam Smith (Author of the Wealth of Nations – the holy grail of classical Economics).

The Greek philosopher called Epicurus was the supporter, creator of hedonism. Hedonism defines ethics to pleasure or pain. According to hedonism that which gives pleasure is morally good and that which give pain is morally wrong. The idea behind hedonism is the aversion of pain to live an undisturbed life because anyways this all won’t make sense once you are dead. According to Epicurus – fear of death, retribution is pushing people to collect more wealth, more power thereby causing more painful life. The collection of wealth, power is done thinking that they can avert the death but that is not the reality. So, worrying about the death sucks out the pleasure of living the life which itself is equivalent of death.

Non fui, fui, non-sum, non-curo
(“I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care”)
Epicurus

So, epicurean hedonistic morality tries to maximize the pleasure. The other end of this idea is that if everyone tries to maximize their own pleasure (egoistic hedonism) wouldn’t it disturb others?

If I want to listen to a song on loud speaker while bothering my neighbors, what is the moral standpoint here?

The answer is the overall good of the system. So, if you neighbor also wants to listen music loud and overall loud music is good for the group then we are morally right to play loud music. (Just pray that the group has same music interests!)

So, Jeremy Bentham is known to rejuvenate this ancient philosophy of egoistic hedonism through his philosophy of utilitarianism.

The basic idea behind Utilitarianism is to maximize the utility of anything, value of anything. The utility can be increased by doing what is right which can be done by doing what gives more pleasure or by avoiding those things which increase or give pain.

Utility is a property which tends

To produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness
To prevent happening of mischief, pain, evil or happiness

So, the right action is the one that produces and/ or maximizes overall happiness. Please understand that the word “overall” is important for Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of Utilitarianism. Because from selfish point of views, what is pleasurable for one may not be pleasurable for others. (This is also where the certain philosophical problems of Utilitarianism are hiding, save this point for later.)

To solve this bottleneck of clarity, there are two types of pleasure in human life – one is happiness from senses, physical experiences and one is from intellect. The intellectual happiness is higher than the pleasure from senses. So, on personal moral dilemmas these two attributes can solve the problem.

All good on personal level but what about the moral decisions for the group, for society? Here, Bentham solved the moral dilemma by using the idea of “greater good for all”. When we don’t agree on what makes us happy together, making sacrifices in your happiness to make others happy is the solution. (Keep this idea parked in your mind.)

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters – pain and pleasure. They govern us in all we do, all we say and all we think.”
Jeremy Bentham

Felicific Calculus – Measuring happiness

Jeremy Bentham is known as the Issac Newton of the Morality for developing the felicific calculus/ hedonistic calculus. Bentham pointed out the key factors which affect the net happiness and using this factors’ effect as a whole, one can quantify the happiness.

Following are the factors which affect the happiness:

Intensity – how strong is the pleasure from the given action?
Duration – how long does the happiness remain from given action?
Certainty – what is the likelihood of given pleasure to occur?
Propinquity – how soon/ immediate is the occurrence of the pleasure?
Fecundity – what is the possibility that this pleasure will also lead to the newer pleasure(s)?
Purity – what is the change that this pleasure will not bring some opposite sensation?
Extent – how many people are affected?

If one considers these factors and the principle to maximize the communal happiness, most of the social moral dilemmas can be effectively solved.

So, according to this felicific calculus,

Batman should kill the Joker for the greater good of the Gotham
The trolley should go over the group/ person which creates more pain for the society
Baby Hitler should be killed once we get the chance to travel back in time

You must appreciate the clarity which the felicific calculus brings. This clarity is very important for the policymakers, politicians while deciding the fate of the group, state, nation as a whole.

Now a simple question –

If batman keeps on killing the villains, won’t he become the greatest killer of them all? What would differentiate Batman from other villains?

What would happen if you were given false information about the nature of the people tied on track while riding that trolley? Could your wrong decision be undone? If it was the wrong decision then now ‘you’ are morally wrong, with the blood of the innocents.

You would kill baby Hitler only because you have vision that this baby will grow up to be the mass murderer tyrant. The mass murder hasn’t happened yet. So, now you are the killer of a ‘now’ innocent baby.

Maintaining same emotion, now you would appreciate why even for a strong judicial system giving capital punishment for rapists, terrorists is difficult morally. You would solve the problem for now because the act has been already done, the consequences have already happened (which is why moral judgement is effective as it relies on the consequences). Killing the perpetrators or punishing them with equal pain would definitely bring peace of mind using the principles of morality but that also degrades the morality of innocents who fell down from that morality. It is not matter of what one deserves because what bad happened to them, it is about how less human you will become once you perform that act of punishment.

Recall the quote of Beccaria in the early part of my discussion.

Killing joker will create fear among other villains but it also creates chance for the creation of even dangerous villain in future.

Killing baby Hitler doesn’t guarantee prevention of World War and mass murders, as our personalities are the result of our surroundings – another Hitler-like person would have emerged in such given circumstances. (I honestly don’t know if he/she would be worse or less harsh than the original one but you get the point – conditions anyways would have created another cruel person.)

Jumping out of the trolley seems the best way to run away from the pain of murder of other unknown people (joking). The trolley dilemma remains dilemma.

Also, the felicific calculus allows pain for small groups for the betterment/ pleasure of the bigger society. For example, according to this utilitarian idea killing few healthy convicted prisoners to save lives of many innocent people by harvesting the prisoners’ organ is justified. It is for the good in the end.

You see where this goes?

See the level to which any human or a group could go if they start justifying their moral rightness using these ideas. Using these principles any big group can overpower the minorities in morally right way. It is just a matter of time that the felicific calculus principles would get exploited for other “immoral” gains.

That is exactly why many people criticized the felicific calculus saying that a pig laying in the mud for his whole life would be happiest than a human being (Socrates to be specific) if Bentham’s calculus is used to decide morality.

In a crude way, there are two type of Utilitarianism which help to solve the problem to certain extent, but it is not a complete solution:

Act Utilitarianism – to act for the greater good of all
Rule Utilitarianism – to set rules in such way that no one inherently gets the pain or everyone is happy because actions and their consequences are bound by certain set rules in first place now

Happiness is not the ‘only’ and the ultimate goal – the limitations of Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarian Philosophy

What people were not ‘happy’ with Jeremy Bentham’s felicific calculus was that it made humans more like machines and very objective. People don’t always want happiness for their or the group’s greater good. Exercising daily, reducing fat-sugar maybe painful but that guarantees healthy, illness free long life. Doing drugs isolates the person from pain but it impacts the long-term physical and mental health of the person. Hardships and pain make people to reach their difficult goals which is what is the real and ultimate happiness for them.

Happiness is not always the goal of life, if one is completely tangled in the pleasures of life and if everyone is having same mentality then in the end no one will be happy, because as a group we all would never agree on what makes us happy; different environments in which we grew, our personal experiences, our upbringing, our motivations prevent us from creating a common definition of happiness.

The subjective factor of pleasure or pain is not present in Bentham’s philosophy of Utilitarianism. Building further upon that, the victim who has suffered from the morally wrong action will only be satisfied when he/she gets justice, not when they are made happier than their perpetrators. (This justice must again not be mechanical and objective like the felicific calculus.)

One more flaw of the Bentham’s utilitarianism is the imbalance between personal scenarios and the communal scenarios. In most cases, it demands personal sacrifice irrespective of their subjective morality for the betterment of the group. (that is exactly how many past cruel dictators have justified their moral correctness on their acts against the minorities.)

A British philosopher, Bernard Williams presented a thought experiment to highlight such flaw of the Utilitarianism.

In this thought experiment:

A botanist on his South American expedition is ordered by the cruel regime soldiers to kill one of the Indian tribe people. If the botanist fails to kill one Indian the soldiers would execute all of the tribe members.

So, if we implement utilitarian principles, then the botanist should kill one Indian to save the remaining all. That is morally right.

But on the other hand, one must also understand that the botanist has nothing to do with the cruel regime and even with the indigenous tribe members. He is under no moral obligation to do anything. The consequences are in such a way that whatever he will do he will be called morally wrong. Which in the end is wrong.

The utilitarian philosophy neglects this subjectivity and consequentialism while we are deciding morality of anything.

Maybe that is also why even when we have all the rules in place, penal code in place for all types of offenses, similar crimes – we have a judge – a subjective, consequential observer to grant the final justice.

You must understand that the discussion does not want to pose Utilitarianism as completely wrong idea. The intent of this discussion is to understand how to de-clutter a complex moral scenario and how to inject subjectivity in it so that the correct person will get the justice in the end. As we are human beings and not machines, every day brings new subjective scenarios with new subjective moral dilemmas. Direct implementation of utilitarianism may bring in the transparency in the moral puzzle but it is at the expense of oversimplification and loss of personal subjectivity, consequential personal point of view and also freedom of person to exist.

The ways in which Utilitarianism brings immediate clarity by elimination of some important subjective aspects is dangerous and limits the judgement of real morality. Friedrich Nietzsche had warned new philosophers in his book beyond good and evil about the philosophies which create such “immediate certainties” like Utilitarian philosophy creates-

“The belief in “immediate certainties” is a moral naivete which does honor to us philosophers; but – we have now to cease being “merely moral” men!”
Friedrich Nietzsche

Conclusion – If not happiness then what is the goal of being human?

Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of Utilitarianism and the felicific calculus can help to decide the morality of what is good for all but it ignores the presence and worth of personal integrity, the well being of the minorities, subjectivity of the person in given consequences. It by default eliminates the possibility of humans remaining human beings instead it attributes them as the machine maximizing a targeted outcome (which is pleasure here).

So, the question remains – If we are not meant to maximize pleasure during our tenure in life because in the end after death there will not be anything to experience or gain happiness – if our existence and final purpose does not align with being happy then what exactly is the purpose of being a human being?

Based on my understanding on what many great people have commented about the purpose of life, I found that most of them point to remaining the human being you always were. I am not saying that the personality should remain the same, rather it should change and keep on upgrading itself till the end but the core should remain same or it should not degrade at least.

Some wrong events, injustice, oppression, cruelty will make you suffer, but that should also not vilify your human spirit. Once we let go the pursuit of happiness and chase the goal of being a better human being (or at least remain the human being you are) we can fulfill the purpose of our lives and also make other people’s lives better.

Once you will let go of such utilitarian, mechanistic setups of morality you will realize that people don’t need gods, religions, governments, judicial systems to keep in the check of right and wrong. Our inner compass is more than enough to take care of what makes us human beings, this inner compass is not about what is right and wrong, for me it is about what better version of yourself you would become if you act in that certain way. It takes care of what you are thinking and what would be the consequences of actions thereby resolving the dilemma of morality which got separated on the basis of either intent or the consequences.

I am highlighting the importance of inner personal human compass because the rules designed to keep morality in check would always need revision and the utilitarian philosophy would wait for the consequences to happen to decide the morality. The goal of human struggle to improve their current version to a better one does not need either of the metrics to decide the morality.

Imagine what the world would become if everyone started appreciating this inner human compass!

(For now, we can only imagine, but I am optimistic on this.)

P.S. –

Even though the Utilitarian philosophy had many flaws, Jeremy Bentham contributed largely to bring in new political reforms, improve governance, establish penal codes in judicial systems, define sovereignty, reduce the influence of religious institutions on the lives of people and governments. His works were strategically maligned by some lobbies to lessen the impact of his other notable works. He was the proponent of liberty and freedom from religious influences on lives of people. The pushed for the establishment of a secular educational institute in London – now famously known as University College London. Jeremy Betham’s fully clothed wax statue containing his original skeleton remains in the entrance hall of the University main building upon his request.