Is the Hulk a Moral Agent?
Warning, spoilers abound.
Greetings, heroes!
After returning from viewing The Avengers this weekend, we decided to put aside our planned post and discuss the Hulk instead.
- He made a compelling case
Joss Whedon’s interpretation of the Avengers is second to none (seriously, go see it), and the Hulk’s character is likewise amazing. Whedon brilliantly captures the terrifying power of the Hulk and contrasts it with the demur and frightened Bruce Banner’s struggle to contain that power. Because if Dr. Bruce Banner, brilliant physicist, becomes angry, he transforms into the Hulk and places all those around him in danger. Any attempts to stop the monster directs the Hulk’s deadly fury against those who try to contain it. While the Hulk is on his rampages, he lashes out at anyone and everything he perceives to be a threat while providing clumsy protection to those he loves. But Whedon gave the Hulk a telling moment in The Avengers. In the climactic battle, Captain America gives orders to each member of the team. He concludes by turning to the Hulk and saying,
“Hulk, Smash!”
To which the Hulk smiles and proceeds to smash. Effectively.
If anyone has the ability to give the Hulk an order, its Captain America. And without denigrating Cap’s superlative leadership, telling the Hulk to smash is like telling a dog to sniff or a clock to tick; its in his nature. But the moment the Hulk smiled and acknowledged the order, it implied that the Hulk had a choice, accepted it, and was pleased by the choice.
And that, fellow heroes, presents a dilemma.
If the Hulk has the ability to make decisions based on morality, he is what’s known as a “moral agent”. This means that he can examine a situation, consider actions which are “right” or “wrong”, and understand and act based on that decision.
On the other hand, the Hulk may not have the ability to make moral decisions. He may simply react to stimuli and respond without thought, in which case Cap’s order to him made him happy for the same reason a dog is happy when its master throws a ball. He is like an animal, and at most his will follows the philosophy, as Arthur Schopenhauer wrote, that
“Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Quotes
In other words, the Hulk can “make decisions”, but simply doesn’t have choices: he makes the obvious decision available to him at any given time.
Determining the Hulk’s moral status may be impossible, and the consequences are tragic if he turns out to be a moral agent. That would mean it is fully aware of its actions, and is thus responsible for the death and destruction it causes. But in addition to being held responsible for ruining billions of dollars of military grade equipment, leaving thousands without homes, causing his part of the $160 billion to New York, and the collateral civilian casualties caused by his smashing, it also means that the Hulk is also being held as a prisoner by another individual: in short, the Hulk is illegally imprisoned inside Bruce Bannner. Moreover, Banner is forced to serve as a caretaker to another moral being, regardless of his desire or ability. This is problematic, as our society goes through great pains to remove moral beings from those who are incapable of caring for them, think of unfit parents. Thus, if Hulk is a moral agent, it creates a whole host of moral problems which would require the patience and wisdom of a saint to untangle. This one may be beyond even Reed Richards’ genius.
From Incredible Hulk: The End, 2006 From Incredible Hulk: The End, 2006
From: Incredible Hulk: The End
The story ends with Hulk, alone, without Banner or any living human anywhere. The Hulk is finally by himself, the remnant of humanity’s nuclear ambition and a symbol of the uncontrollable power which destroyed it. But this decision, though satisfactory, does leave us with a moral problem. If the Hulk is not a moral agent, who is responsible for what he does? Do we blame Bruce Banner for being in the way when the gamma bomb went off? Do we blame the military in the form of Nick Fury (and thus, the government) for not ridding of or at least containing the danger?
Unfortunately, neither answer satisfies, as neither can control the monster. The nuclear problem is such that, just as in The Avengers, it would only take one decision maker, either government or scientist, one moment of unrealized anger and passion to unleash nuclear death on the world. And this may be the ultimate message of the Hulk: the key is not to make the holder of the weapon angry, and if we are the ones holding the weapon, not to become angry ourselves. While emotions have their place, when dealing with a Hulk or a bomb that has no moral agency of its own, we need to exercise our own moral agency to the absolute best of our abilities. Because all of the Hulk’s strength ultimately lies in our hands.
And as Bruce Banner’s struggle for control demonstrates, the greatest strength is avoiding the power until it is truly needed.
I understand this article relates to the Hulk’s most common and primal iteration, but I wonder how you respond to the World War Hulk-era, where after the trials of Planet Hulk, Hulk returns to Earth sentient and full of righteous vengeance. Once the nuclear bomb gains sentience, is it an acceptable to fight against those who created it as a force of violence, especially considering it’s only means of doing this in violence.
Hmmmm…your name suggests someone who is strong, handsome, and creates outstanding photoshop images.
First of all, thank you for understanding that, yes, this article only references the latest Hulk iteration and the one found in the movie. I thought about including other references, but as my notes say, “Grey Hulk- who cares?”
I suppose the best analogy to the Hulk is a newborn baby. At first the baby is not a moral agent, and it is completely the responsibility of someone else. In most cases, it grows into a moral agent, and at that point it has a number of rights and responsibilities (i.e. she can vote, if she commits a crime she is responsible, etc).
In the case of World War Hulk, the Hulk was sentient, and thus has rights and responsibilities. Breaking that down:
1. Rights: Hulk has the right to self determine, to take part in society, and to be a citizen, so when he was forcibly sent away with no trial, his rights were violated and he had a right to come back. Society had a responsibility to address that grievance. When society failed to do so, the Hulk did have a right to actions that would protect him in the future if he thought his rights were in danger again.
But he had corresponding:
2. Responsibilities: When the Hulk returned from space with an army of gladiators (I loved typing that line) and took recourse outside the normal means, he is responsible for what happens next in terms of property damage, lives lost, and grievances committed. He is especially responsible for damages caused outside of guaranteeing his future safety, so he is guilty of, say, the damage he caused to the X-Mansion, as Professor X was not responsible for violating his rights in the first place and was of no danger to Hulk in the future.
As for us, we should respect those rights and responsibilities, even if some governments do not, like we do with refugees. And since we know that if the Hulk is left alone, he is of no danger, perhaps setting aside some land in, say, Canada and then guarding him from outside forces is a moral move. Admittedly, though, that would be a terrible comic story.
What if the Hulk is able to examine a situation and act based on a moral set, but follows a different moral standard set? As metaphor for and an embodiment of pure rage, it seems that he could follow “alternative” moral rules within his character. An insane person might unintentionally act in a way that is puzzling (or negative negative) to a being with a standard moral code, because he or she follows a different, created morality that facilitates his or her psychological ‘coping’ with the state of being insane.
The Hulk is an induced state of Dr. Banner’s, in which Banner, a good man, is altered to a point where his decisions are not rational. If they are not rational but made based on consideration, are they necessarily immoral even if they are not so by the Hulk’s moral set?
I guess my question can be simplified to this: is morality dependent upon intention? If an act defined as ‘wrong’ by a standard moral set, and if a being disagrees with that label, is his or her status as a moral agent affected?
Let me answer your final question first: moral consideration can only take place in a moral agent by definition. So, even in the case of a hopelessly deranged individual who believes in, say, murdering cows or kidnapping for pleasure, moral decisions are being made. So even though the inputs are what society would agree is deranged, the act of consideration marks that person as a moral agent. If the Hulk were considering actions based on a different standard, it would still be a moral agent. A moral agent is not a being which comes to the morally correct conclusion all or most of the time; it is a being which struggles with moral quandaries- regardless of the moral code they follow.
To use an extreme analogy, Kant argued that the term “moral agent” could not be applied to God, because `for the divine will, and in general for a holy will, there are no imperatives : “I ought ’ ’ is here out of place, because “I will’ is already of itself necessarily in harmony with the law’. In other words, since God will always act in accordance with what is good and holy; God is not a moral agent because God does not struggle with morality. This does not mean God is not good or moral, only that God is good and moral all the time and has no choice in the matter.
This means that we need to view Hulk with an eye to consideration, not results. We also need to separate a moral choice from an instinctual decision. If I place a carrot and a strawberry in front of my rabbit and she chooses the strawberry, this does not indicate a moral choice. If you have a few comics, stories, or movies moments which would seem to indicate moral consideration, even of a “deranged” manner, please list them! Exempting, of course, the sentient Hulk phase already mentioned.
One last thing- is it established that the Hulk is Banner in an altered state, or is the Hulk a completely separate entity? I ask this more to be playful than anything else.
Hulk doesn’t reason–he reacts. The movie doesn’t give us a whole lot to go on, but from the cues provided, the mental state of Whedon’s Hulk can be compared to an unreflective near-amnesiac who’s pissed off. The first thing he does when he “wakes up” is attack whatever was pissing him off, and he stays around as long as someone continues to piss him off. To what degree memories of Banner restrain him is a good question; I’d say while he doesn’t exactly remember Captain America, Thor, ect. when he wakes up, he vaguely remembers that Banner considered them on his side–thus he took direction from Captain America (who was simply pointing out his next target), and while he sucker-punched Thor he didn’t try to wail on him like he did Loki. Mentally I would say that Hulk has the reasoning capacity of a small child at best, which hardly makes him accountable in the way we would hold an adult accountable.
Unfortunately, even if he is meant to be a symbol of nuclear power from a more legal perspective* Banner and/or the Hulk are reasoning beings. It seems improbable to me that the Hulk could use language, plan and act as he does if he were not. So the question is more, is Banner and/or the Hulk responsible for the damage caused and if they are not then what responsibility does society have to try to avoid causing destruction in the future.
Great comment. And of course Banner is a moral agent, there’s no question of that. However, I have to push back a bit on all your points. Using language, planning, and acting do not make a moral agent. Prairie dogs have a fairly sophisticated language. I’ve heard of wolves leading carefully executed attacks. But this does not make them moral agents if those are instinctual as opposed to moral decisions.
You do bring up a great point about Banner’s responsibility in controlling the Hulk- to what degree is Banner responsible for the damage caused by the Hulk? I’ll try to take that up in a future post, but my knee jerk reaction is, if the Hulk is a force of nature as opposed to a moral being, that Banner does bear some of the responsibility for not staying calm unless someone provokes him and gives him no recourse. As a low level analogy, if someone were to force Banner to carry a shotgun, he would be responsible if he shoots someone, unless he is made to do so, even if he didn’t want the gun in the first place.
Hello, if I can use the Hulk image on my website?
Maybe, which one?
In the commentary, it implies that there is a difference in the Hulk based on the circumstances. When Banner chooses to become Hulk, he reacts differently than when he loses control and becomes Hulk involuntarily. This is further referenced by the advice to embrace the Hulk from both Stark and the watchman.
That’s interesting, so if Banner chooses to become the Hulk, it results in a different kind of Hulk? Perhaps the Hulk is a reflection of Banner’s state of mind as he transforms: if Banner is fearful, the Hulk acts like a wounded animal. But if Banner is acts heroically, the Hulk responds in kind. This places quite a bit of responsibility on Banner.
Muy interasante su análisis del personaje en los Advengers. Tendrá algo que ver que el Dr. Banner se transformó a voluntad?, gracias
My apologies, I don’t speak Spanish. If Banner chooses to turn into the Hulk, I believe he does have some responsibility if the Hulk causes damage as a result of the transformation