Hey Wisecrack, Jared here, and today we’re talking about one of the more thoughtful Marvel properties out there: Daredevil. And no, NOT the Ben Affleck one. Also, spoiler alert for all of you that haven’t binged both seasons yet. Matt Murdock, Blind Lawyer, and human lie detector… is a vigilante: the Devil of Hell’s Kitchen. The very concept of justice is based in the idea that law ought to be fair. This is why justice is personified as a blind woman holding scales and a sword: to weigh guilt and to execute said justice. It's no coincidence that Matt Murdock is a blind lawyer that beats people up in his Pajamas. The other element the show places significant emphasis on is the fact that Matt is a Catholic. The choice to name a catholic superhero Matthew after the Apostle and Evangelist is quite apt. As a tax collector Matthew would have a similar reputation to lawyers today. The Book of Matthew does quite a bit of commentary

on greed and social justice. Matthew 25: 31-46 sounds a whole lot like a justification for Pro Bono Legal work, and Matthew 23:16 deals explicitly with corruption and blindness. In fact, the promotional material for the second season was heavily influenced by religious art, including Caravaggio, Michelangelo’s The Last Judgement, and Rubens’s Saint Sebastian, which echoes Claire’s fears about Matt. Whether it be divine law or man-made law, the central theme of Daredevil is Justice. So let's get to it. Welcome to this Wisecrack edition on The Philosophy of Daredevil. Daredevil addresses a serious problem with justice: legal liability, whether or not a guilty party ought to be held responsible for their actions. Sure, it seems simple enough - somebody goes on a killing spree, they deserve to be punished, right? But that narrative is complicated by one of the central questions in Daredevil: Are people responsible for their life situations? In season two, Nelson and Murdock attempt

to use PTSD as a defense for Frank Castle,
saying that Frank doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong, and thus, he’s
not responsible for his actions. When little Frankie Castle balks at this,
they reword their defense, to “sympathetic storming”, a diagnosis where the sympathetic
system is on a heightened state of alert due to extreme trauma and emotional disturbance.
Again, the idea is: Frank Castle is not responsible for his actions. The show asks: is a person
still to blame for their actions if they aren’t free to choose the person they have become? Wilson Fisk is conditioned into a world of
violence by his abusive father until he, well, snaps. Electra is presented as an emotionless
killing machine that can do nothing but murder because of her nature as the Black Sky. Elektra
is literally predisposed to be evil, and a significant portion of the second season revolves
around the question: can she exercise her

free will to deny her destiny? Frank Castle has experienced the complete
horror of war, only to return home and see his entire family violently gunned down. Can
one really blame him for being vengeful? And then there's Karen. We've already seen her murder one person, and the show constantly hints at her mysterious dark past. Karen has to believe that someone like Frank Castle isn't all bad, that he isn't defined by his deeds. Because if he is, she is, and always will be a murderer. Philosophically speaking, the idea that all decisions are
determined by previous causes is called determinism. Determinists don’t really believe in free
will. All actions are just the consequence of previous actions. Each choice a person
makes is impacted by previous life events. In a deterministic universe, concepts like
responsibility and punishment don’t really make sense because if we’re just a product
of our past, then we don’t really CHOOSE

to do the things we do. And how can we be
punished for something we didn’t choose? Matt represents a different view of criminal
justice: Libertarianism: which believes in the ability to choose other than your determined
nature. Libertarians are of the hopeful sorts. I mean… Matt literally wears rose-colored
glasses. Matt presents an option whereby people can elevate themselves beyond their determined
condition or environment. It’s what Matt is going on an on about on the roof with the
Punisher, about the redemptive spark inside of a person, where someone isn’t all bad,
that they can choose of their own free will to be different. While Matt is supposed to be the example to
prove determinism wrong: Matt has the devil inside him, whatever that means. He wants to kill
people like Fisk, but he chooses not to. Does he act of his own free will or is Matt merely
un-free in his Catholicism? Is his choice

not to kill the Kingpin, a decision that he makes freely, or does he merely make this decision based on the events that led to him accepting Catholicism and all of its precepts? Vigilantism causes controversy because the vigilante, being outside the legal system, doesn’t have authority to distribute punishment. There’s no due process or impartiality. Vigilantism is common in comic books, but in most cases, the hero isn’t in a position to be harmed by being outed as a vigilante. Electra is silly rich. Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are billionaire playboys. Superman can get shot in the eyeball and be fine. Matt Murdock, on the other hand, is a blind defense lawyer who gets paid in bananas and casseroles. There is actual risk for Matt if people find out who he is. It’s part of why Daredevil is the man without fear. Matt’s motivation for risking so much is echoed by a Thurgood Marshall speech from 1992 about dissenting against fear.

While Justice Marshall may not be calling for vigilante justice, he is calling for an end to fear and apathy - to not turn a “blind eye” to injustice. Though vigilante violence is still extra-legal, the question: what makes a person good is a central idea of the show - and while it’s a little heavy-handed - they make it clear that Matt Murdock is just a bad day away from becoming Wilson Fisk or Frank Castle. Most superhero narratives play up the cliché of good and evil. There’s a pure heroic protagonist and a corrupt and vile antagonist. In Daredevil, however, this elementary distinction is blurred by Kingpin, Stick, Elektra, and the Punisher, who all occupy moral gray areas. They don’t set out to do evil, they validate their decisions by appeals to a greater good. For the Kingpin, it is the glory of his city. For the Punisher, he is merely doling out justice. For Stick

and Electra, there is a great war between the Chaste and the Hand that they have to deal with. What separates Matt from Karen, The Punisher, and the Kingpin is faith. Matt is a Catholic, whereas all the others profess they aren't religious. Orphaned after the death of his father, he is raised by nuns, attends church regularly, and makes an effort to be a good man. Which is funny because Matt chooses to dress up like the devil and kick the shit out of people. And so for Karen, The Punisher, and Kingpin, there is nothing besides the corrupt law to keep them from killing. No divine law that makes taking life unjust. Each season Matt tackles different adversaries, but the actual enemy doesn't really matter. What matters is Matt's struggle with his inner devil with his desire to bring justice to his city by any means necessary except killing. Matt is a good Catholic boy who likes hurting people but has a real problem killing people. Something about Thou shall

not kill”? Except that he doesn’t choose not to kill—he
kills Nobu three times but conveniently forgets about it every time he does so. He lights
him on fire, he throws him off a three-story balcony, then he chucks him off of a roof,
and at no time does he express any guilt for doing so… so maybe he does have the devil
in him… A great example of the dichotomy of Matt's relationship to the law happens early in season 1. When he exercises his ability as a defense attorney to defend a murderer he knows is guilty, then turns around and doles out some street justice as soon as he leaves the courthouse. Or how he fights the Punisher and then defends him in court in season 2. There is 
a constant refrain from characters in the
show and that is: Daredevil’s tactics as a vigilante are half measures. Fisk argues
that what’s dangerous about Matt is not that he wears a cape or mask. Daredevil is
dangerous because he believes one man can

make a difference. For Fisk, it’s only through
sweeping structural changes that come about by through influence; power, money, and eating
the same omelet every day that real change can take shape. Fisk’s argument is echoed by both The Punisher
and Stick: that Daredevil’s vigilantism is insufficient. Matt plods through life like
his father, a boxer who slides through life taking on each opponent one by one, fight
by fight. For Stick and Punisher, Daredevil’s insistence to not kill limits his ability
to effectuate change. Daredevil’s perps end up back on the street to continue to rape,
kill, and murder. In many ways, the yellow seen everywhere can be read as more than just
an homage to the primary colors of the comic books: it speaks to what Daredevil’s frenemies
imply… that The Devil of Hell’s Kitchen is really a yellow-bellied coward. In a criminal justice sense, Daredevil justifies
his actions through a utilitarian approach.

His idea of justice relies on rehabilitating, incapacitating, and deterring
the criminal. Punishment is justified by a forward-looking prediction to stop future
harm for the sake of all of society. An action is just only if it advances one of these goals.
Like imprisoning the Kingpin and the Punisher. Sure there isn’t due process, a jury, or
a judge, but this is a question of philosophical justification. Daredevil does what’s needed
in a predictive sense—he protects the neighborhood by beating the sh*t out of people. Whereas
the Punisher represents a more retributive concept of justice, which closely aligns with a deontological
or Kantian approach to justice. For Immanuel Kant, it’s not a question of
protecting society based on the consequences of punishment. Retributive justice is concerned
with deserts, no not ice cream, just deserts: getting what a person deserves. Punishment
isn’t used to help society so much as it

is to assure that a person gets what they
are due. In fact, for the retributivist, it would be UNJUST or immoral to do otherwise.
It is similar to the concept of an ‘eye for an eye’ or Lex Talionis: A system of
justice “which requires the infliction upon a wrongdoer of the same injury he has caused
another. So, yeah, the Punisher… Punishes people.
Whether it’s the Kitchen Irish, the Dogs of Hell, or members of his ex-military outfit,
Punisher acts to right the wrong done to his family. There is no legal recourse—he ‘just
does’… he insures that people get what they deserve. Daredevil presents the story of a conflicted
hero, torn between his duty to the church, the legal profession, and his desire to stand
up for those that are unable to stand up for themselves. Sure, Daredevil may be a Batman
rip-off, but it did generate the source material.

to create the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
While all of this is great, what makes Daredevil a phenomenal series is that at its heart, the
show is about kicking ass. In a hallway, in alleys, stairwells, living rooms, and cellblocks...
it just kicks ass.

The Philosophy of Marvel's Daredevil – Wisecrack Edition

The Philosophy of Marvel's Daredevil – Wisecrack Edition