Transformers and Philosophy Read online

  The nutritive faculty, though, might present a bit of a problem. Again, Aristotle says that its most distinctive function is processing food15 and that only living beings feed themselves.16 And indeed, Transformers do need to ingest and process nourishment in the form of fuel, often the substance called Energon. Megatron confirms this when he says the following to Sparkplug: “Just as you depend on oxygen and food for survival, we require fuel!”17 But this might not be enough for us to say that Transformers possess the nutritive faculty and so are alive, since the nutritive faculty is also associated with natural growth and shrinkage and with reproduction. This might be a problem, since Transformers don’t seem to grow to maturity or wither with age. (Optimus Prime and Megatron, for example, are millions of years old.18) They also don’t reproduce: they don’t mate, and they aren’t exactly born. Instead, they’re designed and created by other Transformers: for example, in the original cartoon series, in the first three Dinobots’ debut, the Autobots build them from scratch,19 and in the Constructicons’ debut, Megatron mentions that they were built on Earth.20 This might make Transformers seem artificial rather than natural.

  The worry is this. The nutritive faculty, again, is what really separates the living from the inanimate. But if Transformers’ nutritive faculties differ significantly from those of other beings that are unquestionably living, it seems less clear that Transformers should qualify as living beings. Their apparent perceptual and intellectual faculties seem to imply that they’re alive. Aristotle himself says something like this: the presence of any one of the faculties of soul mentioned above tells us that a being is alive.21 Again, though, all living beings must possess the nutritive faculty, which is associated not just with processing food (which Transformers do), but also with the natural growth and shrinkage that come with aging and with reproduction (which Transformers lack). If Transformers aren’t like other living beings in these important ways, we might not be able to say that they really are living beings, regardless of how it might seem based on their other faculties and regardless of how open-minded we are about what can count as alive.

  So on the one hand, perception and intellect imply the presence of life and soul no less than does nutrition. But on the other hand, in mortal life forms, though nutrition is sometimes found by itself (as in plants), perception and intellect are never found without nutrition.22 If Transformers lack a true, full-fledged capacity for nutrition, this might imply that their apparent perception and intellect are no more than apparent, in other words, that they’re not really perceiving any more than a video camera is or thinking any more than a pocket calculator is.

  Solving the Transformers’ Nutrition Problems

  So if Transformers don’t mature and weaken with age and don’t reproduce, then they don’t really possess the nutritive faculty of soul, which would imply that they don’t have souls at all and, despite appearances, aren’t really alive, sentient, or intelligent. I suspect that this worry comes at least partly from the sort of thinking that misled Prowl and Sparkplug: we’re most familiar with life that physically ages and reproduces, and so life that doesn’t do those things can seem too alien and abnormal to be called life at all. Still, more can be said to lay the worry to rest.

  First, let’s consider Transformers’ lack of physical aging and development over time. It’s fairly clear from the fiction that they do mentally and emotionally and even morally develop over time. For example, the recently constructed Aerialbots start out somewhat naive but “grow up” after some experience,23 and Grimlock only gradually accepts and comes to respect Optimus Prime as his leader.24 Yet apparently, Transformers are “born” physically mature and don’t get old. Though this is unconventional, I think we should ask ourselves why we should think that it must imply that they’re not really alive. Surely the very idea of a living but physically ageless being isn’t too troubling: such extraordinary beings certainly seem possible (fiction is full of them), however much their actual existence would challenge our conventional views about life. At least, nothing about being ageless clearly implies being lifeless.

  Regarding Transformers’ lack of physical maturation, we can observe that plenty of simple life forms with simple reproductive processes (for example, many single-celled organisms) produce “children” that are essentially mature. “But then,” the skeptic asks, “even if Transformers count as alive, couldn’t they really be just as simple as single-celled organisms and not truly sentient or intelligent?” Apparently not: it seems perfectly obvious from the way they act that they possess the higher faculties of soul. “But,” the skeptic presses, “isn’t it possible that, though they seem to be sophisticated life forms, nevertheless they really aren’t?”

  Well, perhaps that’s possible, but it seems equally possible that the apparent human beings whom I encounter on a daily basis are no more than lifelike robots or even figments of my imagination. But I certainly don’t believe that. Instead, I set aside skeptical possibilities like these and infer from a human-looking being’s humanlike behavior that it is, in fact, a human being, one who possesses the same faculties of soul that I do. Maybe that’s a mistaken inference on my part—though I doubt it. Whether it is or not, though, my point here is this: it’s not clear that we have any less reason for inferring Transformers’ life, sentience, and intelligence from their behavior than we have when we (unhesitatingly) draw such inferences in the human case. The mere possibility that we might be wrong in making such inferences rarely gives us any real problems (outside of a discussion of philosophical skepticism, anyway).

  At some point, it becomes practical and seems reasonable to put aside skepticism and say that an apparently living, sentient, intelligent being actually is alive, sentient, and intelligent. If we don’t allow ourselves to do this, we might have to say that our fellow human beings are no more than apparently alive, sentient, and intelligent. But if we make the allowance in the human case, it’s not clear why we can’t or shouldn’t make it in the Transformers’ case, too.

  It’s problematic to suggest that a being’s not having physically matured over time implies that it lacks one of the faculties of soul, as simple thought experiments seem to show. Suppose that a being that is to all appearances a male human in the prime of life just suddenly popped into existence somewhere, uncaused by anything. Maybe that couldn’t actually happen, but supposing that it did happen, I doubt that any of us would think of this person as anything other than that: a living, sentient, intelligent person who has a soul. And we’d think this, I’m sure, in spite of his not having physically matured over time, whether we knew about his unusual origin or not. You can run similar thought experiments with Frankenstein’s monster or a clone of yourself or most any non-maturing but apparently living, sentient, intelligent being and you’ll get about the same result: the sort of soul that a being possesses seemingly has a lot more to do with what that being is and can do now than with how it came to be what it is now. So Transformers’ not having physically matured doesn’t clearly rule out their having any particular faculty of soul.

  What about the worry that Transformers don’t reproduce? One way of answering it is to observe that there actually are unquestionably natural, living, sentient beings that nevertheless can’t reproduce. Mules, especially male ones, are examples of this. Another, possibly better answer is as follows. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of natural reproduction because it’s a way for mortal beings to approximate immortality by continuing on in their descendants.25 But Transformers have a kind of natural immortality: they can (presumably) continue functioning forever unless they run out of Energon or are killed or otherwise actively destroyed. Given this fact, we shouldn’t be surprised if they’re living beings who don’t reproduce: if the main reason for reproduction is that it guarantees a kind of immortality, and Transformers are already somewhat immortal and so don’t need to continue on in their descendants (since they continue on in themselves), then they don’t need to be able to reproduce. Thinking along these lines,
we might also note that, for Aristotle, only physically aging mortal beings have the nutritive faculty of soul.26 Again, though, Transformers are no more than semimortal and don’t physically age, so their differing from true mortals with respect to the nutritive faculty of soul shouldn’t be surprising.

  Yet another way of answering the reproduction worry is simply to say that Transformers do reproduce. As noted in the last section, one Transformer can build another Transformer. But doesn’t that make them artificial rather than natural? Again, I’m not sure that we have all that good of a reason to think so. Maybe designing and building each other is just their natural mode of reproduction. Plenty of people believe that God intelligently designed and created the first human beings in God’s own image, but no one seems to think that this implies that the first humans were therefore artificial, nonliving, insentient beings, and many think of human beings as God’s children despite this unconventional mode of “reproduction.” So perhaps it’s just natural, in some cases, for reproduction to take the form of intelligent design and creation, designing and building. It’s also worth noting at this point that (in at least some of the fiction) the first Transformers were created by Primus, the Transformers’ version of God.27 Taking this into consideration, we might say that the Transformers’ reproduction reflects their origins more closely and better approximates divine creative activity than that of other life forms, including ourselves. Given Transformers’ natural immortality and powerful intellectual faculties, their bearing such resemblance to the divine probably wouldn’t surprise Aristotle, anyway, since he thought of God as eternally engaged in intellectual activity.28

  So much, then, for the problems about Transformers’ possession of Aristotle’s nutritive faculty of soul. If something as simple as an amoeba or a bacterium counts as alive, it seems strange to deny that a being as complex and lifelike as Optimus Prime or Megatron also counts as alive. Transformers are either alive or so close to it that we might as well call them alive. And, if we think that the Aristotle-inspired, faculty-oriented view of the soul that has been discussed is at least generally accurate, and if we think of the soul as just the life principle, then we seem to have no less reason to think that Transformers have souls than we do anything else that acts alive, sentient, and intelligent.

  Transformer Death and Religious Belief

  As discussed in the last section, Transformers aren’t merely alive, but basically immortal. Nevertheless, it seems that they can die: they can be damaged and destroyed (or, rather, injured and killed), and maybe they could starve from lack of Energon. Still, death seems to be a somewhat different thing for them than it is for other living beings. A look back at the fictional account will help confirm these things.

  Early in the original Transformers movie,29 Megatron is badly injured in battle with Optimus Prime. As he lies helpless, Starscream orders the Decepticon retreat, not caring that his leader suffers. Fortunately for Megatron, the loyal Soundwave is nearby, and Megatron pleads, “Don’t leave me, Soundwave.” Later, as Starscream abandons Megatron again, dumping him out into space, Megatron weakly protests, “Wait, . . . I still function.” Clearly, these are the words of a being who’s afraid that he might die. We can contrast his attitude with Optimus Prime’s stoic calm in the face of death. After the battle with Megatron, as Optimus Prime lies dying, his last words to his friends are, “Do not grieve. Soon I shall be one with the Matrix. . . . Until that day, . . . till all are one . . .”

  Perhaps these very different responses to death spring from differences in religious belief or beliefs about the afterlife. Optimus Prime’s final words have a certain religious ring to them. Megatron, though, might not believe in an afterlife at all: at one point in the comic series, he threatens Sparkplug, saying “You will cooperate or cease to exist!”30 (Or maybe he arrogantly thinks that there’s no afterlife for insignificant beings like humans.) It is, in any case, fairly clear that Transformers do have some concept of religion. For example, early in the comic series, a group of Autobots who aren’t yet familiar with Earth’s life forms come across a drive-in movie theater. Having seen the many cars all motionlessly facing the movie screen, and assuming that the cars are life forms like himself, Cliffjumper suggests to Hound that the cars have probably assembled there for “some kind of religious ritual.”31 And even Megatron exclaims “By the divine weld!” to himself at one point,32 perhaps referring to the Transformers’ creation by Primus.

  So Transformers display very human sentiments about things like religion, death, and the afterlife. At the very least, they understand what death is. This is clear from another scene in the comic, one that also raises questions about exactly what death is for a Transformer. At one point, Gears is dashed to pieces in a fall. The other Autobots collect up his remnants, but two of their human friends (Sparkplug and, since it was a Marvel comic, Spider-Man) remark that the Autobots don’t seem to care that their comrade has died. At this, Optimus Prime says to himself, “The humans don’t understand! Our form of life is vastly different from theirs!” Later, Spider-Man has the following conversation with Optimus Prime:

  “I’m sorry about what happened to Gears, Optimus! Even the good guys die sometimes!”

  “Die?”

  “You mean he’s still alive?”

  “No! But neither is he what you would term ‘dead’!”33

  Here, Optimus Prime doesn’t seem to be puzzled by the concept of death. Had it puzzled him, it’s not clear why he’d say (correctly, let’s assume) that Gears isn’t dead. Gears is badly injured and unconscious, but he can be (and soon is) repaired and restored to consciousness. Perhaps, rather than being truly, finally dead, he was in something like a comatose state, “dead but able to resume living function if repaired” or something of the sort. It isn’t easy to say exactly how badly a Transformer has to be injured before being irrevocably, irreparably dead. Equally, though, it’s pretty clear that this can happen: for example, several Autobots die in the original movie and never resume functioning. I guess we’d have to ask Ratchet for the final answer on this one, since we’re not familiar enough with his form of life to say exactly what has to happen for it to be ended permanently. Still, our lacking specifics on exactly how it happens doesn’t mean that we can’t say that it does happen. Until we can get an answer from Ratchet, though, Transformer life, faculties of soul, and death have probably been sufficiently discussed for our purposes. It seems clear enough that Transformers are alive, sentient, and intelligent, do have souls, and can die.

  Mechanical Virtue

  In an early episode of the original cartoon, Spike, one of the Autobots’ human friends, writes the following in his journal shortly after seeing the Autobots in action: “Optimus Prime cares a lot for his fellow robots, and he doesn’t want anything to happen to them. I think he’d make a neat President!”34 Optimus Prime is one of the “good guys,” good as (unfortunately) only a fictional character can be. And apparently, he’s good not because he’s been programmed that way, but by his own choice. That Transformers choose to be good or evil is suggested by another episode of the cartoon: when the original Dinobots (who’ve been misled by Megatron) attack Optimus Prime and are in a position to kill him, Grimlock holds the rest of them back from doing so. Grimlock isn’t sure why he wants to spare his rightful leader, but Optimus Prime suggests that it’s because of his “Autobot training.”35 This at least hints that Transformers aren’t created good or programmed to be evil, but instead become that way much as we ourselves do: through deliberate choice, aided by moral training and advice, and actions taken as a result. The case of the Aerialbots makes this clearer. At first, they’re not too impressed with the Autobots or their cause.36 Later, though, after they’ve witnessed Megatron’s brutality and had a chance to act heroically, they decide for themselves which is the right side to be on.37

  There’s a great deal that could be said about what goes into making people good or evil (beyond “Autobot training,” of course). I’ll just point out a few
things that Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics that pretty strongly suggest that Transformers can be considered genuinely good beings (or evil beings, though I’ll focus on the good). Ancient ethical thinkers, including Aristotle, talked about being good mainly in terms of being virtuous, possessing virtue. So what, exactly, is virtue? To understand Aristotle’s view of it, it’s probably easiest to start by looking at one of the ancients’ words, aretē. This is usually translated “virtue,” but equally good translations might be “excellence” or “effectiveness” or maybe “the state of functioning well.” As a concept, this wasn’t restricted to discussions of morality: there was the aretē of a poet or a shoemaker, too, which implied being good at those occupations. It wasn’t even restricted to the realm of human beings, or even of living beings: there was the aretē of a dog, which might’ve consisted of barking at strangers and obeying friends, and the aretē of a knife, which might’ve been cutting and taking an edge well. Here, though, we’re looking for the aretē of humanlike beings, beings like ourselves (and Transformers) who can choose and try to be good persons. Clearly, it’s possible to be good at your job without being a good and virtuous person, and we’re looking for what it means to be the latter.