1

Heroes & Villains : Nietzsche, Social Contract & Ethics.

By James Donnelly

As long as narratives have existed, it seems fair to say, Heroes and Villains will have existed. The most

identifiable being the Abrahamic characters of God & Lucifer. Regardless of one's view on religious texts (or

their veracity), the stories provided set up a lot of the ear-markers for the dichotomy we know today as

Heroes and Villains. Two powerful entities fight over self-determination, the 'greater good' and the status

quo. Lucifer (The Light Bearer) was the favourite angel until he challenged God's authority and was cast

down to hell. Now known as Satan, he believed it better “to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”, and

becomes the “adversary of God”. (Milton, cited in Zimbardo, 2007. p.3)

Indeed, Carl Jung believed that religious figures such as Buddha Gautama, Jesus of Nazareth &

Mohammed all represented the self-fulfilled heroic archetype(Philosophynow.org, 2012).

One definition of a hero is “a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble

qualities” (dictionary.com). Another description of heroic action is supererogation, or going “beyond the call

of duty. This supererogation is deemed as morally good, yet more than is due. Essentially, heroism is a

high-powered form of Good Samaritanism, if you will. This means that heroism drifts between Axiological &
 2

Deontic forms of 'goodness'. Axiology deals with ideological concepts, dealing in human affairs

characterised by the open ended approaches & progressive attitudes. Deontic goodness handles legal

concepts, deals with human actions characterised by fixed approaches and legal attitudes

(plato.stanford.edu, 2002).

A villain is conversely definedas “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or

crime” (dictionary.com). Another definition of the Villain is one who “adheres to his own rules, doesn't

conform and is strong-willed and individualistic” (Alsford, 2006). Agency, free will and choice are

characteristic of the Villain.

Joseph Campbell defined the hero of myth as one who “brings back from his adventure the means for

regeneration of his society as a whole”, but juxtaposes the mythic hero with the hero of Fairy Tales. In the

latter the hero is defined as the “despised child who becomes the master of extraordinary powers-prevails

over his personal oppressors”(dictionary.com). These two definitions could easily be applied to signify the

similarity between heroes and villains, in their efforts to change the world for a subjective 'better'. What this

paper will investigate is how these two, apparently binary oppositions can, on occasion, seem more similar

than dissimilar in Film & Televisual fiction.

 3

Heroes and Villains work best as cultural icons when they are viewed as essentialist & absolutist in nature.

Heroic & Villainous acts are created on the concept of absolute Good and Evil, a Hero & Villain can only

exist in those two categories. What is considered heroic or villainous in any given society “says a lot about

that culture” (Alsford, 2006).

If Heroes go beyond what is expected of them for 'greater good', what draws the line between them and the

Villain, who goes beyond what is expected of them for the relative 'bad'? The Villain will have justification,

allies & strategy much like the hero, but wishes to destroy the status quo (which they deem dystopian). The

Hero, ironically seeks to preserve the status quo, whilst shattering it with his presence. An example of this

could be Nolan's take on the Dark Knight, Batman. Throughout the Dark Knight(2008, Dir. C.Nolan. Warner

Brothers. USA/UK), Batman has become a self-imposed guardian and watchman over the sprawling

metropolis of Gotham. This begs the question Juvenal asked of Caeser “But who watches the

Watchmen”(cited in Philosophynow.org, 2009). If a Hero has decided that only he can stand for justice and

has the infallibility that no other human possesses, he is arguably falling into the trap of egotism and 'world

in my image' thinking that clouds the 'best intentions' of many Villains.

The Villain has much in common with the sociopathic 'heroes' of modern Television. Characters like Mad
 4

Men's Don Draper, and the eponymous Hannibals and Dexters indulge in detachment from the wider social

contract to achieve agency within their respective diageses. However, from a Nietzchian perspective, these

characteristics could be attributed to his concept of the Ubermensch. It is important to attach the

Ubermensch to this topic as both Heroes and Villains can be described in such terms. The Ubermensch is a

transcendental or supra-human individual (in its truest sense) who is endowed with “superior potential” and

could be “any man”(Britannica.com). These descriptions easily fit the heroic characters we've come to

associate the term with., from Batman to Scott Pilgrim.

However, Nietzche posited that humanity no longer had a need for a God for ethical guidance, declaring that

God, or at least the necessity for one, is dead. Therefore, the Ubermensch is described as a “Value-creating

and value destroying free spirit who disciplines himself to wholeness”, and that it remains “an

ideal”(Philosophy.org, 2012). This immediately shouts out as a villainous behaviour, as far as the Deontic

concept of 'goodness' is utilised. Destroying & creating values transgresses the base level concepts of good

and replaces them with those which exist outside the deontic social contract described by Jean-Jacques

Rousseau.

Rousseau argued that initially the natural order of life had been instilled by the abundance of comparative

nature to man. Competition was lesser and people led simple, “morally pure” lives. This was disturbed by the
 5

invention of private property, which led to increasing inequalities. Eventually, these inequalities manifested

as a class system, the top of which wished to protect their interests. So, governments were created to

protect property and this class. They propose a social contract of protection to the lower classes, in

exchange for obeying their laws, all the while solidifying the inequalities intrinsic to the system

(www.iep.utm.edu, 2004).

This concept of the social contract, utilised by arguably villainous people, begs questions of the Hero &

Villain, as Heroes are typically characterised as being involved in this social contract, where the Villain uses

it himself or works outside of it. Nietzche's Ubermensch has independent will and establishes his own

values. This resonates with Kant's writing on Freedom and the autonomy of will, which suggests that one

who possesses these attributes does “what ought to be done, not what others tell you to

do”(ccrma.stanford.edu). This strange blurring of the heroic & villainous can be succinctly shown in

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008).

Batman, as a wider pop culture icon, had trod the line between Hero & Villain often. Alan Moore's Killing

Joke (Moore and Bolland, 2008) has Batman experience the “one bad day” that can drive a man to the kind

of insanity Joker experiences, forgetting Batman had already experienced that day. A retired Batman makes

a brutal return, killing Joker and beating Superman to a pulp in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns
 6

(Miller, Janson and Varley, 1997). In Nolan's iteration (which borrowed from the two aformentioned texts in

several areas) this issue is shown through the three main characters. Batman, Joker and Two-Face. These

characters signify three frameworks for understanding the ethics of their actions. All three act outside of the

deontic framework and each one acts extra-judicially.

Batman believes life is a chaotic tragedy, that only he can defend via his higher mental, physical & financial

resources. Joker believes life to be a chaotic joke, with a punchline that only he can explain via more chaos.

Two-Face believes that life is simply chaos and leaves his life up to chance. This is where Two-Face differs,

his moral nihilism is so complete that he resigns his agency to a coin. Batman shapes his existence through

his actions as does Joker. Batman's agency is framed through a humanist code of honour, based on a

harm-to-efficacy ratio. His is a deontic good, the lowest common denominator. The Joker's nihilism is social,

he tries to deconstruct social order to reveal some truth he has found in and arguably represents the lofty

axiological good more clearly than Batman. However, the deontic good wins out within the film, as the base

concepts of right and wrong win out over permitted chaos.

The simple fact that all of these characters have reached the same conclusion of life as chaos suggests how

closely Heroes and Villains are, at least philosophically. Their methods differ hugely due to their differing

approaches to the social contract. Joker & Two-Face deny the social contract as an obfuscating framework
 7

for understanding reality. Batman puts stock in it, yet willingly acts outside of it. Arguably, the more honest

approach is that of the supposed villains who look to expose the corruption inherent in the system,

something the film makes a point of referencing.

However, Heroes and Villains are typically described in binary oppositions. Following the intellectual strands

already placed within this paper, a matrix of heroic/villainous behaviours can be created. Investigating the

dichotomy of Heroes and Villains seems to suggest a selection of behaviours. Heroes are isolationist by

nature, politically conservative & driven by fear. Heroes wish to be left alone, to protect the status quo & are

fearful of a world without rule. They are dependent on the social contract for their morality and are given

their agency by it. Villains are conversely globalised, politcally progressive and driven by egotism. Villains

wish to demolish the status quo and wish to replace it with their own view. Villains vehemently deny the

basic, deontic aspects of the social contract, which they deem as constricting. Their agency is either created

by them, or through exploitation of corruption within the system.

How does this correspond to those we deem heroes and villains? The American Film Institute's top Heroes

and Villains is worth investigating as it shows some interesting cross-over of behaviours. Atticus Finch and

Hannibal Lecter take the top places of Hero and Villain, respectively (afi.com, 2003). So, using the theory

of behaviours previously posited, let us look at these two characters. Both Finch and Lecter act outside of
 8

the common thinking, Finch preaching equality in a unequal time and Lecter transgressing basic taboos on

Cannibalism & Murder. Both are globalised, educated and intellectually independent men. They deny the

status quo, deny the deontic aspects of the social contract and take agency for themselves. Where they

differ is in their approach. Lecter, much like Finch is a Villain to the Villainous & a Hero to the Heroic (to a

certain extent in Lecter's case). However, despite his apparent altruism towards Clarice, Lecter's heroic

stature is largely due to his support of the Intelligence and Police departments. His extra-judicial actions are

heroic in a complicated way. Whilst he is stopping other serial killers, he himself is a serial killer. Finch's

altruism harms no one but the system.

Finch is closest to achieving the truly transcendent status that heroism requires. Villains are egotists and

Heroes rely on a social order built on villainy. Altruism ultimately shines through as the defining feature of

heroism, but without the larger realisation that alternative social orders could be more ultimately altruistic,

they will always be villains to someone, much as Villains will always be heroes to someone. Reality rarely

presents us with such people, and if it does, they are often cannibalised into a narrative character. For every

subjective right decision a hero makes, a subjective wrong will be made. The heroic or villainous nature of

their actions are based on a posteriori, subjective conclusions on the ethical location of these actions. These
 9

are typically framed within the social contract, which means if Rousseau is right, they are framed by

villainous actions. If villains are describing others as villains, perhaps they are in fact heroes. Perhaps, even

as Two-Face, Harvey Dent was the true White Knight of Gotham, ridding Gotham of corruption and secrecy

in the most natural way, chance. Dent understands that heroes will always exist and villains will always

exist, and as Zygmunt Bauman put it “what we perhaps fear most, is that each of the two faces can no more

exist without the other than can the two sides of a coin” (1989).

Heroes and Villains are so similar because they're humans, or at least aspects of human nature. Zimbardo

argued that “The world is filled with good and evil-was,is, will always be. The barrier between good and evil

is permeable and nebulous” and that “it is possible for angels to become devils and, perhaps more difficult to

conceive, for devils to become angels”(2007. p.3). He argues that the concept of the “unbridgeable chasm”

between Absolute Good and Evil is a doubly thick security blanket. In it's form as a binary opposition, evil is

distilled and essentialised into an innate aspect of certain people, an other. He carried on the cultural

characterisation of the other as evil, stating that “the process [of propaganda] begins with creating

stereotyped conceptions of the other...as demonic...as abstract monster...as a fundamental threat to our

cherished values and beliefs”(p.11). Pomeroy believes that our moral philosophy has not evolved in

conjunction with science, and that the “rational natural science without a rational moral science” had been

perfectly shown in the rise of the Nazis & following genocide (2005. p.138). Hitler once stated “how lucky it
 10

is for rulers that men cannot think”. Blackburn argues that it is exactly because men could think, but that

thinking “was poisoned by an enveloping climate of ideas, many of which may not have even be conscious”

that groups like the Nazi's captured the imagination so successfully. (Blackburn, 2001. p.3). Pomeroy

continues this strand stating that “racists always tell themselves a story that justifies their system. The ethical

climate will sustain a conviction that we are civilised, they are not, or that we deserve better fortune than

them”(2005, p.7).

This means that good people are let off “the responsibility hook”, according to Zimbardo and are allowed to

involve themselves in evil acts, as they are good people despite their evil acts, as “it's the way of the

world”(2007, p.11). The justification of the greater good fits in with the argument that “a reason rationalises

an action”. If we can then become aware of some “consequence...the agent wanted, desired, held dear,

thought dutiful, beneficial, obligatory, or agreeable”, evil actions are made good (Davidson, 1980). If this is

compared with part of Zimbardo's definition of evil actions as “using one's authority and systemic power to

encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf”, one can begin to see how easily the hero can be

regarded as the villain by those on the other side of the social contract (2007, p.5).

Bauman states that “the more rational is the organisation of action, the easier it is to cause suffering”(1989).

If a hero is co-opted by the social contract to perform beyond his simple duty, he is working outside of the
 11

social contract to achieve this. Flugel, much like Nietzche, believed that it was “Man's duty” to continue

human evolution by “reshaping of the world into a fitter place for human beings to live in” (1945, pg.320).

This seems to describe a hero, as Joseph Campbell described them as having the means for “regeneration

of his society as a whole”(Asford, 2006). Yet Flugel also talks of the “betterment of himself...improvement of

his spiritual and physical welfare...increase of his knowledge and of the power with which this knowledge

can endow him”, which fits more with the individualistic, value destroying aspects of the villain (1945,

p.320).

He continues the individuality strand, stating that large amounts of our species progression resulted due to

“isolated individuals here and there, working for their private ends or to satisfy some personal urge or

curiosity; and the greater pioneers among them have...been feared or persecuted”(p.321). These are

typically people with lofty, ideological and axiological goodness whom work outside the deontic social

contract. Bauman argues that relativists thinking means “no claim to truth, authority, certainty or necessity-

will be audible except as one more saying like all the others”(1989). If this relativist framework is utilised on

heroes and villains, then neither can truly exist and will remain an aspect of the narrative way in which we

perceive the world to make sense of it.

From a narrative perspective, it is important for the Hero & Villain to share common elements to present a
 12

real threat and challenge to each other. If they didn't share individuating strength, extra-judicial agency & a

sense of what 'ought to be done', one would easily defeat the other. Let us consider some of the more

popular cinematic heroes & villains. Star Wars'(1977-2005) Luke and Anakin Skywalker share a lot of

elements. Both suffer the loss of a hand, emotional manipulation by the Emperor & use of the force at a

higher level. Both share Obi Wan as a mentor and are introduced to the Jedi way of life later on in their

respective lives. A similar thread can be seen in the Harry Potter series (2001-2011), between Harry &

Voldemort. Both are Half-Blood orphans, raised around 'muggles', who don't find happiness until they reach

Hogwarts, are dark haired and share the same 'model' of wand. The Toy Story(1995-2010) franchise draw

parallels between Woody & Lotso as intelligent, resourceful & strategic leaders and Woody and Stinky Pete

as conservative cowboys fearing replacement by a space toy.

What the effective mirroring of these characters does is drive home the similarities between these binaries to

investigate what it is that truly decides whether a character is a hero or a villain. If it is agreed that the above

characters are heroes and villains, it appears that choice is the only thing that separates these characters.

Their lives have trod similar, if not the same, paths. They have experienced the same journeys, but one

makes a choice in a wider social context, where the other acts selfishly and that is arguably the only

difference between the two.

 13

Damon Lindelof believed that “we want heroes to know the difference between good and bad, and we want

them to be strong”, but it's “hard for such a person to be accessible”(Alsford, 2007). Why is this the case?

Perhaps it's related to the culture of sociopathy that is encouraged in power structures. Wall Street &

Neoliberal capitalism have both been identified as having the obsessive, self-aggrandising sociopathy which

are encouraged as the norm in the Capitalist western world. TheLastPsychiatrist.com described Wall Street

as “stealing your savings and feeling no shame, having no punishment”, while non-sociopaths can only

compensate with “moral superiority”. Non sociopaths want to “feel some power, which in a normally

functioning society you would be able to get in your own natural way”. However, because it appears the

“social contract has failed”, we must play the game of the sociopaths, who are egotistical villains. As

justification of sociopathy becomes more widespread to preserve the social contract, our heroes begin to

shift to represent that (2012).

However, it is important to remember that narratives serve as a framework of understanding. We make

sense of the existent world through narratives, stories and casual logic. The hero/villain dichotomy presents

two moral standpoints on a narrative map of causation, each on differing sides of the social contract. The

Hero exists as something to reach for, the Villain something to avoid. However, the obligation to the Social

Contract creates a dilemma for the Heroic character who must act outside of it to preserve it. If this

preservation undoes itself by its own existence, is there much point to trying? Heroes are always a few
 14

steps away from being Villains, ethically. But, more often than not it is the reversion back to the status quo

that saves the day and makes the hero. Through this essay, it has become clear that the binary opposition

we've covered here isn't quite as binary or oppositonal as we'd care to think. Instead, this dichotomy acts as

a philosophical synthesis of ideas. These two tropes act as philosophical characters through which to filter

through the arguments for Villainy or Heroism. Ultimately, a hero is an altruist & a villain is an egotist. Man

can be both, man can be neither. There are no heroic or villainous people, just actions.
 15

References

Afi.com, (2003). AFI's 100 YEARS...100 HEROES & VILLAINS. [online] Available at:

http://www.afi.com/100years/handv.aspx [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014

Alsford, M. (2006). Heroes and Villains. 1st ed. [ebook] London: Darton, Longman & Tood. Available at:

http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.lincoln.ac.uk/eds/delivery?sid=94dd0f41-7857-493d-

9d84-9fb8970ab77d%40sessionmgr110&vid=2&hid=101 [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. 1st ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Berman, M. (2011). Sociopaths Rule. [online] Tikkun Magazine. Available at:

https://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/sociopaths-rule [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Blackburn, S. (2001). Ethics. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blackford, R. (2012). Why do we love (some) villains?. [online] Talking Philosophy. Available at:

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=5727#respond [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Ccrma.stanford.edu, (2014). Nietzsche's idea of "the overman" (Ubermensch) is one of themost significant

concept in his thinking. [online] Available at: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm

[Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

 16

Comicvine.com, (2012). Discussion in Philosophy: The Hero, the Villain & Supererogatory - Gen.

Discussion - Comic Vine. [online] Available at: http://www.comicvine.com/forums/gen-discussion-

1/discussion-in-philosophy-the-hero-the-villain-supe-641086/ [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Cybulska, E. (2012). Nietzsche Reloaded: Nietzsche’s Übermensch: A Hero of Our Time?. Philosophy Now,

[online] (93). Available at:

http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/Nietzsches_Ubermensch_A_Hero_of_Our_Time [Accessed 25

Apr. 2014].

Dangerous & Lazy, (2012). Sociopathic subjects. [online] Available at:

http://blog.voyou.org/2012/04/04/sociopathic-subjects/ [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Dictionary.com, (2014). the definition of hero. [online] Available at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero?s=t [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Encyclopedia Britannica, (2014). superman (philosophy). [online] Available at:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/574434/superman [Accessed 24 Apr. 2014].

Evans, M. (2013). Hero & Villain Double Acts (and a Bit of Philosophy) . [online] markaeology. Available

at: http://markaeology.com/2013/09/hero-villain-double-acts/ [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Flugel, J. (1945). Man, morals and society. 1st ed. New York: International Universities Press.
 17

Friend, C. (2004). Social Contract Theory. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online] Available at:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/ [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Heyd, D. (2002). Supererogation. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supererogation/ [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Jules, (2011). PoW: the fine line between heroes and villains - Philosophy for Life - official website of

author Jules Evans. [online] Philosophyforlife.org. Available at: http://philosophyforlife.org/pow-the-

fine-line-between-heroes-and-villains/ [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Kant, I. and Paton, H. (1956). The moral law. 1st ed. New York: Barnes & Noble.

Miller, F., Janson, K. and Varley, L. (1997). The Dark Knight returns. 1st ed. London: Titan.

Moore, A. and Bolland, B. (2008). The killing joke.. 1st ed. London: Titan.

Pomeroy, L. and Edwards, R. (2005). The new science of axiological psychology. 1st ed. Amsterdam:

Rodopi.

Ravyn, (2010). Generic Villain’s Philosophy Corner: What Is Villainy? | Exchange of Realities . [online]

Exchangeofrealities.com. Available at: http://www.exchangeofrealities.com/2010/07/25/generic-

villains-philosophy-corner-what-is-villainy/ [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Sociopathworld.com, (2012). Sociopath World: 1 in 10 Wallstreeters are psychopaths . [online] Available at:
 18

http://www.sociopathworld.com/2012/03/1-in-10-wallstreeters-are-psychopaths.html [Accessed 25

Apr. 2014].

Thelastpsychiatrist.com, (2012). The Last Psychiatrist: Why We Love Sociopaths. [online] Available at:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/04/why_we_love_sociopaths.html [Accessed 2 May. 2014].

Walters, T. (2009). The Dark Knight. Philosophy Now, [online] (73). Available at:

http://philosophynow.org/issues/73 [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Winslow, S. and Atkinson, R. (2013). New Directions in Criminality and deviancy. 1st ed. [ebook]

Oxon/New York: Routledge, p.8. Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?

id=pZCuuHhF5rwC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=neoliberalism+is+sociopathy&source=bl&ots=mdi0JWFP

3E&sig=hYkBlnkG2ijdPc3o7b9oRg2-

lxU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y8VjU5q5IIO60QW5ooHYDw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=neoliberali

sm%20is%20sociopathy&f=false [Accessed 25 Apr. 2014].

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect. 1st ed. New York: Random House.