Love, Death + Robots: Torin's Utilitarian Dilemma
If you’ve at the least dabbled in the world of philosophy, you’ve likely come across the notorious trolley dilemma. To simplify it for the sake of time, the question posed is: Would you make the active choice to kill one person or let five people die? Of course, this question presents the moral predicament of action versus complicity, and most have strong opinions about whether saving five is better than failing to kill one or vice versa. This problem is so infamous not because of the wavering discourse between the two options but because of the overarching controversy that rests in its premise: Is a terrible action warranted if a moral rationale substantiates it?
It has been over 50 years since the Oxford moral philosopher posed this inquiry, yet the underlying themes remain puzzling and manifest themselves in contemporary conversations. Interestingly enough, this controversy is seen in dystopian animation, too. Suppose you thought David Fincher had fulfilled his contribution to the world of media through “Fight Club” and “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” you were wrong. In 2022, he directed a 21-minute short in the series “Love, Death + Robots,” where he brings this moral question to life. He animates it, some might say.
The episode begins with dire conditions: A sea ship, presumably from a long time ago, is attacked by a large sea crab monster, which coins the name “thanapod.” The thanapod eats the ship’s captain, and by a series of bad luck, another crew member is assigned to venture to the basement, where the thanapod has made its nest. Upon conversation with the thanapod, the unlucky soul, Torrin, discovers that the thanapod is interested in negotiating. It wants to be taken to a nearby island for greater access to humans to feast. Torrin, concerned with the terrible ethics of this negotiation, proposes to the team that they take the thanapod to an abandoned island instead.
Image Courtesy: IMDB
However, this island is far away, and the thanapod won’t last long enough without food and will have to eat some team members along the way. As a solution, Torrin suggests that each team member blindly vote on which option to take — the close island where the whole population is at risk or the far island where some of the members of the ship are at risk. Torrin then informs the crew that he tricked them — the vote was not blind, and he does know who voted to put the island of civilians at risk (whom he deems cowards). As punishment, he shoots the two cowardly voters dead.
As the ship heads towards the far island, the thanapod becomes more hungry, and Torrin faces a difficult challenge as to how to solve this problem. Ultimately, this episode sails into a compelling deadlock of choices. Torrin continues to find justifiable reasons to throw his shipmates to the thanapod, resting on the thematic question of choice. He later reveals that he was lying about knowing who voted for what; in fact, he didn’t need to, as every other individual on the ship voted to take the thanapod to the island of innocent people. Terribly concerned with upholding his moral compass and focused on being surrounded by only like-minded individuals, Torrin kills every individual on his ship who voted to take the thanapod to the island (yes, everyone).
As he continuously kills to save, Torrin inadvertently becomes a perfect prototype for the principle of utilitarianism; that is, an action is morally right if it has a net positive end goal. Torrin somehow upholds a sincere abundance of empathy for an entire population of individuals while failing to exude much compassion for his crew-mates, as he repeatedly sacrifices them to the thanapod. Yet, under the principle of utilitarianism, Torrin is a morally sound agent. How can this be?
Image Courtesy: Twitter
Torrin’s embodiment of utilitarianism serves as a powerful lesson for navigating the challenging ethical terrain of our political climate. Similar to the trolley dilemma, Torin's predicament unfolds through a series of morally ambiguous choices which he justifies by thinking about the greater good, rather than the well-being of his crewmates. If anything, this short strikes down the notion that morality is black and white, suggesting that adherence to any moral doctrine may result in a lack of nuance and understanding. In a modern world where issues are multifaceted and complex, it’s important to stay away from moral absolutes. This story warns us in our approach to contemporary ideas and debates, reminding us that what may seem to be the morally correct response may harbor drastic consequences.
Strike out,
Writer: Olivia Hansen
Editor: Denisa Fluturas
Gainesville
