Final Fantasy and Philosophy: The Ultimate Walkthrough (12 page)

—Heidegger, Final Fantasy VII

So, who is right about the sort of life that we ought to live? Hobbes, Mill, Aristotle, or none of the above? That is for you to decide. I’ve got my opinion, of course, but the point of this chapter isn’t for me to foist my views on you. The point of the chapter is to help you think through the issue for yourself. Maybe, as we considered these worlds through the eyes of the philosophers, you thought that one or more of them showed some insight into the purpose of life. Or maybe you thought they all showed about as much sense as a first-level White Mage charging a herd of Adamantoise with a stick. Either way, you have hopefully been given some food for thought while you struggle, as I do, with the question of what sort of lives we should live. We’ve scratched the surface here, and the rest is up to you. Working out the purpose of human life is no easy task, of course, nor will it be achieved quickly. After all, a great quest is always a long and difficult affair. But you knew that.

NOTES

1
Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan
, ed. K. C. A. Gaskin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 84, 85.

2
I recommend the edition of Hobbes’s
Leviathan
cited above. If you are interested in having a look at an excellent collection of essays on Hobbes, I recommend Patricia Springborg, ed.,
The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). The creature “Leviathan” from
Final Fantasy III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX
, and
XI
is a reference to the same monster from Jewish and Christian literature, a beast that appears five times in the Bible. The fact that Leviathan becomes a king in the
Final Fantasy
series is perhaps a nod to Hobbes.

3
Cosplayers, in case you don’t know, are people who like to dress up as their favorite characters from anime, manga, or video games. The practice is most common in Japan.

4
An edition that I recommend is: John Stuart Mill,
Utilitarianism
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2002). For an excellent collection of essays on Mill’s philosophy, I recommend Henry West, ed.,
The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism
(Malden, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2006).

5
Attentive gamers will notice that even after a quest has been completed, the quest still remains available for other players to complete. If we take this at face value, it would indicate that while perhaps hundreds of thousands of people take the quest, the poor quest-giver is never actually helped. No matter how often someone brings Kuoh medicine for her sick Chocobo, the bird is still sick when the next adventurer turns up. This raises some interesting philosophical issues about how we are supposed to interpret the shared story presented to the player by MMORPGs like
Final Fantasy XI Online
, but I don’t have space to open that can of Sand Worms here. I’m just going to assume that we are supposed to accept that the characters we play are the only characters who have ever really completed the quest. The alternative seems to be that everyone in Vana’diel is thoroughly insane for constantly trying to solve problems in a world that doesn’t allow problems to be solved.

6
.The
Nicomachean Ethics
is an excellent book to read if Aristotle’s ethics interest you. An edition I recommend is Aristotle,
Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics
, translated by Roger Crisp (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). For a wonderful collection of essays on Aristotle’s philosophy, I recommend Jonathan Barnes, ed.,
The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

8

THE FOUR WARRIORS OF LIGHT SAVED THE WORLD, BUT THEY DON’T DESERVE OUR THANKS

Nicolas Michaud

The world is veiled in darkness. The wind stops, the sea is wild, and the earth begins to rot. The people wait, their only hope, a prophecy . . . . “When the world is in darkness, Four Warriors will come.”
¹

These are the words of Lukahn, a Sage in the world of the first
Final Fantasy
. His vision of the future is a bleak one, but he also knows that Four Heroes will come to fight the darkness. As the many incarnations of
Final Fantasy
have come and gone, the Heroes of the worlds of
Final Fantasy
have gained a great deal of freedom. Specifically, in recent versions of the game they can choose to save the world . . . or not. But in their 8-bit beginnings, the Heroes were predestined to save the world. In the first
Final Fantasy
, the Sage Lukahn’s prophecy tells of the “Four Warriors of Light” who will come in the time of darkness to save them all. I can’t help but wonder, then, if it was foreseen that these Four Warriors would save the world, do they really deserve our thanks?
²

All right, that may seem like a weird thing to ask. “Of course, you should thank someone who saves the world!” you might reply. But to know whether we should thank the Warriors for saving the world, we need to know whether they have free will. If they don’t have free will and have no choice but to save the world, then why thank them? Why thank someone who has no choice but to do something?

If the Sage Can See It All, Are the Heroes Really Free?

Many philosophers argue that someone is free when he or she has the ability to do something else. In other words, a person is free only if he or she can actually make a choice to do or not to do something. If a person is placed on a path from which he or she cannot deviate, then that person is not free. Predestination does exactly this; the Warriors of Light cannot do anything other than what they are predestined to do. If they are predestined, then they have no alternative possibilities. And here is the problem: don’t we usually say that if people don’t have free will, then they can’t be praised or blamed for their actions? If I am enchanted by an evil Mage and forced to commit an action, good or bad, can I really be held responsible? Similarly, if the world is destroyed and there was nothing I could have done to stop it, can I really be blamed? After all, there was
nothing
I could do to stop it. On the other hand, if I save the world, and once again if I could do
nothing
to change that fact, why would I be praised for my action?

For example, I don’t thank my Nintendo Entertainment System for doing what it was programmed to do—like turn on when I push the “power” button. I don’t thank my automobile’s airbags when they save my life in a car crash; similarly, why would I thank someone who was powerless to do otherwise? Aren’t our Light Warriors simply the pawns of fate, unable to do anything other than what they are prophesied to do? They can’t change their path: the Sage has foretold the salvation of the world. He saw the future as if it was already past; it cannot be any other way.

From even before they were born, the Warriors were going to save the world. If the Sage was really good at seeing the future, then he knew enough to know that the Heroes would be born, he knew they would save the world, and, most likely, he knew that they would want to save the world. And if they were also predestined to
want
to save the world, then they couldn’t have wanted to do anything else! Not only could they not fail to save the world, but they also couldn’t be free to choose whether they wanted to save the world! The future has already been seen, and their part in the universal plan has already been written!

What If the Warriors Met God?

A classic example of the problem that our Heroes face is the problem that God may know the future. How can we be blameworthy for our acts if God knows what we are going to do even before we do it? If God does exist, and if God’s knowledge of all things—even the future—is infallible (God can’t be wrong, because God is perfect), then we cannot deviate from the path God knows we are going to take. So, how is it that we are blameworthy for our actions when our paths are ones from which we cannot deviate?

Some philosophers try to get out of this trap by arguing that we are not forced to do God’s will, any more than the Warriors of Light are forced to do the Sage Lukahn’s will. So, although God knows what we are going to do, or, in the case of the Warriors of Light, Lukahn knows what they are going to do, this doesn’t mean that they are being forced to commit the action. The problem, though, is that this lack of force still does not provide them with freedom. Perhaps God is not forcing us to act in a particular way, but if God knows what we are going to do before we do it, we still are not free to choose to do something else. We are trapped by this foreknowledge. Although it seems to be a choice to us, it is still a choice that could not be any other way.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that there might be another way to address this situation. If the problem is that God knows today what we are going to do tomorrow, well, perhaps the problem is thinking about God as something that exists in time in the same way we do. Instead, Aquinas argued, God is present in all moments of time, at the same time. Imagine the center of a circle—the center of a circle is present to all points of its circumference at the same time.
³
Similarly, God may be present in all moments at the same time.

If this is the case, then God did not know yesterday what you are going to do today because for God there is no yesterday. In other words, God does not have knowledge prior to the event that necessitates that the event occur. Now, this is a little different from the problem that the Warriors have with the Sage’s prophecy. The Sage isn’t perfect, whereas God’s knowledge is perfect. So, perhaps, the Warriors still have some wiggle room and they are not quite as trapped by the Sage’s knowledge as we might be by God’s knowledge. Nevertheless, if the Sage is right, and the Warriors of Light will definitely save the world, they are still trapped by his foreknowledge, and so they may not have free will.

If the Heroes Are Trapped, They Can’t Be Blamed . . . or Can They?

The idea that we cannot be blamed when we can’t do anything else is very important. We don’t want to be blamed for things we are unable to change. This is why God’s having infallible knowledge of what we’ll do before we do it would be a problem—it traps us! More important, in the universe of video games, the Four Warriors of Light are unable to change the events that Lukahn has already prophesied. So, if we agree that we should not be blamed for events we cannot change, then we are also forced to agree that we cannot be praised for events we cannot change—nor can the Warriors of Light.

But what if we are mistaken about the idea that we cannot be blamed for things we cannot change? Although we don’t like the idea of being blamed for things over which we have no control, perhaps we still should be accountable. Let’s consider the following example: imagine that a heroic Red Mage, let’s call him “Nick,” is out fighting evil. As Nick casts his Fire spell at a monster, his friend the Fighter is thrown in the path of the Fire spell. Before Nick can do anything, the poor innocent Fighter takes the brunt of the spell. What would Nick’s friends tell him when he confesses his guilt? It is unlikely that they will blame him. Nick’s friends will tell him there was nothing he could have done to prevent the event. If it was true that he could not prevent the event, doesn’t it seem that he should not be blamed? That’s why we don’t want to be blameworthy for things when we cannot do anything else. If we are mistaken about the idea that we cannot be blamed for things we can’t change, then we may be responsible for accidents. Heck, you could even be responsible for things you do under the mind control of some sinister Mage.

So, you should not be blamed for things you cannot change, right? Then why would our Heroes be praiseworthy? After all, their destinies were laid out before they existed, and they are unable to do anything that can possibly change their fate.

Why Harry Frankfurt Would Still Thank the Warriors

Don’t worry just yet. It may well be that our Heroes will get the thanks they deserve. Although it appears that our Heroes must have alternative possibilities in order to be blameworthy and praiseworthy, Harry Frankfurt didn’t see it that way. Frankfurt, professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University, who is best known for his work on Descartes and for his book
On Bullshit
, thought that we praise and blame people all the time, even when they are predestined to commit particular acts. Furthermore, he argued that there’s absolutely nothing wrong or unfair about our doing so! We are not merely machines that are programmed for one destiny; we are persons who can make choices. Even if those choices are not free, Frankfurt thought we could be praised and blamed for them.
⁴

In his article “Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” Frankfurt presented us with several examples in which he believes we would justifiably blame people even though they are in effect predestined to commit certain actions.
⁵
He first presented us with a situation in which someone evil attempts to force someone else to do his will. So let’s imagine a
Final Fantasy
example. The character Garland, being an evil person, decides that he will threaten you with certain death unless you commit some heinous crime. Now, Frankfurt pointed out that this event could play out in many different ways. Imagine that Garland tells you that you have no choice whatsoever; if you try to defy his will, you will immediately be killed. What Frankfurt argued is that what really matters is how
you
react to the threat.
⁶
He pointed out that you can react in at least two ways: you can be someone who does what Garland wants only because of the threat, or you can be someone who does what Garland wants because you
like
it.

Frankfurt thought that part of our problem was our confusing the state of being forced to do something and the state of having no other options. It might have occurred to you when thinking about the God example, but there is a difference between lacking control over something and lacking the ability to do anything else. Frankfurt thought that part of the reason we panic over the idea that we may not have alternative possibilities is that we confuse it with situations in which someone else forces us to do something. Frankfurt argued that, of course, we should not blame people for things they do when forced—for example, when mind-controlled—but there are situations when we can, do, and should blame people for the things they do, even if they can’t do anything else.

From this, Frankfurt concluded that if you are someone who commits the act only because Garland is threatening you, then you should not be blamed. But if you are a person who is threatened, but you also enjoy the crime and are glad to commit it, then you are blameworthy. In other words, the fact that you are unable to do anything else—because of the threat—is not as important as whether you want to commit the act.

It might have occurred to you, though, that this is somewhat problematic because you were never really, truly restrained in your options. You could try to fight Garland, even if you would surely lose, but, nevertheless, it doesn’t seem as if this is the same thing as predestination. You are not truly without the ability to do anything else. The Heroes of Light, on the other hand, are truly unable to do other than they are predestined to do.

Frankfurt was ready for this criticism, though. After we were ready to acknowledge that he might have a point, he presented us with his strongest example. Imagine the following scenario: Garland wants your help to take over the world, but he would prefer not to have to coerce your assistance. So although he can force you to help him, he waits to see whether you help him of your own accord. Either way, however, you will help him because if you try to fight him, he will simply use his powers to control you and force you to do his will. This is a case, then, in which you cannot do anything else. Let’s also imagine that he’d rather you help him without his interference. He doesn’t want you to know that if you don’t help him, he will force you. Well, what happens if you decide to help Garland on your own, and he doesn’t have to do a thing? He never uses his power; he never mentions that he will force you. You just walk up to him and volunteer. Well, aren’t you still blameworthy for helping the bad guy—even though you had no choice?
⁷
Remember, you can’t do other than help him because if you try to avoid helping him, he will simply force you to help him. Here, you have a situation in which you have no choice but to help Garland, but it is possible for you to still be blameworthy. From this, Frankfurt concluded that you don’t actually have to be able to do anything else to be blameworthy. Essentially, you can be unable to do anything but what you are going to do—you can be predestined—and still be blamed, or praised, for your actions. So, perhaps, the Warriors of Light do deserve thanks and praise.

According to Frankfurt, the only time the lack of alternatives has a bearing on moral responsibility is when it is the only reason why we decide to do something.
⁸
So if we are forced to commit an act, then we should not be blamed because the only reason that we committed the act is that we had no choice. But, on the other hand, if we act because we have no choice
and
because we want to, then we can still be praised and blamed. Frankfurt wouldn’t blame you if you were forced to commit the act, or if you knew you had no choice. But if you acted for more than that reason, for example, if you acted both because you had no choice
and
because you wanted Garland to win, then you would be blameworthy.