A father leaving their kid with nothing but PTSD and insurance money is kind of a sore point for me. In my opinion, it cancels out any of the "well, he loved his kid and was just trying is best with what little he had to work with" argument because Matt grew up with prize money instead of his dad, and it didn't have to happen.
I think we may have a difference in worldview here. I'm not a philosopher, I'm just trying to remember a little from Philosophy 101 here. (Literally, it was Philosophy 101. That's how little I know.)
Your argument seems to come from a basis of consequentialist ethics: "the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result" (quoting from Wikipedia's article on normative ethics). The outcome was: Jack Murdock dead, Matt inheriting the prize money AND bet money (remember, Jack bet on his fight as well). Jack obviously went into the fight with at least a strong expectation that he would die as a result of it; therefore, according to the consequentialist argument, that was what he was aiming to do. He was deliberately trading his life for the prize money for his son. I would like to point out that Matt says he never told his father about his senses; Jack had no way of knowing Matt would actually hear him get shot, that he would manage to get to his cooling body before anyone else. The PTSD resulting from that is something he had no way of accounting for.
But I don't agree that this was all of Jack's thinking, and I have trouble with consequentialist ethics as a whole. For one thing, it can have problems seeing any difference between a martyr and a suicide. But there is a big difference. For one, death is the acceptable, if not desirable, trade-off; for the other, death is the goal. If anything, Jack is closer to the martyr on that scale. Not that I'm going to claim that's what he is.
No, Jack is caught in a trap (partially of his own making, since he willingly threw fights before). Either he continues to accede to the demands of the people rigging the fights, and teaches Matt not to bother trying to do what is right (apathy); or he tries to refuse and Matt is used as leverage to force him back into it (fear); or he takes the third option, and does his best to win the fight, accepting the consequences.
If we assume Jack is working from a virtue ethics or deontological ethics perspective, his main motivation is not the money for Matt--that's just being prudent. Instead, moved by Matt's recitation of Thurgood Marshall, he is finally "dissenting from the apathy, dissenting from the fear," and doing what he knows is right: fighting his best as the ethics of his profession demand. Would you really prefer the alternatives? Would they make you think more highly of Jack?
What did Matt learn from Jack's death? I think that Matt learned that fighting for what is right, (particularly with the literal, physical meaning of the word "fight,") and refusing to "play the game" for the corrupt people pulling the strings, will lead to your death. I think that the first time Matt puts on that mask, he honestly expects to die from it eventually (just as Claire later voices). But he has finally decided that that helpless little girl; those frightened, brutalized women; all the cries for help that are amplified by the sirens; are worth more than his safe life as the attorney his father would be proud of. In the end, Matt has even more in common with the parts of Jack that Jack didn't want him to inherit than an aptitude for fighting and the anger that Matt has termed "the devil"; he also has that willingness to die to protect others.
And thank goodness, or there'd never be a Daredevil.
Also, I don't think anyone on this thread has really disagreed with your perspective on Stick?
Re: Jack Murdock's father abusive?
I think we may have a difference in worldview here. I'm not a philosopher, I'm just trying to remember a little from Philosophy 101 here. (Literally, it was Philosophy 101. That's how little I know.)
Your argument seems to come from a basis of consequentialist ethics: "the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result" (quoting from Wikipedia's article on normative ethics). The outcome was: Jack Murdock dead, Matt inheriting the prize money AND bet money (remember, Jack bet on his fight as well). Jack obviously went into the fight with at least a strong expectation that he would die as a result of it; therefore, according to the consequentialist argument, that was what he was aiming to do. He was deliberately trading his life for the prize money for his son. I would like to point out that Matt says he never told his father about his senses; Jack had no way of knowing Matt would actually hear him get shot, that he would manage to get to his cooling body before anyone else. The PTSD resulting from that is something he had no way of accounting for.
But I don't agree that this was all of Jack's thinking, and I have trouble with consequentialist ethics as a whole. For one thing, it can have problems seeing any difference between a martyr and a suicide. But there is a big difference. For one, death is the acceptable, if not desirable, trade-off; for the other, death is the goal. If anything, Jack is closer to the martyr on that scale. Not that I'm going to claim that's what he is.
No, Jack is caught in a trap (partially of his own making, since he willingly threw fights before). Either he continues to accede to the demands of the people rigging the fights, and teaches Matt not to bother trying to do what is right (apathy); or he tries to refuse and Matt is used as leverage to force him back into it (fear); or he takes the third option, and does his best to win the fight, accepting the consequences.
If we assume Jack is working from a virtue ethics or deontological ethics perspective, his main motivation is not the money for Matt--that's just being prudent. Instead, moved by Matt's recitation of Thurgood Marshall, he is finally "dissenting from the apathy, dissenting from the fear," and doing what he knows is right: fighting his best as the ethics of his profession demand. Would you really prefer the alternatives? Would they make you think more highly of Jack?
What did Matt learn from Jack's death? I think that Matt learned that fighting for what is right, (particularly with the literal, physical meaning of the word "fight,") and refusing to "play the game" for the corrupt people pulling the strings, will lead to your death. I think that the first time Matt puts on that mask, he honestly expects to die from it eventually (just as Claire later voices). But he has finally decided that that helpless little girl; those frightened, brutalized women; all the cries for help that are amplified by the sirens; are worth more than his safe life as the attorney his father would be proud of. In the end, Matt has even more in common with the parts of Jack that Jack didn't want him to inherit than an aptitude for fighting and the anger that Matt has termed "the devil"; he also has that willingness to die to protect others.
And thank goodness, or there'd never be a Daredevil.
Also, I don't think anyone on this thread has really disagreed with your perspective on Stick?