Anyone find it weird that… - The Killer (2023) Discussion

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78051) a year ago

Not really, as a violent killer it would be of use to have a seemingly happy relationship with a woman, a tidy home, maybe a few kids and a little dog as a mask. Do the 'aw, shucks, of course buddy' routine when your neighbor man comes around asking for a favor.
Crack open a couple beers, talk about the NFL. It's easy to fool people, especially if you are an unmoored maniac.

Gary Ridgeway and Dennis Rader were both considered fine employees, decent neighbors and they were long term married family men.
They killed like sixty people and absolutely nobody knew shit. NOBODY ever suspects a quiet married guy with kids and a decent job.

Build a believable backstory and you can get away with anything.

reply

[–] Melton (5038) a year ago

That all might make sense if his gf was just a ‘beard’ who he didn’t care about, but he clearly loves her deeply (and cares about her brother) and it motivates his entire revenge rampage.

He doesn’t develop empathy, he already has buckets of it, so what’s the point of this story?

reply

[–] NoEasyBuckets (352) a year ago

He says something about blaming the cab driver for making him bring his work home, so he obviously sees a separation between his personal and professional life. But either way you're just assuming the revenge is about his girlfriend. To me it's more about being betrayed by his handler and cleaning out the people who either knew his identity or were a risk to his own personal safety.

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) 8 months ago

I don't see that.

He protects the girl as he would his property, and merely wants to cover his tracks. He can't allow anyone to get to him. If he cared for the girl, he'd have killed the penthouse big shot who ordered the hit. He doesn't because it would be too much heat on him for killing a powerful player.

I don't think at all the film is about the killer opening up to the idea of empathy or displaying any from the beginning.
He's a dead-inside empy husk of a man and remains so until the end of the film. He defies identification from the viewer.
I think Fincher's point was to make a film about the mediocre times we live in, which is why it's a purposefuly unpleasant film, with no character arc whatsoever (the protagonist is stuck in his rancid excuse for an absence of actual philosophy - he's the absolute morally agnostic consumer), and full of "non places" (in the sense of Marc Auger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-place).

I think it's also telling that the girl, upon waking up at the hospital, seems scared to the point she has to reassure him she didn't tell them anything about him, and strives to gain his validation and make him proud of her. That's what it's like to be in a relationship with a sociopath. Notice in the final sequence the scared protective reflex the girl has, when he approaches her chair?

The film is of course not the comic book, but in the source comic book, the killer is very promiscuous and only cares about his girl for sex and to "have something that's his". She's not really a person.

reply

[–] CMX (266) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] CMX (266) a year ago

"I thought the story was about a hit-man who slowly develops empathy, but he clearly has plenty of empathy from the beginning. So the rest of the film is just a rote revenge plot with no character development."

Sure, he has empathy towards loved ones, but you could argue that he develops empathy towards a stranger since he lets the last guy live.

But it doesnt seem to be a movie about character development that much. Just a kinda cool Jean-Pierre Melville homage.

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) 8 months ago

"but you could argue that he develops empathy towards a stranger since he lets the last guy live."

He let's him off the hook not out of empathy but a sheer cold and rational pros and cons assessment that it would bring too much heat on him to murder a powerful player like him.
He's tough and ruthless with the weak (taxi guy, secretary) and weak with the powerful (penthouse guy).

"It doesnt seem to be a movie about character development that much."

I think you're absolutely right about that.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9616) a month ago

Others have pointed out that sociopaths can have significant others, they just view them in warped ways.

But, to me, this character isn't lacking empathy, he just keeps his empathy at bay.

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) a month ago

"But, to me, this character isn't lacking empathy, he just keeps his empathy at bay."
***
Which probably makes him an even worse person, in my book. Can't blame someone for their nature (although you can certainly put them away where they won't hurt anyone and throw away the key...). But if you believe in free will (which i don't...), someone who establishes as a life principle and makes a conscious decision to kill off whatever empathy is in them to further their personal pecuniary interest at the expense of other people's lives is the worst monster of them all (also, just dawned on me that might be one way to understand the film's title : 'The Killer (of his own empathy and humanity)').

But then again, I believe none of this is quite correct either. If you are able to tune down your empathy enough to do what a person devoid of empathy would do, then you didn't have much empathy to begin with. Empathy/compassion is precisely that failsafe which prevents people from doing what the protagonist does during most of the movie. If it's something you are able to repress at will and dial down when it suits you, then it's called something else. A fear of societal and legal consequences for your vile actions, perhaps? And then, the film's protagonist is absolutely someone who could delude himself into thinking it's empathy... do psychopaths know they're psychopaths, or do they only have a vague sense of 'being different somehow'?

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9616) a month ago

That very well might make him a worse person. That's an interesting thought. Do the actions make somebody worse, or does the intent matter?

I do think a person who can kill their empathy to the extent that the Killer does is certainly a disturbing thought. Although, I have heard evolutionary biologists talk about basically a "sociopath switch". This is to say that we all have the ability to lower our empathy long enough to get something done that might otherwise be heinous. Picture what a soldier might have to do to survive, or a firefighter making a choice between two people to drag out of a burning building. That firefighter has to stop thinking of one person as a human being long enough to save the other person; he can't be hung up worrying about the one he left behind. So he buries compassion long enough to do the job.

There's something else interesting you've said here: if you don't believe in free will, and if we are all just biochemical reactions and electrical impulses responding to stimuli, then neither the sociopath nor the deliberately callous assassin can be considered responsible for their actions. Both are on autopilot. To say that the sociopath is not as bad would be based on what? The fact that he cannot help his actions. But if there is no free will, then nobody can help acting as they are. In which case, the murderer who can kill because of suppressed emotion isn't free, either, and therefore just as culpable as the sociopath.

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) a month ago

" I have heard evolutionary biologists talk about basically a "sociopath switch"."
***
This 'sociopathic switch' business is fascinating... Maladaptive traits that survive in a latent, attenuated state in well-adjusted individuals... A question of degree rather than nature, with the psychopath at the end of the spectrum.
I think we both agree that using that "switch" to suppress empathy for utilitarian purposes (dragging a young child out of a burning building instead of an elderly) is not the same as using it to murder people for money, and I'm still convinced that the latter is not so much about suppressing empathy than about being devoid of empathy in the first place.

"...if you don't believe in free will, and if we are all just biochemical reactions and electrical impulses responding to stimuli..."
***
I'm not sure the dignity of Humanity and human beings necessarily is conditional on the idea of choice. I wouldn't say we are "just" biochemical puppets responding to stimuli. We are biological puppets responding to stimuli (and determined by our genes -which we do not choose- and their expression in a given environment -which we don't choose either) but we can be "noble" puppets, in that we are tragic and that we suffer and we create, and our lives still have meaning.
At the very least, if we cannot call ourselves "good", "bad", "noble" or "callous" because we have no choice, our actions certainly can, and we -as a society- have to behave AS IF we had a choice, and hold people legally (if not morally) responsible for their actions, because even though we cannot "change ourselves", our behaviours can be influenced for the better by rules and regulations and role models and the promise of consequences for our actions.

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) a month ago

(cont'd)

"But if there is no free will, then nobody can help acting as they are. In which case, the murderer who can kill because of suppressed emotion isn't free, either, and therefore just as culpable as the sociopath."
***
Indeed. Same as it's difficult to justify shame or pride over characteristics not chosen (say, hair or skin colour...), it's difficult to pass moral judgement on individuals if their actions are the products of genes and circumstances, neither of which they chose.
And so yes, under this view, and in the absolute, neither the murderer suppressing his empathy to kill, nor the sociopathic killer devoid of empathy in the first place can be held MORALLY accountable for their actions, anymore than, say, the epileptic can be for having seizures, but the former can certainly (and absolutely should) be held CRIMINALLY and LEGALLY accountable for their callous actions and put away to protect the right of peaceful law abiding citizens.
Same way you send your defective car to the auto-mechanic or the scrapyard, but do not judge it morally for it being unsafe to drive.

So you're correct: I shouldn't have written that "this makes him an even worse person", but that this makes his actions even more despicable and wrong.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9616) a month ago

Yes, if the "sociopath switch" thing is true, using it for personal gain would be evil. I would say the same thing of any skill or ability. If you have a lot of physical power, using it for sports, military, law enforcement, construction jobs, or to strive for world records is admirable and good, while using it for mugging people is bad.

Can you talk a bit more about why you don't believe in free will? Some people argue from a position of a higher power controlling fate. Others come from a purely empirical viewpoint and say that the universe is perfectly predictable given the correct amount of data, we just have no possibility of accumulating all the data necessary, let alone the power to process it. I feel like it's the latter...?

I do try to refrain from moral judgements when people are acting from a set of circumstances - genes or position in life. It's the principle laid out in the opening lines of The Great Gatsby.

I also agree that punishment or consequences are necessary in response to a criminal, regardless of the possibility of free will or not. Thebes still gets the plague even though Oedipus is ignorant of what he has done wrong, and despite those actions being fated and prophesied.

But I find the discussion interesting. To my thinking, if there is no choice in action, morality itself is in jeopardy. What do we mean by a moral decision? Surely it is setting aside all other considerations in favour of a good action. This might be easy - giving somebody a hug to express love costs nothing - or difficult - choosing to throw yourself into the path of a bullet to save someone else - but it supposes that there is (a) a moral good, and (b) a choice in the matter.

Is a moral action laudable even if the person taking that action had no part in deciding to do it?

If a butterfly lands on my finger and flutters its wings, I might observe its beauty and feel a connection to this insect, but did the butterfly do something nice to me?

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) a month ago

"Can you talk a bit more about why you don't believe in free will? Some people argue from a position of a higher power controlling fate. Others come from a purely empirical viewpoint..."
***
The latter in my case, as you correctly guessed. Hardcore determinism.
An initial state (the Universe, immediately after its creation), the Laws of physics. Press play. Grab popcorn. Watch movie unfold. Press rewind if you wish (while keeping same initial state and rules). Grab more popcorn. See exact same movie unfold.
I believe monism (there is only physical substance in the universe, and no such thing as a 'soul' or 'spirit' that isn't a manifestation of it or an emergent property of its complexity) and causality rule out the possibility of free will.
Our actions are the product of our thought processes, themselves a product of our neurons firing, etc. all of them depending on a previous "n-1" physical state by systematic regression. It would seem like there simply isn't any room for the "uncaused cause" we call "our own thoughts", originating from "ourselves" seated at a command centre behind our eyes. It would seem we are not the author of our own thoughts.
The illusion of free will on close examination isn't either a particularly strong one, as anyone with a moderately diligent practice of mindfulness meditation can notice thoughts emerging and popping like bubble, independently of one's will, with the only apparent freedom (also an illusion) being the "choice" to follow (or not) these trains of thoughts.

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) a month ago

(cont'd)

"To my thinking, if there is no choice in action, morality itself is in jeopardy."
***
This does indeed call for a different concept of morality and ethics.
Personally, I find accepting of the absence of free will quite liberating and an invitation to forego excessive moral judgement of others and oneself (though -again- not an excuse to forego either critical thinking or the need for a legal system imposing consequences for one's actions).
As for the norm of moral good, one could for example start with a version of utilitarianism (based on the biological fact that living things are doted with a nervous system and can experience pain) that strives to minimise suffering, and go from there...

On this same topic, I find interesting the fact that many people who are quite horrified by the possibility of absence of free will have no problem with the concept that in Christian "Heaven" (as per my limited understanding of the concept) no harm can come to anyone, nor any evil acts can be perpetrated. Which, to me, entails that its denizens do not have free will and are not any more graced by the "divine gift of choice", and therefore that either classic Christian morality has no jurisdiction over Heaven, or that we're creature unrelated to our former human being selves there.

"Is a moral action laudable even if the person taking that action had no part in deciding to do it?"
***
Sure. I would say the 'action' itself is (laudable, despicable, noble, cowardly, etc.), but not the person committing them. And we should certainly continue to ascribe value judgements to actions (but not people) in order to select for the ones we wish, as a society, to see replicated.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9616) a month ago

Utilitarianism might be practical, but it isn't necessarily the greatest moral good. For example, non-existence might be decided to be better than conscious/sentient life. If you realised that animal suffering would be reduced - not to mention environmental shift - by an extinguishing of humanity, you might decide to eradicate all humans, especially if you could accomplish this with something like a steralising virus that would cause no direct suffering. Is that "good"? Although I do agree that utilitarianism is a good start or a good thing to have as part of a moral framework. But a lot of evil could be done because somebody has the wrong utilitarian mindset.

Then again, we can't say "evil" in a purely empirical/utilitarian world because all we're talking about is suffering and non-suffering (thriving? is that the opposite?) but good/evil is no longer a terminologically correct axis to use.

Regarding Heaven, I think most people haven't thought about the continuation of free will. I'd say that the choice might be there but the motivation is gone. So, a human being, armed with free will, that finds itself in the Christian Heaven would still possess the capacity to commit an evil act, they just wouldn't because they would have no reason to. With their needs and wants met and their being accelerated to a greater understanding in the universe (eliminating misunderstandings and arguments, e.g.) there wouldn't be any more cause for evil, even if the option still were available.

But that is a good contemplation.

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) a month ago

"If you realised that animal suffering would be reduced - not to mention environmental shift - by an extinguishing of humanity, you might decide to eradicate all humans..."
***
I expect a system of ethics designed to minimise HUMAN suffering would de facto be anthropocentric and would not be interested in the good of the planet or animals in and of themselves, divorced from the impact on Humanity.
That wouldn't be to say that preservation of animal life and minimisation of animal suffering, for example, wouldn't be part of the equation, since many human beings would, rightly so, be distressed by the knowledge that animals suffer and so minimisation of human suffering would include minimisation of animal suffering as well.
What it wouldn't sanction though, are extreme ecological world-views advocating for the extinction of Humanity for the sake of other species or the planet ("Humanity as cancer of the planet"...).

"You could accomplish this with something like a sterilising virus that would cause no direct suffering. Is that "good"?"
***
I don't think it would be "good", as it would generate much psychological anxiety, distress and suffering to the last generations of human beings having to live through the decline and extinction of civilisation, therefore not minimising suffering for human beings.

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) a month ago

(cont'd)

"Utilitarianism might be practical, but it isn't necessarily the greatest moral good"
***
Well, I agree, depending on what form of utilitarianism we're talking about. Also note that I insisted on "minimising suffering" rather than "maximising good".
Many people, when thinking of Bentham's brand of utilitarianism think of a version of the "trolley problem" (willingly taking action to alter the course of events and save several individuals at the cost of putting one innocent individual in harm's way, that would have been safe otherwise) and have the immediate intuition that there's something fishy there.
"Why not euthanise a healthy (or even a terminally ill or in permanent vegetative state) individual to remove his organs and save ten people awaiting a donor if you want to maximise good (or "utility", as Bentham says)?"
Because knowing that one lives in a society where such things are possible and where one's individual rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness are subordinated to the same rights of the many, would cause immense distress and anxiety and wouldn't be conducive to a healthy flourishing society, therefore not maximising utility.

I would advocate for a more general form of utilitarianism that takes into consideration the consequences and psychological effects down the line of the chosen organising principles of society (therefore disqualifying, for example, hedonism or the blind pursuit of instant gratification).

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) a month ago

(cont'd)
[My god... I'm turning into Roger1-formerly-known-as-eCarle with my long-form posts... (not meant as a slight, the guy is great.)]

"Regarding Heaven, I think most people haven't thought about the continuation of free will. I'd say that the choice might be there but the motivation is gone... With their needs and wants met and their being accelerated to a greater understanding in the universe (eliminating misunderstandings and arguments, e.g.) there wouldn't be any more cause for evil, even if the option still were available."
***
But then, as mentioned in my previous post, my intuition is that we wouldn't be what we currently recognise as "human beings" (I'm withholding judgement on whether this is something we should wish for or not).
It would appear human beings were not wired by evolution (or made by God, if you're religious) to have all their needs and wants met. My understanding is that the dopaminergic circuits in our brains respond to continuous stimulation and positive reinforcement by raising the baseline, thus leading to tolerance and numbness and the search for more and more potent "highs".
We're continuous and industrious strivers who revel in the challenge and overcoming of (carefully calibrated) hardships, not meant to experience more than temporary moments of bliss or happiness.
Maybe "Angels" are different, and that's a version of what we'd be in Christian Heaven, and maybe that's for the best, I don't know. But my intuition is that if you were there with your loved ones, you would be unrecognisable to yourselves.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9616) a month ago

MichaelJPollock, I'm sitting here laughing my butt off at your Roger1 comment because I have had some lengthy conversations with that dude - loved all of 'em - and the reference is nothing but hard truth.

I definitely hear what you're saying with a more, is it fair to say, "holistic utilitarianism"? The idea that "suffering" is not relegated to the physical, but to the psychic (by which I mean "of the psyche," not anything to do with ESP), and unconfined to the immediate, but extending across temporal boundaries.

So, if I understand correctly, a boss yelling at an employee now is not only a bad boss to that employee, but he is causing stress that might cost that employee's family and even deprive future generations of good home lives. There is a ripple effect there.

I think that's a more stable utilitarianism, not simply lunging for the greatest immediate good, not coldly and mathematically processing people (your organ harvesting example is great), but trying to serve a sense of a greater good.

The difficulty, which I think is present in most moral systems, is trying to discern that greater/greatest good. But it's worth fighting for. I think this is basically a great rubric for society. At a human race scale, we should strive for this as it's a "fair" way to determine social morality. On a personal level, I want to allow for more nuance, as long as these personal morals don't interfere with others' abilities to pursue their own happiness.

Heaven's a whole other question. Different religions will respond differently, but basically, my understanding of Christanity's speculation on the afterlife is that the "Heavens and the Earth" are remade and the subset of humanity that is part of the "saved" receive renewed/perfect bodies. Perhaps these have a more stable and benevolent limbic system.

reply

[–] MichaelJPollock (784) a month ago

"I'm sitting here laughing my butt off..."
***
Ha! Well, if anything, I'm glad my pretentious rant elicited a laugh from someone... Not that many of these around these days.
And yes: had a few interactions with the man myself, and Roger1/eCarle is one of the better aspects of this board.

"holistic utilitarianism"
***
Exactly the term I was looking for and which kept eluding me.

"On a personal level, I want to allow for more nuance, as long as these personal morals don't interfere with others' abilities to pursue their own happiness."
***
Well agreed.
As Umberto Eco writes in the Name of the Rose: "The step between ecstatic vision and sinful frenzy is all too brief." We should be measured in all things, and always allow room for doubt. Certainty is not of this world.

Thanks for sharing your insights. Always grateful for the chance to articulate my thoughts and submit them to the critical review of reasonable people.
This one got us quite far didn't it?

Enjoy the movies, friend.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9616) a month ago

People definitely do not doubt enough. Everybody should constantly reconsider their positions (maybe not daily identity crises, but just regularly check in with their tribes and beliefs).

Thanks to you, too. I love philosophy as much as the movies, so this has been a great conversation.

See you 'round the boards.

reply