But what does it all mean? Philosophical interpretations of Doctor Who

General / off topic
,
21

I didn’t know that much about utilitarianism before you started discussing it now, and I’ve done a little bit of reading on it, and I think I agree.

One thing I read was that ‘Utilitarianism is Relativistic rather than Absolutist. Absolutist moral views hold that certain actions will always be morally wrong irrespective of context or consequences.’ This was interesting to me because at first I thought to myself, no, Leela has a very strong moral compass, she wants to do what’s right for everyone. However, looking at how Utilitarianism is broken down, Leela’s morality is fixed and unshaking, which does not align well with Leela’s outlook at all.

There seem to be, from my reading (which I admit is very surface level) two major types of Utilitarianism, as it were: Rule and Act. Romana, and indeed, the Time Lords as a general whole seem to fall solidly under Act Utilitarianism. “An act utilitarian, such as Bentham, focuses only on the consequences of individual actions when making moral judgments,” was something I read, and this very much strikes me as a Time Lord outlook. In Weapon of Choice, Romana has this conversation with Narvin and Leela:

LEELA: I could not return to the place I came from.
ROMANA: Well, yours is a special case.
NARVIN: How so, Madam President?
ROMANA: [Forcefully] Because I say it is.

This, I think, perfectly exemplifies Romana’s Utilitarianism; she is always willing to bend the rules and make exceptions to the written rule of morality if it suits the needs of the situation in order to give people what they need. Of course, in this case, it brings both her and Leela happiness that Leela isn’t turned away from Gallifrey - though conversely, she also uses and manipulates Leela into staying on Gallifrey when she doesn’t necessarily want to so that Romana can make use of her skills, therefore serving most people.

Weapon of Choice also has another ethical dilemma surrounding the planet Gryben, and the impending threat of its doom. The issue is that a catastrophic bomb is about to destroy the whole planet, and the Time Lords discuss this thus:

ROMANA: Braxiatel. Can you organise an evacuation of Gryben?
[…]
NARVIN: Evacuation is impossible. Where would we evacuate the inhabitants to? Madam, the blast wave might reach even Gallifrey. These asylum-seekers are not our priority. The protocol is clear! This is Coordinator Narvin to Time Control. Ready Battle TARDISes in assault formation around planet […] Gryben.
[…]
ROMANA: I will not sanction this!
NARVIN: You have no choice, Madam President! I need not remind you that your affection for these… refugees must not be allowed to cloud our judgement, or override our greater responsibilities!
ROMANA: And I need not remind you, that you are not the boss! This is President Romana to Time Control. Lift transduction barriers […] Yes, you did hear me right! Now do it, unless you’d prefer a permanent posting to the Putrid Wastes.
NARVIN: You cannot set these flotsam people free!
ROMANA: No, I can’t! But I can, at least, give those with working timeships a chance.
BRAXIATEL: No, Madam President, this is not the way. This is Cardinal Braxiatel. Please, disregard the President’s order.
[…]
BRAXIATEL: Lifting the barriers will create a stampede, they will fight like dogs to reach their lifeboats. Thousands will be killed and maimed […] If the people must die, let it be cleanly. There is still time to resolve this situation, Romana.

Here, Narvin is the voice of the unbending Rule Utilitarian, deciding that it is best to follow procedure as the threat of the bomb is, to him, greater to the universe than the planet, so destroying the planet is to destroy the device, ergo causing most people happiness by having them not killed by this device.

Braxiatel appears to agree with Narvin, but his approach is different. He uses the Calculus in order to come to the conclusion that destroying Gryben by the Time Lords’ hand is better because it will reduce the overall suffering of the people there as well as serve the greater good. He is not arguing, like Narvin, that this solution is the only sensible one, but that it is most ethically sound as it will cause most happiness overall.

Meanwhile, Romana wants to flagrantly disregard the rules and evacuate the planet as she sees the deaths of all the citizens of Gryben as something that would not increase happiness. To her, the most happiness that could come from this situation would be for everyone to live, and that therefore leads her to the conclusion that sacrificing herself in order to save everyone is the best solution. Unfortuantely, this is not the last this line of Utilitarian thinking leads her to the self-sacrifice conclusion in order to save the many. (:smiling_face_with_tear:)

I realise I have not in fact answered your question about Leela, who I agree, does not fit well into the Utilitarian framework. I think she aligns more closely, interestingly, with Narvin in that she has a fixed set of rules which helps her decide the moral thing to do, but unlike him, her morals come from her internal heart rather than an external system. I do not know too much about the other frameworks you mentioned, so I would have to go away and do some more reading, but I hope this has given you something to think about :slight_smile:

11 Likes
22

Thank you. @sircarolyn, a most excellent argument! I think you express the key points extremely clearly and I find myself in full agreement. It’s most interesting to see the complexities of differing interpretations and approaches brought to the fore (as between Romana, Narvin and Brax). I’ll delve deeper when I have the chance.

7 Likes
23

Sadly, I don’t have a lot of time right now (more’s the pity - very busy this end of the week) but…

@sircarolyn’s account of evidence for application of utilitarian calculus in Weapon of Choice beautifully showcases the complexities of this kind of approach. As such, utilitarianism is very much a thinking person’s philosophy. It requires judgement and careful consideration of the context, as well as prediction of potential outcomes. As such, it is possible for two people to share a utilitarian outlook yet differ (sometimes wildly) in their course of action.

Something else that is true of this approach, however, is that there is always scope to reason with proponents of utilitarianism. There’s no guarantee that they will agree (Cybermen employ a form of utilitarianism that replaces ‘happiness’ as their goal with ‘survival’ - and good luck to anyone attempting to reason with them!), but there is at least a common consensus on the kind of principles in play.

The problem, of course, is that the universe is full of beautiful and staggering complexity. This means that taking all possible extraneous factors into account is virtually impossible, and different people will differ (sometimes subtly, sometimes wildly) in their priorities. This leads to disagreement and, potentially, to conflict (much of which drives series like Gallifrey). That said, if you disagree with a thinker, there is almost always hope of negotiated compromise or improved understanding that, if you’re lucky (or very skilled), might de-escalate differences and conflicts. This is a line Romana frequently tries to tread and, arguably, with more success than the Doctor who is frequently prone to acting unilaterally, partly because he gets impatient and partly because no-one else can stop him (it’s worth recognising that Romana also acts unilaterally where she feels necessary, but often works towards some degree of consensus where she can).

Oh, I could write and write on this… but I’m going to have to stop now.

Suffice to say that the real beauty of character portrayals in the Whoniverse is that, just as in the real world, whilst each philosophy lays out a distinctive approach to dealing with the world, no single character manages to live their lives solely by any one philosophy. The Doctor and Romana, for example, both borrow heavily from utilitarianism where required, yet both also use other philosophical approaches extensively. This is not inconsistent. It’s entirely real and offers so much opportunity for us to unpack further.

10 Likes
24

Really interesting thread! My knowledge of philosophy pretty much starts and ends with what I can retain from Philosophy Tube on YouTube, but I’d like to think I have an open mind and a good enough understanding of the basics to engage with these kinds of discussions. I’m looking forward to seeing where this thread goes.

10 Likes
25

Thank you for the lovely feedback! A detailed knowledge of philosophy is not a prerequisite, merely a curious mind and a love of Doctor Who! I look forward to reading your thoughts as the thread develops. I have lots of directions to explore. One thing that particularly fascinates me is whether the dominant philosophical paradigms that the Doctor operates under evolve within (or, even moreso, between) incarnations. I think this is the case although the Doctor does seem to have (as do we all) core default positions.

8 Likes
26

One of the reasons why I like the Twelfth Doctor is because of his ongoing philosophical quest. His uncertainty about his virtue serves as a nice contrast to surer Doctors. I call the Twelfth Doctor “the pilgrim Doctor” because I see him as moving towards his goals, (Gallifrey, which he wants to find, as well as setting Missy on the path to redemption).

11 Likes
27

I think you make a really valid point. Twelve certainly is a deep thinker. He’s one of the most self-reflective Doctors and he does modify his approach as his seasons play out. His core values remain but he does seem to adopt a more humanist position as time goes on.

11 Likes
28

I really like the “Am I a good man?” questioning that Twelve does, especially as Missy raises an army for him - she makes a valid point that it would help him to defeat evil, even if it’s not what the Doctor thinks he wants.

MISSY: Armies are for people who think they’re right. And nobody thinks they’re righter than you. Give a good man firepower, and he’ll never run out of people to kill.

I just didn’t really like how Danny Pink was treated that series, I felt it was a bit heavy handed and out of character for the Doctor to bully him.

14 Likes
29

Not too fond of Danny Pink’s eventual fate, either…

9 Likes
30

As an aside; this was the season that made me take a long break from DW. Honestly, it was the beginning of me not paying close attention to current Who.

9 Likes
31

I don’t think anything could ever stop me watching Doctor Who!

11 Likes
32

I agree. Indeed, it’s important that we do question what we do and why we do it. It keeps us honest and, as the existentialists would say, authentic. It also makes for compelling storytelling where the Doctor gets reckless, assumes he is right and acts unilaterally. This is often where he makes mistakes or causes difficulties. For all that the Fifteenth Doctor is empathic and sensitive, he also displays tremendous recklessness and has a tendency to assume his moral authority.

11 Likes
33

For me there was enough of a back catalogue for me to be happy with that, and there is enough other media that I could be happy skipping out on it. I kept up with general DW news, but I couldn’t really keep watching.

7 Likes
34

Before moving on from Season 8, I’d like to highlight the complexity of the Doctor’s philosophical position by exploring evidence of humanist attitudes that work in opposition to the utilitarian principles we have previously explored. Whilst he clearly DOES use utilitarian reasoning frequently, he balances this against humanist tendencies throughout.

In Terror of the Autons, the Doctor expresses concern for the safety of individuals targeted by the Autons and mourns the deaths of those who fall victim, like Professor Philips. His grief over Philips’ death highlights his recognition of the intrinsic value of each human life. He does not allow himself to become overwhelmed, but expresses genuine regret.

Throughout the season (and, indeed, throughout the 60+ year history of the show), the Doctor consistently seeks non-violent solutions. Even when faced with aggression, he usually prioritises de-escalation and seeks to reason with his opponents. Terror of the Autons provides a fantastic example of this, as the Doctor tries to persuade the Master to abandon his alliance with the Nestene Consciousness, arguing that it will ultimately destroy him as well. This commitment to peaceful resolution aligns with humanist principles of avoiding harm and promoting dialogue. Indeed, during an era when Doctor Who overtly courted the action-adventure ethos, the Doctor remains atypical as a protagonist as he almost invariably resorts to a words-first approach. I think this is one of many reasons why I love the Pertwee era. It purports to be a classic action-adventure serial with soldiers, guns and dramatic set pieces and yet it subverts the expectations of the classic action-adventure hero/protagonist, with the Doctor being very much a thinking person’s hero and a peacemaker wherever possible.

The Doctor’s actions in The Mind of Evil further demonstrate his commitment, where possible, to the tenets of humanist philosophy. He expresses concern about the psychological impact of the Keller process on individual minds and criticises the idea of “progress” at the expense of human dignity. He even risks his own safety and mental well-being to investigate the machine and expose its harmful effects, prioritising individual welfare over societal advancement or the perceived greater good.

Whilst not in direct contradiction to the principles of utilitarianism, there is plentiful evidence of the Doctor’s inherent humanism during The Claws of Axos as well. Wonderfully, he challenges Chinn’s narrow-minded focus on national interest (“England for the English”) by emphasising a broader, humanist perspective: Responding angrily to Chinn’s stated responsibility to his country, the Doctor retorts “Not to the world?” (this also perfectly aligns with a truly utilitarian metric of maximal benefit). The Doctor underscores the importance of global responsibility and cooperation, aligning with humanist values that transcend national borders and prioritise the well-being of all humanity.

Throughout The Claws of Axos, the Third Doctor relies on his own judgement and moral compass, even when faced with conflicting opinions from figures of authority. He doesn’t hesitate to challenge those in power, like Chinn and Hardiman, when he believes their actions are unethical or misguided. This independence of thought and action exemplifies a humanist approach to decision-making, prioritising personal ethical considerations over obedience to authority.

Moving on to Colony in Space, the Doctor criticises IMC for prioritising the extraction of duralinium over the well-being of the colonists on the planet. He argues that people need “…new worlds to live in… where they can live like human beings,” highlighting his concern for individual human flourishing. This contrasts directly with a strictly utilitarian viewpoint, which would prioritise the greatest good for the greatest number, even if it means sacrificing the well-being of a smaller group like the colonists (the argument that Dent attempts to present - I actually love the fact that Dent has a morally consistent position: Captain Dent is a company man and a ruthless villain, but he DOES have a consistent and meaningful argument).

In The Daemons, we see further evidence of the Doctor’s humanist leanings. Despite the hostility of many villagers, the Doctor shows compassion towards them, recognizing that they are victims of the Master’s manipulation. He doesn’t condemn them for their actions, instead working to break the Master’s hold over the villagers of Devil’s End and restoring their agency. This empathy highlights the Doctor’s understanding of human vulnerability and his commitment to helping those who have been exploited, even when they initially oppose him.

Indeed, despite witnessing humanity’s flaws and capacity for destruction, the Doctor maintains faith in the human potential for good. He argues in favour of giving humanity the space and time to learn from their mistakes and to evolve ethically. This optimistic outlook contrasts with a potentially more cynical utilitarian viewpoint that might justify sacrificing individual freedom for the perceived greater good or security.

As I say, there’s so much MORE to the philosophical positions held by the Doctor (and, wonderfully, just like in all of us, they are sometimes contradictory). We have much much more to explore, but I’m going to shift my focus to a different season and, indeed, a different Doctor next.

image
image640×751 57.2 KB

8 Likes
35

Which one???

5 Likes
36

Shall we go for a post revival Doctor? Yes, let’s do precisely that. I think I’ll go for Jodie. Maybe Flux?

9 Likes
37

Finding quite a lot to discuss in Flux. Should be interesting!

8 Likes
38

FLUX -and what it tells us about the Doctor’s philosophy

Flux (Series 13) provides an opportunity for us to examine philosophical dimensions of the Thirteenth Doctor (does the fact that series 13 features the Thirteenth Doctor make it the “Thirteeniest”?). As with most portrayals of the Doctor, the picture is a complex one and she embodies a multiplicity of philosophical positions. Nonetheless, what really stands out, to me, about the Doctor in this season is her Humanism.

Humanism is a philosophical position that emphasises the importance, value and agency of human beings. Now, clearly, the Doctor is not human and we have seen the Doctor employ the same value to other life forms as well so, in a sense, the term ‘humanism’ really doesn’t do the Doctor’s position justice. Nevertheless, ‘twill have to do.

In a nutshell, humanism values agency, freedom of choice (and promotes those freedoms for others - thus standing squarely against authoritarianism and bigotry). Individuals are attributed worth because of their potential and are deserving of dignity. Humanists argue strongly in favour of social justice. They largely reject the supernatural and certainly reject divine authority (as they oppose authoritarianism in all its forms). Indeed, it occurs to me (and I’m sure @sircarolyn will have an opinion on this :thinking: :grin: ) that Leela, both as televised and also via her pivotal role in Gallifrey may well be the quintessential humanist in many ways.

Humanists also frequently value reason and evidence (this, to go back to Leela, is a lesson she is keen to learn though would be her Achilles heel as a humanist as she frequently reverts back to supernatural explanations - although she strives to live up to the Doctor’s values), and this is a position we can easily see the Doctor embodying.

The humanist position is that morality is best grounded in actions that promote the flourishing of humans (or, perhaps, we would do better to say ‘persons’). Humanists believe in opportunities for individual betterment via education, science, culture and, most of all, fruitful collaboration. Ultimately, humanists recognise the interconnectedness between people and highlight the needs for compassion and co-operation.

Belief in Human Life and Agency: Throughout the six episodes of Flux, the Doctor prioritizes saving human lives, consistently risking her own well-being to protect others (Once, Upon Time is a particularly strong example). At multiple points, she puts herself directly in harm’s way. This commitment demonstrates her profound respect for sentient life and for autonomy (as we have seen, central tenets of humanism). The Doctor repeatedly challenges those who threaten humanity, such as the Lupari (although it turns out that the Lupari are NOT threatening humanity at all) and the Sontarans (who most avowedly ARE a threat), actively working to prevent the harmful plans of various antagonists and ensuring the survival of human civilization.

The Doctor’s belief in human potential is evident in her interactions with Dan, and Yas, acknowledging their intelligence and capabilities while guiding them through some pretty extreme circumstances - even when she can’t be physically with them. The Doctor stands against the impersonal total authority of personified ‘Time’, also directly opposing the catastrophic authoritarianism of Swarm and Azure. Finally, the Doctor rejects utterly the arguments of, and recklessly authoritarian belief system of, her adopted mother, Tecteun.

Champion of Reason and Critical Thinking: The Doctor consistently applies reason and logic to solve problems. She meticulously analyzes situations, gathers evidence, and formulates strategies to overcome complex challenges. There are many good examples, though I love this moment in The Vanquishers; “Why are they raiding corner sh…? Oh! Metabolic processing! Lesser gravity, restorative gas composition. That would provoke a predilection.”

The Doctor’s engagement with the concept of the Flux exemplifies her reliance on reason and critical thinking as she works to understand its origins and effects. She is repeatedly shown questioning authority and established norms, favouring empirical observation over blind faith.

Champion of Compassion and Empathy: The Doctor displays deep empathy and concern for the suffering of others. Her compassion extends to all life forms, even those she considers dangerous, as shown by her treatment of Svild, the wounded Sontaran under Mary Seacole’s care in War of the Sontarans. She demonstrates understanding and care for her companions, and those she encounters, even briefly. Her willingness to protect vulnerable individuals, even when (especially when) at the risk of cost to herself, underscores her humanist approach.

Secular Ethics: The Doctor’s moral framework is rooted in secular ethics, prioritizing human well-being and justice. She operates outside of traditional religious or supernatural structures, relying instead on her own principles of right and wrong. Her actions reflect a humanist perspective prioritizing human needs and values. That said, the Doctor is not dismissive of the religious beliefs of others (we see this most expressly in series 11, The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos, and occasionally at other points during her tenure). She is respectful of the right of others to believe what they choose and has seen enough of the universe to know that there may be stranger and more vast powers out there than she has yet experienced.

In summary, I think there is a very strong case to be made for the Doctor (and the Thirteenth Doctor in particular) to feel a strong affinity for the tenets of Humanism. Her consistent actions and motivations strongly reflect many core humanist values. Her unwavering commitment to human life, her reliance on reason and evidence, and her deep compassion for both humans and other sentient beings strongly align with this philosophical perspective.

image
image752×440 44.2 KB

10 Likes
39

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t that be Once, Upon Time?

6 Likes
40

Brain fart! :exploding_head:

Of course you’re not wrong.

Corrected! :grin:

Thank you.

6 Likes