Читать книгу Black Panther and Philosophy - Группа авторов - Страница 19

Now what should Wakanda do with Killmonger? Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), an enormously influential philosopher on the subject of justice, would say the first concern is that Wakanda must not use him merely as a means for its own ends. That is, it can’t punish him to make the country safer. If it plans to imprison him – or execute him, or fine him, or let him bleed out after a knife fight with the king – it has to be because he deserves it, not because it will benefit anyone else.

What we’re talking about here is retributive justice, the kind of justice that’s concerned with punishment rather than rehabilitation. Killmonger has too many misdeeds to count, so let’s focus on the one we opened this chapter with, the one that leads up to the climactic showdown in Black Panther: T’Challa isn’t dead and he didn’t yield, yet Killmonger refuses to give up the throne. What would Kant say to this?

In good Kantian fashion, his answer is anything but obvious. (In the average college-level ethics class, Kant is usually the hardest philosopher to understand.) On the one hand, Kant says your duty to obey your ruler has nothing to do with how your ruler came to power.³ That sounds like Killmonger deserves no punishment at all. In fact, it sounds like T’Challa is the one who deserves punishment, because the throne is rightfully Killmonger’s as soon as he takes it. On the other hand, if it really doesn’t matter how the ruler comes to power, then usurping the throne is exactly as legitimate as being presumed dead after being thrown off of Warrior Falls and then clinging to life long enough for your sister to schlep a Heart-Shaped Herb halfway across the country instead of just drinking it herself and becoming the ass-kicker she is in the comics.⁴

Regardless of whether it’s T’Challa or Killmonger who has the stronger claim to the throne, the other guy deserves punishment, and Kant would almost certainly say the just punishment for him is execution. Why? For one thing, Kant was an avid fan of the death penalty, advocating it even for crimes as trivial as adultery.⁵ For another, he thought physical violence was the correct tool to use when dealing with Black people. In fact, Kant said they aren’t capable of moral reasoning on their own, but if you want them to behave morally an effective method is to beat them. (We aren’t making this up.⁶ ) And if you think that’s bad, don’t forget, when it comes to justice, Kant is still one of the most influential figures in all of Western philosophy.

So yeah, maybe Kant isn’t the best person to ask. Let’s try John Locke (1632–1704), who would say what Killmonger deserves goes well beyond the question of punishment. There’s also the question of what he’s owed.