H01 – Larissa’s Midterm Post 1/4: The Twilight Saga

Twilight

 

Now I know most people dislike The Twilight Saga by Stephanie Meyer, but, I actually kind of like it. I mean, come on now: It isn’t that bad. This may be somewhat surprising to most of you, but there are quite a few philosophical ideas presented throughout the four-book-series-turned-movie franchise. If you happen to not know anything about the first movie, cleverly titled Twilight, here’s the trailer.

 

 

We have Bella, who moves to Forks, and meets Edward Cullen, the loner, vegetarian vampire. Typical, huh? While I could go through a few ideas presented in the movie, the one I want to talk about the most for this book (I’ll get to the others later) is the concept of morality. What is morality? What makes a deed “good”? In Twilight, James, another vampire (we don’t like him), wants to kill Bella. Her blood is too tempting i.e. she smells really nice. Here’s what happens:

 

 

Basically, the Cullen’s are now scrambling to leave Forks because James is a hunter and he wants to track Bella down to kill her: they (mainly Edward) want to protect her. Bella leaves with some of the Cullens, escaping to Arizona. At the hotel, Bella receives a phone call from James, telling her to go to a ballet studio by herself. She wants to save Edward from dying – not to mention that James “supposedly” has Bella’s mother (He doesn’t. He lied.) – so she goes to the studio. By herself.

        “I’d never given much thought to how I would die – though I’d had reason enough in the last few months – but even if I had, I would not have imagined it like this . . . Surely it was a good way to die, in the place of someone else, someone I loved. Noble, even. That ought to count for something” (Meyer, Twilight 1).

        It comes down to this: Bella is sacrificing herself to keep others from getting killed. Is that moral? I mean, she did lie. Is that not being deceitful? We have been presented with multiple definitions of morality. Socrates said that even if you are being deceitful, the act is moral if done for the right reasons. We can say that Bella nearly had herself killed for the right reasons. She was saving the people who she loved. I think we can all understand that. The rationality behind her decision makes sense. Rousseau said you act in a way that’s best for the General Will: everyone, not just you. It definitely does not seem like Bella herself benefits from any of this.

        Then we have Kant. He thought that your duty determines your actions. Reasoning over emotions. Bella was thinking logically: one person over five or six others. Then again, five people can’t manage to overcome James? Was it really her duty to go to him? I don’t know about that one. She lied, which is a big no-no for Kant. It seems more like her allegiances are with the Cullens, thereby meaning she should have told them about the phone call. Isn’t that duty? However, she doesn’t want them to sacrifice themselves for her, which ironically is what she herself is doing. Kant said emotions are irrelevant to the morality of your actions. Bella doesn’t want anyone to die for her. Also, she doesn’t even stop to think, “Maybe, just maybe, this guy is lying.” Besides, is it even possible to keep your emotions out of the scenario? It appears to be that Bella is mainly following emotions in this situation.

Bentham thought you act in a way that helps you achieve the most happiness. Consequences are the most important. None of this seems very happy-making for Bella, or Edward for that matter. What happens when Bella goes to James? She dies. Well, almost.

 

 

Edward then comes to the rescue and saves her from being turned into a vampire. You know how it goes. The real question is Would James really have ever found Bella if she hadn’t gone to him in the first place? Wouldn’t that have been the happiest scenario, and the most rational? The most moral? Maybe for me, but definitely not for Bella (I mean, it is a book).

 

Word Count: 696