Great analysis. And what's even better is that Steve and Tony got to their positions over the course of several movies and actually from the opposite positions. Rogers was the original Company Man when it came to serving his country, while Stark bragged to a congressional committee about successfully privatizing world peace. By the time Civil War rolls around, Rogers learns that SHIELD was infiltrated and usurped by Hydra, and Stark has continually had his efforts to make the world safer blow up in his face, e.g. Ultron. So their positions are not just something they carried with them all along, but something they grew into, by virtue of having seen the alternative fail. Steve's deontology arose from the personal experience of having an "agenda change" under his feet, and so he leans on his own moral compass because it's the only thing he feels he can rely on to do the right thing. Tony wants to have himself reined in because he is confronted with his own failings, and he projects that onto the others, saying they ALL need that check on their powers. And the beauty of it all, is that neither side is entirely right or wrong in the movie. Ultron wrought havoc during, what, four days of existence? And Rogers was right the entire time about Bucky being a pawn and not a complicit party. And maybe Cap "won" but he and the people who sided with him are fugitives from justice. So everyone's right... and everyone's wrong. Everyone won... and everyone lost.
Stephen Schaefer spot on man! This is what makes the movie so good. You're able to clearly grasp both perspectives, which is for the most part justified based on what they've experienced. You're able to empathize with both sides, which makes it hard to determine who is right. Is there even a right?
The comment's an hour old, the video less than two hours old. I'm sure it will get whatever it gets, including some disagreeable folk. It's also noteworthy that my comment wanders pretty far afield of the Civil War movie, while Wisecrack contained their analysis to the content of the movie itself. So it's kind of a different animal.
More people should read *your comment. I'll also add that Tony's case in particular is interesting. He was the hot-shot billionaire with weapons, but because he had so much power, just as the one guy said. "Power invites conflict, and conflict leads to tragedy" and eventually, someone with ill intentions got a hold of the very weapons that Tony created, and we end up at Civil War where he believes power should be restrained overall. But I would argue that the film Iron Man (2008) says that instead of spreading your power across the world and losing site of your reach, you keep your power in check by limiting it to yourself as an individual. It is like water and a faucet. You don't have to reduce the amount of water that's in the reservoir, you just have to reduce the size of the spout. This concept is manifest as the Iron Suite, so instead of sending out weapons to the places where he thinks best and having others uphold his ideal before him, Tony wears his weapon, keeping it as close to his person as possible, and goes to the battlefield himself and literally embodies his own ideals. And I think that is what Captain became and what Iron Man forgot.
The reason Cap doesn't trust the government anymore because of what happened at CA: The Winter Soldier. He thinks he 's been fighting for the good guys, then it ended up being Hydra all along. That's why he thinks the safest hands is his own.
I agree with Cap for the most part. The government quite often has its own agenda and they arent always fair and just. I think Tony seemed a bit desperate to face penance for his mistakes in the past and forgets there are some things you can't control. Giving in the Sakovia accords was something he did under the guise of "taking responsibilty." but like Cap said it takes responsibility out of your hands.
Rambo Luib I don’t think it’s only that. Think about the whole MCU. Pretty much a good chunk of the gov or villain ended up in corruption. So I think everyone’s experience played in on cap.
The problem is that there is no right answer. It just changes where the collateral damage falls. Loki's invasion was only contained so quickly because he did it in the city the Avengers live, but, even then, it doesn't stop the fact that hundreds of people probably died. The accords would have been easy to follow in this scenario, but ultimately pointless as the decision would have been the same, just postponed by an hour or two. Which, I would like to point out, could have been a fatal amount of time. Worse yet, Ultron's whole plan hinged on planetary travel and secrecy. Who would the accords have contacted for permission to act in certain countries when Ultron could have been in the Internet it'self, negating any and every boarder. Then, when his plan was found out, asking permission to act would have cost precious time, and possibly lost the fight, causing irreversible damage to the planet as a whole. It's true. A single team having this much power is EXTREMELY dangerous, but bureaucracy has it's own major flaws too. The Team may be a loose canon, but they can move quickly and act derisively. For better or worse, the damage caused is directed at the Team's enemies. The bureaucracy may be able to mitigate some of the collateral, or at least make it more palatable when it does happen, but the shifting agendas, greed and ignorance, and system of checks and balances is a lumbering behemoth of a system who wastes time in the debating, causing more destruction in the long run. Both aren't right. Both aren't wrong. They only change who is in charge and who is at fault for when the explosion's happen and the bodies pile up. People forget all the time, this world isn't a place where perfection can exist. Humanity, or Nature, doesn't exist in that way. There will always be risk to everything. You can only mitigate it. Trust in the good people to do good work, but understand they aren't perfect people. They will make mistakes. Or, like what happened to Scarlet Witch, situations will arise where there is no good answer and human instinct will dictate the outcome. We live in a world that can be cruel. The way to survive in it is not focus on the loss, but to remember what you have, have had, and will do for the future.
Nick K I agree on that.I feel that there are better ways to handle situations without arguing with each other on who's right. Whether it's the government or the Avengers as a team on how we protect ourselves or the people.
Ultimately I think Captain America is right. In the real world legalized human trafficking continues because entities from the troubled teen industry find ways to do it legally. In a fantastic world all Doctor Doom has to do is operate from a country offering him a safe haven. Captain America saw this right from the beginning. He knows injustice is injustice and it doesn't matter what rules you have to break to fight it.
But what about when he's wrong? Like when he was ultimately helping Hydra? Or when a building gets blown up under his watch? Who is the Evil he's supposed to be fighting when even the governmental organization he serves is corrupted from the inside? Who does he fight then? And why? What, then, makes him different than the people he's fighting? Just because it's in America's interests doesn't make it good. The point of my whole entry was that there IS no right answer. It doesn't exist. There is only what is palatable, manageable, and just. Captain America is a soldier. A good one to be sure. But soldiers don't make governments. Governments make soldiers.
Team Captain America is about freedom of the individual. Team Iron Man is about the security of the group. Two ideals that will clash endlessly as the world tries to figure out globalization.
Well, at least it's better than "Team Iron Man as fascist oversight group with dated views on law enforcement by having a Norse god to slay an unarmed black man" (aka heroes according to Mark Millar), or "Team Cap the continuing giving jobs to untrained teenage heroes even after a neighborhood was exploded due to this and compare oversight to slavery" (aka heroes according to JMS).
I think it's less about "freedom versus security", and more about "interventionism versus isolationism." The Sokovia accords don't hinder Cap's personal freedom in any way - they only affect his ability to punch other people.
Guy R I personally think Cap vs Iron Man is more akin to "state militia rights versus completely federalized military". Both sides can be incredibly dangerous.
@jphilly819 Somewhat no...watch it again and give thought to what thor said "your work with the tesseract is what true Loki to it and his allies it is a signal to all the realms of the earth is ready for a higher form of war " The avengers were the one one who had to fight and suffer the consequence because of SHIELDS interaction
@jphilly819 Loki was already planning on taking Midgard (earth) whether the avengers were existing or not, and maybe even bringing Thanos down into the nine realms early on if the rest of Midgard continues to resist LATER on. So no, that argument you used doesn’t work here.
There is no right side here. The "correct" stance would be to take a bit of each side and strive for a balance, fine tuning at the behest of the situation. Otherwise you risk falling in the excess of either side.
This is correct. If you look at current world politics, especially when dealing with foreign policy and military actions, you are on the side of the current thought of Israel. To put it into perspective of the movie, the whole team sits down together and makes an understanding that they will sign the accords under the premise that they will do good and listen in all situations to the matters at hand. However, cap said in the movie, "what happens if we are needed somewhere the accords wont send us, or worse if they send us somewhere we are not needed." This is where the team can overrule inside their own ranks and ask for forgiveness later. In this aspect, the avengers would turn into an NGO under the direction of the UN. Whenever their own ideas are challenged or if they need to act fast to prevent something or fix an issue, they act immediately and then when confronted, say, "my bad, end justifies means, evidence, we'll do better next time, carry on. The part that gets me on this whole thing is that Tony was faced with this exact premise at the beginning of Iron Man 2. The government wanted his suit, he told them no...Rhodes offered a compromise to fold him into the existing chain of command (I'd consider secretary of defense if the hours were ammended lol). Instead, he shrugged it off, told them that they can't have his personal property, but told them that his means are justified as the attacks in the world went down (evidence) and he has privatized world peace...carry on
Anderson Zerloti no the right side is cap because iron man is either directly or indirectly responsible for every single problem ever, and you dont see cap flying to another country and just killing terrorists, at least not in the way iron man does it ever since the first movie.
I’m Team Capt. and that is from what Rogers said in Winter Soldier “You’re holding a gun to everyone on earth and calling it protection, This isn’t freedom this is fear”
Mitch TheMilitaryCollector the nature of superheroes is itself a gun to everyone’s head. You cant defend absolute freedom in a world with those characteristics. The manage of the avengers on a global scale although great for the movie it’s truly irresponsible and absurd. Reducing everything to “colateral damage” it’s ridiculous
The Avengers operating independently of any oversight (against the will of 200+ countries) and causing innocent deaths and collateral damage in an effort to "protect the world" is more in line with that quote than the Sokovia Accords. #teamironman
_The Winter Soldier_ film shaped Captain America into what we saw later in the _Civil War_ film. Cap really didn’t know what to do with his life anymore ever since he woke up from the ice and became a man living outside of his own time. So what does he do? Well naturally, when you’re in an unfamiliar place, the first thing you ever do is look for something familiar, simply find anything or anyone at all that you know. However, everyone he once knew was either already dead or literally about to die and the whole world that he lived in was now unrecognizable to him. The only thing left in the world that he found to still be familiar was his old job, being a Soldier. Cap naturally decided to join up with SHIELD because it was very familiar to the same military lifestyle he led when he was fighting our nation’s enemies in WW2. He was a typical boy-scout that was all about following orders and enforcing the will of SHIELD because he knew it was all in order to maintain peace and security. However, as the events of that film went on though, he later discovered how much of SHIELD and the government had become subtlety infiltrated over the years in secret. It was then that he realized how easily government oversight could become corrupted under people’s noses and why that was so dangerous; or how any organization could be infiltrated and twisted into something else, which then uses the people with good intentions in it without their knowledge. This is why by the time the events of _Civil War_ come along that Cap has so little trust in being controlled by more government oversight again. Cap has no idea who might one day be controlling those governments from behind the scenes and if some of them may already have ill intentions. Captain America is apprehensive to give up his individual autonomy to make decisions and freewill to help the people he chooses because he doesn’t want to revert back into becoming the pawn that he was during Winter Soldier. In the end, even Ironman realizes this to an extent as well, but he knows that it’s too late for him to do anything and he already made his own decision that he needs to keep. So that’s why Tony secretly chooses to help release all the locked up Avengers even though they had sided against him with Cap.
I'm team Cap all the way, I'm not necessarily against oversight, but I don't blindly trust it either. Cap is the same, he wasn't 100% opposed to any oversight, on principle, he was open to the idea, but rejected it when he saw all the human right abuses that they engaged in, which is a pretty clear sign that this oversight was going to be completely useless, and that keeping control in their own hands was the better option. For example, they weren't going to "take in" Bucky, they were going to shoot on sight, based on grainy camera footage. They also laughed off requests for lawyers, have a secret prison compound, etc. (Does anyone seriously believe that this oversight was going to be MORE worried about collateral damage, than the Avengers are? Remember when SHIELD's oversight tried to nuke Manhattan?)
I started watching a little of the series Arrow, because Michael Emerson (Harold Finch from Person of Interest, my current fandom) plays a role in the sixth season. And they deal with that "secret compound" thing by having a supposed good guy group (run by the wife of a main character; I only started near the end of the fifth season so I don't know if she's also a main character or not) hold a man captive with no government oversight at all. When she gets called out on her bullshit, she actually puts up a not indecent fight, but I still can't accept a rationale that allows people held extrajudicially and secretly, with no checks and balances and public awareness. Even in a superhero world, that's sketchy.
Cap rejected it before the abuse of power in your argument. The scene with oversight occurs before Bucky. He rejects it before the bombing while he is at Peggy Carter's funeral. The power abuse of others only occurs after this. The decision was to stand down or fight for Bucky, not about weather or not to sign the accord. Cap was never going to sign. He doesn't trust anyone but himself and Bucky (and maybe Falcon). Its a pretty dark comment on those in power not listening to citizens. He is the worst kind of moral elitist. All that said, I love Cap and I hate what this movie did to him. He was made to fight for the little guy and hates bullies but he is the biggest bully in this movie.
snapgab I want you to take the case of the Iraq invasion in 2003. Rogers' approach of Realism is what enabled America and friends to go ahead and topple a country and kill a leader because of an *_illusion_* of nukes that was denied by Hussein before the invasion. The invasion was deemed illegal by the UN. Without oversight, the US went in and fucked the region sideways. Iraq has only now been able to deal with ISIS, has very unstable politics and has grown resentment for the West because they fuck up everything they touch because they think they're all powerful. This resentment bred Terrorism. It created ISIS, Boko Haram, other terrorist organisations because the US was trigger happy and had no oversight. The US has killed *far* more people than would have died under the rule of Sadam Hussein, without a shadow of a doubt. Rogers' approach to the use of the Avengers is like that but with no illusion of any rules whatsoever. "Go In, fuck shit up, leave, make a movie out of it" seems to be what Rogers wants to Do, and it's an incredibly destructive and short sighted way of handling things.
He is looks stubborn on sokovia accord, coz as you seen in winter soilder the shield itself look powerful bt crubble inside coz wrong people are in charge for shield. This could happen to with sokovia accords. Cap is like old grandpa which gives his opinion, sometime it feel salty to us. Bt many time we ignore him coz, we don't want hurts anyones "FEELINGS". Bt he is old school, he seen or been in things that make him visualize the difference between good and bad.
Related: As tailsteak put it, a Lawful Good perspective has Good as the aim, Lawful as the means, and when the two come into conflict, it's better to accomplish Good by means of Chaos than stick by Lawful and see Evil happen.
Thanks for this. My original interpretation was more simple: Cap represents an objective morality. There is a right and a wrong, and people should do what they need to do in support of the right. Stark represents democracy where people decide what's right and wrong. This video adds a new layer on top that makes it more ambiguous as to which "team" is more correct.
This video made me more conflicted as to who I believe was right, but at the same time, made me enjoy the movie more. And it was already my favorite Marvel movie!
Yeah that’s the frustrating part about the movie. Cap doesn’t stand up when the secretary go all “New York...” “Washington...” like wtf? What are they supposed to do? There’s a whole city flying into the sky.
@@orange-one And cap stated "What if we needed somewhere but we arent allowed to or when we dont want to and they order us to go regardless?" Not whit the same words too lazy to look it up.
Ultron wouldn't have existed if Tony and Bruce didn't take it upon themselves to develop "a suit of armor around the world" without input from anyone else. Ultron was a problem created by the Avengers, specifically Tony and Bruce, and therefore every bad thing that Ultron did was directly their fault
Yes... they blocked the avengers’ secret weapon. Hawk Eye. Avengers 1: Hawk Eye present... they won! Avengers 2: Hawk Eye present... they won! Civil War - Hawk Eye is on Cap’s team... Cap’s team side won! Avengers 3: Hawk Eye under house arrest due to the Accords... they lose! Avengers 4: Hawk Eye back in business... they Win!
@@AQuestioner During the events of Infinity War - when Bruce asks Nat where Clint is, she states that after the whole accords situation both Scott and Clint took a deal and are on house arrest.
The answer to this question depends on whether or not you believe humanity is inherently selfish or inherently altruistic. That depends largely on culture, environment, and personal experiences. Liberalist ideals only work if the collective will is consistently for the collective good. Realist ideals only work if the hegemon (eg The US, Avengers) will also behave in a consistent altruistic manner. If you put selfish players in either ideal then neither ideal will work. Neither system is perfect and there will always be those who disagree with what is decided.
Actually, human morals vary situationally, and individually, so any philosophy that says we are all inherently anything is likely to cause harmful mistakes, like we saw in the movie, such as a frame-up, bureaucratic pressure and political infighting in a superhero team.
Darla Lathan That's the point Cap was making. That's why it's dangerous to tie up their hands and put all the heroes on the books with a bunch of power hungry, fickle humans potentially running the show. As we saw there were people behind the scenes moving to use that for their own ends. Unless there's some sort of fail safe, the heroes on the books become attack dogs for only God knows what, which defeats the purpose of signing the agreement.
I see where Tony's coming from, I really do. But in their world, most shit is probably controlled by Hydra, 10 rings, the Hand, Serpent Society and various other shadow organization so if I have to choose between these unknowns, who decided the best course of action in the battle of New York was to fire a god damn nuke in the middle of it, and the avengers, who I trust will work their best to at least mitigate damage and save who they can REALISTICALLY, then I have to side with Steve
krusnik94 it's hard for the rich guy Tony to see that because he's mingled with those types of people who run the world. Cap is a poor man who gained extraordinary abilities who still kept his sendibilities about elites and their motivations.
sion8 The Sakovia Accords (a marvel studios equivalent of the 20th Century Fox licensed mutant registration act) requires that any human with enhanced abilities who does not sign on be confined indefinitely. Some humans with enhanced abilities do not have them by choice and cannot disable their abilities and do not wish to be licensed to exist by permission of their government.
The issue with using superheros as an allegory for powerful countries is that in real life, there aren't countries that you could say are "supervillains" that oppose them and threaten the overall future of humanity. When it comes to real world politics, I'm definitely Team Ironman. But if every country that should be opposed was on the level of Nazi Germany a few months away from nuclear weapons and global domination, I'm for sure switching to Team Cap. The context of the world is too big a piece of the puzzle for it not to have been mentioned in this kind of discussion.
But like real life, the story is told from "perspectives". Who objectively decides who the bad guys are? Is Thanos a bad guy? And how is he different from Harry Truman?
@@WordsMatter1982 Yes Thanos is a bad guy. He's different because he's a badly-written cartoon villain who just wants to kill half of everyone. To compare him to a non-powered human president making difficult choices in difficult situations is inherently stupid.
the Accords did not only advocate for the Avengers NOT operating without permission of national or international councils and governments. it additionally tried to enforce the Avengers following the orders of the government. or be punished for disobeying orders. so on top of being regulatory and restrictive of their movements, it also attempted to 'enlist' them as a 'weapon' to use for their...agendas. this is problematic on two fronts: 1. they are not government employees. they have no contract or being paid by any government. yes, any private security organization is not allowed to operate within foreign borders without invitation or at least permission BUT, as a private organization, they can refuse to take the contract and respond with 'naah, i'll pass'. The Avengers were not given that...luxury, which is absurd, as they are private citizens and not regular army. 2. this does not happen in our world. this happens in a universe where Hydra had infiltrated even such an organization as the World Security Council and had control or influence on various agencies and governments all around the world. this is a world where the official governing authority had authorized a nuclear strike on New York, one of the largest cities in the world, and were willing to kill millions of civilians without even having intel or any knowledge on whether said strike and sacrifice of said million civilians would at least stop the greater danger of the alien invasion. in that world, New York would have been a radioactive crater and the aliens would have taken over the planet anyways, if the Avengers hadn't been there. So in practice they have been shown to have a. a better plan than the official authorities, and b. more care for civilian casualties. soooo maybe they would have accepted to be controlled by a government. maybe. if that government hadn't proven to be ruthless and cavalier when it comes to their citizens, corrupt, and advocating for law and order when they themselves can throw it out the window when it suits them (ordering the execution of James B. Barnes aka the Winter Soldier without sufficient evidence of guilt, refusing him a trial when apprehended, imprisoning the Avengers -aka private citizens- in a black site with no trial or any due process etc etc etc) sorry this is so long...
You forgot to mention how corupt the United Nations has been in our world. Numerous scandals that no one has been arrested for as far as I know. Either way, diplomatic immunity usually allows for people in charge to get away with horrible crimes in countries of diplomatic interest.
Long philosophical breakdowns are the reason I'm here. The video had to leave out what you talked about to put the ideas they wanted to showcase on display, but you are right.
@Gaius Wyrden it makes perfect sense to me. Government Officials Panic and decide to use weapons when they know they won't be charged for it. They don't see it as their problem.
After seeing infinity war, i remain on caps side. A extreme amount of regulations and restrictions only destroys the greater good and cannot be a positive action.
Mr. Otaku If you want a good video about Code Geas philosophy and morality, go to Alecsandxr's recent video (if you haven't of course) you will love it. :3
It's arguable that Tony as well was adhering to personal feelings when he was driven by the guilt of Ultron and his own actions. His willingness to surrender responsibility to the government is shortsighted in its own way as well.
Exactly. Instead of dealing with his own feeling of guilt, he decided the solution was give responsibility to others, so it would never be "his fault" again. Instead of acting like a "grown-up" and fully taking accountability for his actions, he would rather hand it to some form of abstract "parental figure". I know that is a little simplistic, but that is essentially what Tony Stark is doing.
The sovereign borders excuse is pure bullshit because the Avengers enemies are not going to wait for them. Also the Sokovia Accords is not going to reduce casualties or collateral damages, the Accords it just a big excuse to take control over the Avengers.
@Gaius Wyrden The Avengers are not thinking that they can do whatever they want. They are doing what is right since their enemies are not going to wait for them to have permission to enter into a sovereign border. Also Tony have zero right to criticize the rest of the Avengers.
@Gaius Wyrden Tony created Ultron without letting the other Avengers know about Ultron's existent, and he never bothers to make a fail-safe in case Ultron becomes rogue. There are many other stuff Tony did that end in disaster, so Tony has no right to criticize the other Avengers. The other Avengers are doing the best to reduce disaster during a fight, so it is not their fault that many people die.
@Gaius Wyrden I know that, but it doesn't change that Tony has no right to criticize the rest of the Avengers. And doesn't change that Tony should be held accountable for all his mistakes and yet he is walking free from them.
@Gaius Wyrden Tony lost any right to criticize the Avengers when he made many "mistakes". Criticize someone for doing something wrong while you are also doing something wrong yourself is very hypocritical on your part. Is like when you are criticizing a smoker while you are smoking yourself. So it doesn't make sense that Tony is criticizing the Avengers when he is the one who is guilty of Ultron's actions. Also, the Avengers have done nothing wrong to deserve all the hate for the public. They all did the best to save the day, the only time that they did something wrong was when Scarlet Witch blows up a building, but that was an accident. Anything else is not the Avengers' fault since it is not their fault that Loki decides to invade Earth, and it is not their fault that Ultron decides to become evil. Ultron's actions it is Tony's fault and not the Avengers, they do not have the knowledge that Ultron even existed since Tony decides to keep it a secret. The Avengers did all they could to stop Ultron and to stop Loki. So both Tony and the Governments have not right to criticize the Avengers.
I love how there's not only one conflict in this movie and that the MCU prior to the movie established the characters so well. Steve feels he has an obligation to protect Bucky, personally, politically he feels his hands are the best ones to respond to a crisis and he knows he cant trust institutions or governments to do the right thing all the time. Bucky is conflicted in having killed people and he feels he doesnt deserve imprisonment, Tony feels the weight of the collateral damage (Charlie Spencer), but in Iron man he took it upon himself to stop being a merchant of death. Rhodey is a soldier, Natasha wants to keep everyone together, Wanda feels responsible for Lagos and her home, Clint owes Wanda, Peter wants to side with Tony Stark but he is against the accords as he says "those things happen because of you" since, just like Steve, he doesnt want to let bad things happen and he takes it upon himself to become a super hero to save people as his first mission, Tony took him out of that way and involved him in crime fighting by arresting team cap, Vision thinks of the collective good, TChalla wants revenge then catches the real culprit and decides not to take it against Zemo, Sam ... Sam. Sam is also a realist like Steve who had to go against Shyieldra ? Hank also sides with cap logically because he stole from a big capitalist to give baack to the poor, he's a criminal but that doesn't stop him from doing the right thing Beautiful movie I wanted to cry several times This movie is great because you know where your morals lie but you can't categorically side with one group of person or another because of how personnally involved these movies made us with their characters. Reminds me of that conflict in GOT the loot train attack, dont kill bronn, dont kill Drogon, dont kill Jaime, dont kill Dany, you dont know whom you can bear to see lose, be injured or die
OHHH MY GOD! Yes yes yes.... i had thought orgasm as refer GOT loot train attack here. Becoz same situation are in both Captain america CW and that perticulat episode of GOT. Whom to trust, for whom i should envy or support? Its all called story and character built up. As we speaking MCU for now, i see character building as same as me getting mature with them(coz i m seeing this from collage time when we all try to be cool as Iron man bt not feel responsible like captain rogers). I am on all the way cap side coz he is right about having morally right and understand power of own, which make sure him the power used for wrong agenda as shield used by wrong agenda people. Bt also feel pain of dividation from iron man side, when he say to cap "I m trying to stop tearing avengers apart" and their power should oprated under people of world. If that easy enough, i think UN have done some work on world peace(which is not possible for sure till last 2 man standing agaist each other on face of earth). At last bit of movie, as soon as personal matters come in light, iron man become same exact position where Zemo was standing. which seek revenge and kill bucky. Bt rogers knews, he the only one can return back safely coz his relationship toward bucky is strong and not killed him(as we seen in winter soilder movie). Looking forward for Infinity war, bt Civil war always be my favorite in MCU.
I believe there is no right answers. I traditionally don’t agree with utilitarianism, especially in this case, and the movie shows us why it can go wrong. The utilitarian approach might rationalize what happened in sokovia but it bred more conflicts, as well. But at the same time, deontology isn’t always practical and we are looking for a practical answer here. Anyway, Bucky was innocent!! He just wanted some damn plums!! Stucky for life!!!!
The film really shows how both philosophies lose their meaning when you lose sight over what the actual result of any one action is. Cap protects Bucky because he can't know what will happen to him if he doesn't. Ironman chases after Cap because he can't trust Cap won't make things worse for everybody. Neither of their philosophies end up helping anybody in the end. But at least, the Sokovia accords promise some sort of stability. Their actions fail to solve anything, but their words, by signing the accords, make a difference.
Onin the sokovia accords are just an extension of what the UN is doing currently. They do a lot of wrong and cover up stories when it serves their interests. But it’s a little long to explain in here. Just like Cap, I don’t trust this kind of big government oversight. I mean remember what happened in New York? The government wanted to nuke the city because it seemed impossible to stop the invasion. If the Avengers were working under the accords at that time, and if the UN agreed with the US government, NYC would have been destroyed, with all its citizens. Not only that but how would have they consulted all the 100+ countries that signed the accord during the invasion and make a good decision in time? The UN is just an extension of the US at this point, and most of the wars the US have been involved in recently were motivated by money or oil. I wouldn’t be ok with the avengers destroying countries in the Middle East for oil, and neither would they.
Eli N.S because the actions still cost the lives of innocent people. Control or not, if YOU commit the crime, YOU will pay. You can say that he had no control over his actions, but if that’s the case, then that person is STILL dangerous.
I think Tony Stark was so ready to embrace the accords because he's the one that unleashed Ultron on the world and he feels responsible. Which he most certainly is, but he implicates all the over Avengers in has pursuit of absolution. He never really owns what he's done he instead tries to spread the blame around to all the members of the team.
It's like giving the president of the US the power to intervene, and then get Congressional approval. Once we enter a situation, we aren't pulling out, regardless of the Congress, or NATO or the UN.
I’m not against the accords in theory, but I don’t like the specifics. Just ask Rwanda whether or not the UN can be trusted with “the collective good.”
Robert McKinnon, sometimes there are easy answers. Stark's side supports profiling individuals based on inherent abilities, including genetic and racial traits. Captain America fought against such things in WWII. Easy decision.
I get people are sad/mad that their loved ones were killed in these various catastrophies, but the alternative is the Avengers do nothing and the bad guys win. And if they have to wait for the UN to give the go ahead, an entity that has come under scrutiny multiple times for being slow to act and having too many competing interests, it could take an amount of time that could lead to hundreds or even thousands more lives being lost or the worst-case scenario: the bad guy wins because the hero(s) were too late. That's why I was and still am team Cap. It's not perfect but it seems better than Iron man's alternative.
Thank you! When I saw the woman who was mad at Tony in the movie, I understood her point, but the entire world would have been gone if they had not done this.
Yeah I understand your point and I agree but losing a loved one especially for the greater good is painful. It’s like if you lost your best friend but every one else lived your definitely going to blame someone
Then why not blame the random monsters that attacked the city, to me blaming Tony for trying to save them is harsh. Everything was beyond the Avenger's control and it bothered me to see this woman blaming the man who tried to protect everyone from the threat they should be blaming them on.
trisha Hernz that’s because a war with nuclear weapons would kill the political calls too. Not because of the UN. It’s easy to send people to die when you don’t have to face it.
Just a quick comment: In the universe of the avengers, the superhero cat is out of the bag. Assured destruction by the hands of the avengers is not enough to discourage super-powered villains, but if the avengers were to decrease in effectiveness (or dissappear), then more super-powered villains would show up more and more often.... creating more issues and tradgedy. There is no way to win at this.
Jamin Jedi they didn't even cover the fill scope of the themes at play in this movie. There's enough material they didn't even address that they could seriously do a second part to this video and be completely justified.
Why was the movie garbage though? I thought it had its action, drama, and philosophical themes in check. It had a wide array of characters with different agendas who ultimately had to choose a side in the dichotomy. I am a bit bitter that it didn't include more characters but that's beside the point.
Wait a minute, I'd argue that you got the international doctrines reversed. It's actually teamStark the realist one, because with their attempt to limit foreign intervention they give priority to sovereignty, which is more or less the founding principle of realism. Meanwhile, teamCap is the liberal one, because they put ideals over pragmatic thought (one might say "realist thought"), chasing what they perceive as evil regardless of borders and sovereignty, enacting a kind of behaviour called "Responsibility to protect" which is tipical of Liberal hegemonies like the post cold war USA, that through its (alleged) quest for global democracy and human rights has violated foreign sovereignty many times.
I think it's important to acknowledge that these videos are written by people who are interested more in Philosophy and not IR theory (Calling someone a Realist and than relating them to Kantian moral philosophy demonstrates this to a degree). I think you make some good points though. Although, I would suggest that in this film Tony Stark is closer to Neo-liberal institutionalism. Cap, does not represent Realism though. For the most part, the Realist pantheon (in IR Theory) represents a rejection of morality limiting actions in the international realm and he would only be concerned with threats to US power or the Survival of the US states. Disclaimer: I'm not a massive fan of the MCU and have only seen civil war on the TV while I was doing a few other things.
TheMrMayoyo - I think it depends on whether you consider the Avengers to be actors in the international system (like states), or more analogous to an NGO. If they are independent actors, you could consider Stark a liberal/neoliberal in the sense that he believes that the Avengers' agency is/should be constrained by rules, while Cap is a realist because he doesn't believe in checks being placed on their sovereignty. If the Avengers are more like an NGO, then I agree with your assessment.
@@Kharis- Beyond Ultron, im not quit understanding how its their dault the cites get leveled and lives are lost. The chitari invasion was nothing but them saving as many as possible, the sacovia incident was literally not their fault in the slightest and Hydra infiltrating shield had nothing to do with them as well. Blaming the avengers for the collateral of dangerous events isnt exactly fair and neither is expecting them to take full responsibility for every life that is lost. They’re only human.
@@Crazieyboy15 this is one of many major problems in the film. It's such a contrived point. This movie should have ended 10 minutes in, with Tony hacking Ross' stupid presentation and putting up images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki like he would have done if he still had the same spine he did in IM2.
In this debate, I've always sided with Steve for primarily two reasons: MCU-wise, when we most government isituationed up either controlled or being used by the like of Hydra and AIM-and add that the movie seems to imply you would need almost unanimous agreement of the UN nations-good luck stopping any serious threat before they have most of their plan completed. Second, when most of the DC/Marvel shows Earth to be on the whole not too much more advance than RL earth of the issue release, I compare the major world goverments trying to treat superpowered indivuals beyond Steve Rogers and maybe Iron Man as just another force that the old rules still work when that is at best the average staues of alians-to say nothing of beings like Odin and Thanos...it's like a midivial city or eroupean nation trying to maintain status quo if they had to deal with a 21st century state in terms of ability to respond and deal with large scale threats. Ya, sorry America/Russia/China, Thanos is not going to care where on nation starts and another end and not wait for you to agree if your only real threats are allowed in before continuing his plan.
@@human3213 but the opposite is also true. Tony would have never been Iron Man if Obadiah didn't try having him killed. Steve wouldn't have become captain America if the Red Skull and Hydra didn't exist. The Guardians of the Galaxy wouldn't exist without The like of Thanos and Ego. One creates the other, only difference is that the good guys genuinely try to make the world a better place, while the bad guys do the opposite.
I always think back to the end of The Dark Knight where Bruce Wayne finally comes to the conclusion that in order to truly be the dark knight, he needs to operate based on what's best for Gotham to maintain the people's hope for a better future. Even if that means taking the blame for the deaths of innocent people and Harvey Dent, Gotham has an outlet for they're doubt and it funnels down into hating Batman because he's not a hero, he's a protector. As much as it pains him to be hated for doing his heroic deeds, he needs to operate based on what's best for soul of Gotham regardless of how he's seen by the public. In this case, I disagree with Black Widow when she said that the Avengers should be winning back the public trust instead of focusing on preventing global threats that have very clearly perceivable consequences should they not be addressed. The Avengers having the freedom to act on their own will would yield a higher chance for the greater good in the end over having to ask other countries for permission before operating IMO.
Azenith steve fought for others, lived for others and practically existed for other his whole life. Tony had pleanty of years in which he was a playboy and wasted his money in whatever thing he wanted, and at the end he even got everything he wanted (married, a daughter). Steve on the other hand has always been selfless and had never enjoyed his life. Sooo yeah i think their ending was perfect, cause cap finally got to be happy and enjoy life, tony had already done that for MANY years. So don’t come at me with this crap of “tony deserved the world and steve deserved to die” cause that’s simply not it and you’re just plain wrong my dudee
@@mandy79319 When did Steve actually do any of those things after the first avenger???? Even in his origin movie Steve still had a choice on whether to take the super serum, no one forced him to shoved it into his body. He did not sacrifice anything, he gained a super soldier body for goodness sake. Peggy and him didn't even DATE!! Tony wanted to mind his own business, but people kept coming to him for help. Tony literally busted his ass every time to get people to see reason and Steve was just selfish the whole time and screwed him over. He did not want to sign the accords. He split the group. Become a fugitive. Broke laws because of Bucky. Gave thanos the upper hand. Literally all of it could have been prevented had Steve not have been so selfish every single time!! Re-evaluate yourself.
From the first time I saw Civil War, I always assumed Tony agreed just because the accords took responsibility away from him.. he's always been the "leader" and taken the brunt of the praise and the blame, but the accords basically give him an out to say "Not my fault, call my superior, complain to the U.N..." etc. I think his decision was 100% emotional just like Cap just in a different way.
I wondered if there was a middle ground. The assignments from the government could be more like a request vs an order. If the avengers think it's within their power or moral code to go then they go. If the not the government fixes the problem on their own like before they relied on the Avengers.
Neither is perfect. I side with Tony, cos I do feel like no superpower should act independently in my own country. My country, my rules. Even if you come to help, you must come to help when I'm asking for help. It should be my responsibility to measure the problem, and consider possible solution. But this can go very wrong, just like Captains stand-point can go wrong too. As long as there is conflict, there will be damage. There is no such thing as perfect solution, cos our world is imperfect.
I personally side with Cap for the following reason Sokovian Casualties with Avengers = 144 (if memory is serving me correctly) Sokovian Casualties without Avengers = 7,000,000,000+ I understand that the accords do not necessarily disallow the Avengers to go anywhere, but signing does leave the potential for that to happen, which in my mind is reason enough not to sign. Plus the whole process of a country agreeing that it needs the Avengers to come and save them will take a hell of a long time, not exactly helpful in what could be a world ending situation. The safest hands are indeed still their own. EDIT: That's actually a good point that I'm seeing as I'm re-reading my own comment. If something has ramifications that could affect the entire world, doesn't it kind of come off as slightly selfish if the single country that the event happens to be occuring in doesn't want the Avengers sorting it out. It's just something to think about.
Except there are a few issues. 1st, the Avengers go against threats that would destroy the ENTIRE PLANET. 2nd, the enemies are causing the threats are at a much higher level than just say a local tyrant or terrorist cell.
I did enjoyed this movie when it came out. The action, the arguing over ethics and morals, but the thing that got me good, was that plot twist. When Zemo's motivations are exposed. I didn't foresaw why he was doing it all, from the bits where he's listening to the old voice-mails from his dead wife. Also, its so great that Zemo's plan simply consists on revealing to Iron Man how his parents didn't actually died in a car accident, bit instead, they were killed by Bucky, and Cap knew about it At that point, the movie gets really serious and everything takes another tone. If only they did this early on the movie, maybe just before of the Airport fight scene, it would have been so much better. It almost feels like if another movie started at that point.
There is no right side or right answer. In the end, we're all just scared, and that fear controls our actions. Tony was afraid for causing more damage, while Captain America was scared that the heroes would't be able to save more lives under the new strict rules. At the same time, people like Zemo just focus on the damage done, and forget about the bigger threat that could have been caused if the Avengers didn't step in. No matter what you do, bad things will happen. You either accept life, or let your emotions cause more problems to the people around you. Also there is no real villain, Thanos is just another victim of life like everyone else.
This video feels totally off base. Steve is working for the greater good as well as his own moral compass. Tony is just working out of fear driven by guilt for his previous failings. He wants someone to control him to lessen his guilt, so that next time something bad happens he can say he was just following orders. It's been shown time and again throughout the movies that the government can't be trusted when push comes to shove. They'll nuke New York City... That's basically the whole point of the Avengers' existence in the first place.
Agreed. Cap is all about *solidarity* and positive freedom nested within negative freedom. The latter is necessary for the former. He's more left-wing than this analysis implies. Stark is a Randian turned Neoliberal.
Tony's guilt is still genuine and his intentions are still pure, he genuinely wants what's best for everyone and that's what he thinks is the best, regardless of who's actually right or wrong
@@AdequateProximityPH .Having "pure" intentions is almost beside the point. One can have the purest of intentions and yet still contributed to causing great harm. I would argue that Stark's intentions have always been somewhat in flux. Both Stark and Rogers are operating from within an ethical position, a worldview. Stark began as purely self-serving. Then he turned that selfishness and drive to create something that could be used - by him - in the service of doing good. Then, out of fear of the ultimate consequences of the path he took, he opted for the middle-ground (Sekovia accords). But when he says "we need to be put in check" it seems to me he's really saying "I need to be put in check". Stark has become aware of his own egoistic, narcissistic tendencies and he fears that side of himself even though without it, the creation of Iron Man would never have been possible. However, that "putting in check" comes in the form of a top-down, bureaucratic, hierarchical oversight. It's not exactly democracy at work, is it? I think this feeds into Rogers' resistance. Sure, Rogers can be dogmatic and stubborn ("pure intentions") with his commitment to deontology - but it's a form of duty ethics that is not incompatible with the democratic process, concerns about problems of commons, social justice, and so on. They approach the same territory but from different positions -the analysis got that much right. Rogers can be reasonable, he's open to changing his mind. I don't think that Stark really is - unless the person advocating such a change of mind *is* Stark. Stark reveals just how deep his selfishness goes when, faced with the footage of an *innocent man* - a victim - being violently coerced into committing an act that the "real" Bucky would never have done, he says " *I* don't care. He killed *my* Mom". Rogers is more forgiving. I'd bet that he would have protected Barnes even if they had no history (although perhaps not as..er.."vigorously")
as someone who was torn between team cap and team iron man i support both sides. steve was right because if for instance red skull would return just like in the comics and builds his hq in swizerland the accords would probably hinder the avengers from helping because its none of americas buisness. for tonys side place yourself in the shoes of a citizen of marvel comic/movie new york: would you want aliens or sentient robots falling onto your head every tuesday of mourn the death of a well liked neighbour or even family members like zemo? for me , that was the beauty of civil war, because there are no right answers.
Interestingly, I'm an Ultilitarian but still agreed with Cap all the way, on grounds that Tony's approach was unlikely to make things better in a global scale.
I think none of them are wrong. The point is not to decide who's right or who's wrong, but to find a middle ground on which they'll work. Not give up their individuality as a sovereign team itself but rather confirm to a few norms, rules and laws. It's not about limiting or harnessing the power of action the avengers have, but it's to vigil the very power that is neutral to collateral damage. What is best? To be free to help but in doing so, put a display to others that might not do so much good, or to make yourself less available to help, diminishing the collaterals but making opportunity to the ones that were waiting for you to rest?
It's really cool to see the deep meanings and philosophies in mass media and pop culture. These videos are so well done. I learn a lot about the thoughts behind some of my favorite shows/movies/characters, etc. and about all the different schools of thought. I am so glad this channel exists.
I loved the Darth Vader video, why not the Expanded Universe’s favorite character? Thrawn had just as much to do with revitalizing Star Wars as any other part of the franchise. And even in Rebels, Thrawn is still the same. He’s just not fighting the Vong is all.....or was he???
What I don't understand is why people are still hell bent on saying team cap or Tony. The accords and the in fighting was the hook of the story, but the meat of the civil war conflict was Tony vs. Steve and Bucky. That and the lack of trust and communication was the human conflict at the end that really mattered, not whether agreeing with oversight or disagreeing with it was ultimately the right action. It's ultimately an irrelevant point considering this a superhero story and we all know thanos is going to land In the next installments. From that future perspective-the problem wasn't whether or not they signed the accords, the problem was that there was no unity in the team. Divisiveness is a bigger obstacle to success than picking a side and saying it's the best fit for all situation. There has to be flexibility at the end of the day, none of which showed up in the film until it was too late to make a difference. That's the problem
Wow, I thought about this myself, thank you for doing a video about it. In my opinion there are two correct answers about this issue, based on whether or not superheroes are real. 1. If superheroes are real, providing international oversight for superpowers is a must. The potential for collateral damage caused by superheroes can lead to real loss of life. If there is no control, they would be the same as "America World Police". You should not have a super power running around the world going to war with whoever they want willy nilly, like the american military seems to do now. I think international oversight was what the United Nations was supposed to do, however the american military seems to be able to do whatever they want, wherever they want, at all times with little to no oversight. Perpetual war and destruction over resources is wrong, and should be stopped. 2. If superheroes are NOT real (they aren't), then it doesn't matter about governmental control of superheroes. The collateral damage doesn't matter because the lives being lost aren't real, and the destruction makes for a great movie scene. If superheroes are good (they usually are), that means the things they do are intended to save more lives than they might accidentally destroy. Government control and red tape could slow heroes down when they need to be out there meeting the challenges as quickly and directly as possible. That means, in the case of Captain America: Civil War, (despite being more of an Iron Man fan), I have to side with Captain America, because heroes need to be free to save the world. If you make it illegal for them to make quick judgement calls about how to deal with major imminent threats, you make enemies of what are potentially incredibly powerful allies. It is important to remember the difference between real and imaginary, the ideals of the imaginary should not carry over to real world application.
My big problem is that Iron Man's position in this movie simply transitions responsibility from a morally trustworthy group (The Avengers) to a demonstrably untrustworthy group (National governments), and Stark is more than smart enough to know about the people he's dealing with (i.e. the people he formerly to sell weapons to). This isn't driven by real philosophy. Its driven by Stark's desire to escape from responsibility for collateral damage.
Civil War invalidated the entire philosophical argument later though. In the airport fight, we know that there are a bunch of supersoldiers that Cap has to stop, meaning that he is automatically right in that scenario. They changed the focus then, from 'who is correct' to 'save the world'. And at the climax, it was never about their beliefs but more about Tony's loss, Cap's decision and Bucky's life.
Cap should have got the help and agreement of the others too. Going at it alone whether they were right or wrong would have been bad anyway. Lucky zimo's plan was to kill the super soldiers. Otherwise cap and bucky would have been doomed.
Team Cap's position rests heavily on personal responsibility. The potentially destructive freedom that the Avengers have to forcefully bring about their goals is only evil if the individuals within the group have insidious intentions. However, if the intimidating power of the Avengers is wielded with integrity, wisdom and selflessness, then it allows them to be an impressive force for good. Do we trust the goodwill of individuals with power, talent and freedom, or must we shackle them so that the 'greater good' is ensured for the majority? I personally believe that Tony's position of government control over the individual is flawed. As we see in Age of Ultron, he wants to create a shield around the world- whether people like it or not. This seemingly noble ambition has similarities to totalitarianism, and requires individuals to 'tow the line' so that a common agenda may be carried out. I'm with Captain America all the way: individual liberties and personal responsibility are more important than the securities which umbrella authority and conformist agendas may bring.
There's just no right answer. For utilitarianism, when you sacrifice a lesser good for the greater good, it's already something that's going to end poorly for someone. For deontology, it's extreme lawfulness, whether it's universal or personal ethics, will always end with the greater good suffering. And (because I know some people thought this) if we just disassembled the Avengers altogether to keep the collateral damage to a null, then that's also going to bring some negative reaction. Mainly, now that the Avengers challenged the greater forms of "evil" with their mere existence, even if they're gone one day doesn't mean their challengers will. In fact the opposite may occur, and now that there aren't any all-mighty Avengers to stand in their way, their challengers will just go and do as they wish and bring more wanton destruction.
Gosh, this is such a great channel, making a great video for a great movie. I love how you still left the answer to ourselves, like they did with the movie. I truly believe there is no right or wrong, same with many other things in life. The reason that this movie is so great is that it's not set in stone, you can argue with it. And you've done a wonderful rendition of the film. I'm still loving your channel -- and Marvel -- more and more every day :)
Tony Stark wants to save everyone no matter the cost. Steve Rogers is a soldier and knows that it is impossible to save everyone but you should still try. I'm with Steve's opinion but only so far as all actions are intended for the benefit of the whole and not the few. He had to flaunt those rules a bit when helping Bucky but that was a good hunch as he knew something was off and found it to be Nemo.
The problem with "save everyone, no matter the cost" is, of course, that the goal and the cost are in conflict. "Save everyone" is not even achievable, and you're not going to make it *more* achievable by hamstringing those individuals with the power to step in against larger threats. The ethics of a superhero universe and the ethics of our reality are fundamentally distinct. Unfettered power that crosses national borders is a menace IRL, but in superhero realities, you can't let red tape get in the way of stopping Galactus; you can't have the heroes stop chasing the villain because he ran up to Canada and they need to get clearance before they can pursue. And the potential fallout of a superpowered villain going unchecked is far more likely to do Great Harm than any IRL terrorist, even one with access to nuclear missiles. There's such a difference in scale, and in statistical likelihood....
No. You’re not right; this time you’re wrong. The casualties at Sokovia were not “Avengers Collateral Damage”, they were “Ultron Collateral Damage”. The whole problem with this false dichotomy is that, if you were to take the Avengers out of it, you get more death, not less. There is only one Avenger who is responsible for the deaths at Sokovia, and that is Tony-as he was the one who unleashed Ultron, a “suit of armor around the world”; well, now he’s just replaced a robot with a document, but it’s the same shifting of responsibility that he was doing then. Tony doesn’t act out of some adherence to Utilitarianism-he’s motivated purely by guilt. Cap, on the other hand, is not displaying any kind of deontology (ok, maybe with Bucky he does, but not with the Accords)-rather he displays the strongest utilitarianism of them all: if the Sokovian Accords has been in effect at the time that the Sokovia attack occurred, how would they have helped? How would their bureaucracy have sped of the rescue? How would their paperwork have helped save lives? There is no evidence that, in this regard, the MCU is different than our own world with its bureaucracy, and there is no way that such bureaucracy would accelerate response time. If Tony had his way, the Avengers would have had more, not less, “collateral damage”, while Steve is the one looking at realistic and utilitarian options.
the problem with him being motivated by guilt means we have to question the moral content and legitimacy of his actions. when we first meet tony in iron man 1 he lacks conviction and pretty much believes in nothing but himself. sure he may rationalize being an arms dealer as a means to an end for helping to secure world peace, but he's really just feeding his own ego and maximizing his own pleasure. of course later in the movie he changes and he does develop conviction and aspires to live (at least partially) in a way that is truly in service of something greater than himself and his own ego. he continues in this way until we see the ultimate culmination of his work in the creation of ultron. despite what everyone else says, tony is convinced that he is not only right but doing the right thing and decides to act on his conviction by bringing ultron to life. what is the result of this? utter failure. ultron was a horrible idea and tony knows it. he dares to test the limits of his ideas (which is in some ways admirable) and is faced with the empirical evidence that his idea was wrong. fast forward to civil war and what consequences has he faced? none. tony feels guilty about this and rightfully so. his guilt is only increased when has to come face to face with an actual individual that was hurt by his failure. so instead of taking accountability for his own actions and facing the consequences for messing up he asserts that THE AVENGERS are a flawed idea, and that the group needs to be reigned in. this also highlights how he represents appeals to collective authority whereas cap embodies individual freedom, but that's another discussion! anyway, all this seems to suggest that, while sorry for way things turned out, tony is not willing to admit that he was fundamentally wrong and hasn't really changed his position. he does feel bad about this though, and so decides to sign the accords because he is ruled by emotion. in that way, his position and his arguments are both fundamentally weak and should not be accepted, despite whatever merits there may or may not actually be to signing the accords
First of all, Tony didn't created Ultron by himself - people always forget Bruce was there as well. And second, if you gonna play the blame game, that's on Wanda, not Tony. The point is, at that moment, with they leaving a mess and dead bodies missiong after missiong, what could have being done? That's what the movie is about.
Here in the real worldTony would have gone to prison for the rest of his life for all the people Untron, his creation, killed. He also would have lost everything, to pay the civil liabilities for all the damage he caused.
The writing for this movie is magnificent. The film also has one of the best ever action scenes, The airport scene. With the same writers and directors as this film helming the next 2 Avengers films I'm sweating with excitement
the biggest criticism i have of team cap is the fact that their entire point hinges on the avengers being a force of good and the UN a useless bureaucracy. if i was a citizen of a country and some private american military with insane power and no legal consequences came into my hometown (which they will never have to see again and know nothing about the culture of) and destroyed it to chase someone they perceived as evil, i would be livid. the avengers aren’t always going to be good or right about things, and they deserve to be held accountable. not to mention that them being an american force could cause a war if them fighting in a country was seen as invading it. it’s like someone having a privately owned nuke.
I'm sorry, but I was on Tony's side the whole time. I've always been the viewer who watched these movies being like "there are 100% people dying during all of this" and it seems insane that this group of people can just do what they think "is right" without any consequences what so ever. Then captain America proceeds to assault literal cops because of what he thinks is right, while justifying it within his head. He does plenty of things that Kant would have considered off-the-table and we find out at the end that if he had just kept with the other avengers, his friend would have been taken into custody, and the story would have progressed with no conflict because the whole point was to make conflict between the avengers cast. No, listening to the UN is not a PERFECT solution (looking at you CCP!) but claiming that you as an individual have more moral authority than entire countries is the epitome of narcissism, especially if you actually injure the people who are trying to do the actual good work (which he DOES when he beats the crap out of several cops, and causes multiple people to die in car crashes due to the car chase)
You guys should consider doing Hunter x Hunter as a philosophy. It's pretty interesting alone for its deconstruction of the shonen narrative, but the symbolism and the character progression is something I'd like to see a real deep analysis of.
I am almost upset Gran Torino hasn't been wise-cracked. Please do a video on Gran Torino! Clint Eastwood didn't get an Oscar for it but a Wisecrack video on the movie would be close enough!
For me, thie movie is an allegory about the struggle between following my personal convictions / what I think is right for me (even if I lose some friends /teammates in the process because of our different profiles) or keeping a long & perfect friendship / work relationship that can't be replicated again (even if I stop fufilling my personal dreams and needs).
Same. While I see some of the points on Team Iron Man as valid, I'd rather have superheroes respond to world-ending threats with actions and not subcommittee hearings. Two of the incidents mentioned by Ross (and one conveniently left out by him) have proven why oversight cannot be trusted to make the right decision. What sticks me firmly on Team Cap is not just Bucky's innocence from the events of _Civil War,_ but also how shamelessly political Ross gets. It's pretty audacious of the higher-ups to authorize a nuclear missile strike on NYC, then turn around and accuse the Avengers of costing lives when they were the ones to do what Ross and his boys couldn't: *_Stop the alien threat_*
Wish Nick Fury could be there. He'd say something along the lines of, "The Avengers take the world as it is, not as the UN would like it to be. It's damn near past time for you to get with that program, Mr. Secretary."
J .S I think it makes for a more interesting story that the originally rebellious Stark sees how much he’s fucked up in the past and wanting regulation, while patriotic Steve is now paranoid of the government after Winter Soldier and thus is against the Accords
Not to be that guy, but Vision is full of crap. He has a point about their inherent power inviting challenge, but he is wrong both about conflict in general, but also about how the Avengers relate to this particular challenge as well. He knows better than anyone that the Avengers as it exists at that moment were a response to conflict. The Earth was in danger they all had to come together. Their continued existence has brought about conflict without a doubt and even invited challenge from those that would see themselves even more powerful, but the problem with laying all of that out however, means its rather apparent that the very idea of the Avengers themselves mean that most of those horses are long gone out of the barn. It would be like America trying to put the Nuclear genie back in the bottle post Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just not happening. People know said weapon is possible, it exists, there is no taking it back or returning that knowledge to the either. Same thing with superhumans. They exist. So the question automatically becomes "What happens now?" The accords are an obvious attempt by the international community at control, but their reasoning was spotty at best. They hold up collateral damage as an excuse, but the issue becomes how would this have been avoided if the Avengers needed UN sanctioning? Would Aliens have not attacked NYC? Would Hydra have not infiltrated S.H.I.E.L.D.? The only good point they have is Ultron and that should have probably been something that Tony Stark went to prison for. I think *How It Should Have Ended* got things right with them saying that it should be the Tony accords and that everyone would happily sign those.
Is the logic that comic book worlds have that superhero become a thing on is own, a phenomena that exist just because rather a response to villians. Batman begins said better at the end: Batman is a sign of a escalating battle between law and crime, which mean eventuall Crime will form their own version to meet it and it did with the joker. And the problem of Tony getting away with is crap(and Wanda, dont doget it) is why Cap is wrong.
LupineShadowOmega I agree. He made the mistake of treating cooccurrences as causal relationship. That’s some rookie mistake an AI would never make. I blame the writers.
That’s kinda the whole point vision was making about conflict. The avengers were formed due to a conflict but now that that particular conflict is over, why are the avengers still here. Their very presence invites conflict. You mention nuclear weapons. The US was the first to drop a nuclear weapon, that very act caused other countries to developed their own nuclear weapons just because America had one
If the avengers, like in the first movie, just came together for a conflict and then dispersed then I would agree with you. But that is not how they function now, they have a head quarters and they hold frequent small scale missions. The avengers are no more a superhero organization but a Special Ops group, that is the only one of its kind in the world (other than Wakanda of course).
What I love about Civil War (movie) is that it managed to do something that the comic couldn’t, not give an answer. In the comic the Superhuman Registration Act is the winning side and was said to be the right side this entire time. It was sort of hard to believe when Tony kept acting like a villain the entire time, such as locking hero’s in the Forbidden Zone, creating a Thor Clone, making Peter reveal his identity (leading to One More Day), and the death of Captain America. Regardless where one stands with the act, Tony’s action turned readers against them. The movie, on the other hand, stated that both of these philosophy are right and both are wrong. Both Steve and Tony have a points to make, and the movie more shows how these two philosophies cope when neither side is willing to back down.
When anyone argue for the "greater good" it's often to promote a specific ideology, no matter if it is correct or incorrect. The "greater good" convinces people to join in on group think, to not consider thier own convictions and to not think critically of either.
A nice little breakdown of some of the major themes, but it misses some points and gets a few wrong. For example, Tony does NOT believe that oversight will lead to less collateral damage: collateral damage will always be a risk, but he doesn't want to bear the burden of it. His acceptance of the Sokovia accords stems from his feelings of guilt, feelings that he is particularly unable to deal with. Steve, on the other hand, believes in doing the right thing - but more importantly, he believes that he must shoulder the responsibility for the consequences. The ideological conflict stems from the fact that Steve believes in accepting responsibility, whereas Stark doesn't want that burden. I have always found Tony's argument lacking, and difficult to embrace - I can understand his reasons, but I can't accept his hypothesis. Steve does believe in doing what is morally right, regardless of the consequences, *but he is willing to accept the consequences*. (Remember in The First Avenger when he goes off to save Bucky, and when he returns he immediately turns himself in for disciplinary action?) Of course, in this reply I have completely failed to flesh out the nuances of the argument, but hopefully it's enough to make people think about it from a different perspective. At the end of the day, one of Civil War's greatest achievements is the way it stokes conversation about deep and important topics, something that many movies that might consider themselves "above the superhero genre" have tried, and failed, to do in the past. Peace and love, people! xx
The thing is, Bucky would never get a fair trial. He was under mind control the whole time. Even Hawkeye was underneath mind control at one point, yet you see zero people trying to send him to prison after the first Avengers movie.
I felt *Tony* was right on this one. The argument which Cap is making is total nonsense for an outsider who lives in the MCU. How is someone going to feel safe with a bunch of superhumans running around the streets with absolutely zero oversight? Sure we know that the Avengers' morals will never falter but the people don't. What Tony's advocating here makes sense. The Avengers need to be put under check. Cap's hesitant about it (and rightly so) because he's seen institutions like SHIELD being controlled by HYDRA, and has lost trust in government agencies, but Tony does say that even after signing the accords they can negotiate later. By showing resistance and then being caught (which is what happened to Cap's team) puts them in a far worse situation than if they cooperate early on and sign. Pretty much the whole point can be summed up with what Natasha says *If we have one hand on the wheel, we can still steer. If we take it off...* Now this isn't to say Cap's stance on the issue is totally off. The movie would've been quite boring if one of the teams was totally wrong. Anyway, I'm #TEAMTHOR
Great Video! I always found Stark's view to be very compelling, mainly for two reasons: In Age of Ultron, Stark begins working on Ultron because of the enchantment of Scarlet Witch. In Civil War Cap and Stark break out a whole conflict because they have been tricked and played by Zemo. With some kind of governmental oversight it would be way harder for something like this to happen. The overseers AND the Avengers would have to be tricked. And for the second point, imagine you were a citizen of this world and all these ultra powerful beings would float around to their liking. Tell me you wouldn't sleep better if a few rules would apply to them. It's kinda like in Batman V Superman.
@@TheRucksackman because Shield was a top secret group and look what they almost pulled off under Hydra control. and the UN record is not any better. Groups can be corrupted
Cap isnt fighting for his own selfish needs, he’s fighting for the freedom of those with powers. The freedom to not be treated merely as a human weapon, but a real person with special skills (and possibly a thirst to help others) #TeamCap
Tony in Iron Man 2 refused to sign over the rights of the iron man suit or work under the World Security Council, saying that they should thank him for privatizing world peace. In age of ultron he realised that the avengers cannot act freely, given his creation Ultron almost destroys the world. Captain America started out as a soldier for America, and then an agent for SHIELD and WSC. He follows orders to take out what SHIELD deems as terrorist organisations. Then in winter soldier he finds out that Hydra has infiltrated SHIELD and the world security council, and have been pulling strings and deciding fates with capt as an agent to their plans. Tony willingly signs the avengers to become an Amoral agency to the plans of organisations, making them into soldiers that obey orders, even if it was the wrong orders. Steve decides that even if his country says that something wrong is something right and they deem you as a criminal for not following such actions, he has to stand on the side of the moral right. Yes the movies do put us through different plots which show that Tony is right. They don’t show WSC giving corrupt orders. They show cap protecting a wanted criminal. Etc. But we should remember that the outcomes of situations do not define who is right and who is wrong. Rather the ideas and the motivations behind it.
The only complaint I have is Tony not throwing the Harlem incident with Abomination in Gen Ross’ face. That would have bought them more time. When he was showing the Avengers all the destruction he should have shown them that.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
Great analysis. And what's even better is that Steve and Tony got to their positions over the course of several movies and actually from the opposite positions.
Rogers was the original Company Man when it came to serving his country, while Stark bragged to a congressional committee about successfully privatizing world peace. By the time Civil War rolls around, Rogers learns that SHIELD was infiltrated and usurped by Hydra, and Stark has continually had his efforts to make the world safer blow up in his face, e.g. Ultron.
So their positions are not just something they carried with them all along, but something they grew into, by virtue of having seen the alternative fail. Steve's deontology arose from the personal experience of having an "agenda change" under his feet, and so he leans on his own moral compass because it's the only thing he feels he can rely on to do the right thing. Tony wants to have himself reined in because he is confronted with his own failings, and he projects that onto the others, saying they ALL need that check on their powers.
And the beauty of it all, is that neither side is entirely right or wrong in the movie. Ultron wrought havoc during, what, four days of existence? And Rogers was right the entire time about Bucky being a pawn and not a complicit party. And maybe Cap "won" but he and the people who sided with him are fugitives from justice. So everyone's right... and everyone's wrong. Everyone won... and everyone lost.
Agree. Really like how they didn't explicitly state one side of the arguement was 'good' or 'bad'.
Stephen Schaefer spot on man! This is what makes the movie so good. You're able to clearly grasp both perspectives, which is for the most part justified based on what they've experienced. You're able to empathize with both sides, which makes it hard to determine who is right. Is there even a right?
How your very insightful comment isn't given more thumbs up is a freaking crime, Stephen!
The comment's an hour old, the video less than two hours old. I'm sure it will get whatever it gets, including some disagreeable folk. It's also noteworthy that my comment wanders pretty far afield of the Civil War movie, while Wisecrack contained their analysis to the content of the movie itself. So it's kind of a different animal.
More people should read *your comment. I'll also add that Tony's case in particular is interesting. He was the hot-shot billionaire with weapons, but because he had so much power, just as the one guy said. "Power invites conflict, and conflict leads to tragedy" and eventually, someone with ill intentions got a hold of the very weapons that Tony created, and we end up at Civil War where he believes power should be restrained overall. But I would argue that the film Iron Man (2008) says that instead of spreading your power across the world and losing site of your reach, you keep your power in check by limiting it to yourself as an individual. It is like water and a faucet. You don't have to reduce the amount of water that's in the reservoir, you just have to reduce the size of the spout. This concept is manifest as the Iron Suite, so instead of sending out weapons to the places where he thinks best and having others uphold his ideal before him, Tony wears his weapon, keeping it as close to his person as possible, and goes to the battlefield himself and literally embodies his own ideals. And I think that is what Captain became and what Iron Man forgot.
The reason Cap doesn't trust the government anymore because of what happened at CA: The Winter Soldier. He thinks he 's been fighting for the good guys, then it ended up being Hydra all along. That's why he thinks the safest hands is his own.
I agree with Cap for the most part. The government quite often has its own agenda and they arent always fair and just. I think Tony seemed a bit desperate to face penance for his mistakes in the past and forgets there are some things you can't control. Giving in the Sakovia accords was something he did under the guise of "taking responsibilty." but like Cap said it takes responsibility out of your hands.
But it is un not any government
Rambo Luib I don’t think it’s only that. Think about the whole MCU. Pretty much a good chunk of the gov or villain ended up in corruption. So I think everyone’s experience played in on cap.
@@blacktee31 Tony is fearful ever since Ultron because of that 'dream' from the scarlet witch because of Thanos
@@silverfish1924 Yea I'm sure that played a big part in it too.
The problem is that there is no right answer. It just changes where the collateral damage falls. Loki's invasion was only contained so quickly because he did it in the city the Avengers live, but, even then, it doesn't stop the fact that hundreds of people probably died. The accords would have been easy to follow in this scenario, but ultimately pointless as the decision would have been the same, just postponed by an hour or two. Which, I would like to point out, could have been a fatal amount of time.
Worse yet, Ultron's whole plan hinged on planetary travel and secrecy. Who would the accords have contacted for permission to act in certain countries when Ultron could have been in the Internet it'self, negating any and every boarder. Then, when his plan was found out, asking permission to act would have cost precious time, and possibly lost the fight, causing irreversible damage to the planet as a whole.
It's true. A single team having this much power is EXTREMELY dangerous, but bureaucracy has it's own major flaws too. The Team may be a loose canon, but they can move quickly and act derisively. For better or worse, the damage caused is directed at the Team's enemies. The bureaucracy may be able to mitigate some of the collateral, or at least make it more palatable when it does happen, but the shifting agendas, greed and ignorance, and system of checks and balances is a lumbering behemoth of a system who wastes time in the debating, causing more destruction in the long run.
Both aren't right. Both aren't wrong. They only change who is in charge and who is at fault for when the explosion's happen and the bodies pile up. People forget all the time, this world isn't a place where perfection can exist. Humanity, or Nature, doesn't exist in that way. There will always be risk to everything. You can only mitigate it. Trust in the good people to do good work, but understand they aren't perfect people. They will make mistakes. Or, like what happened to Scarlet Witch, situations will arise where there is no good answer and human instinct will dictate the outcome. We live in a world that can be cruel. The way to survive in it is not focus on the loss, but to remember what you have, have had, and will do for the future.
Nick K I agree on that.I feel that there are better ways to handle situations without arguing with each other on who's right. Whether it's the government or the Avengers as a team on how we protect ourselves or the people.
Ultimately I think Captain America is right. In the real world legalized human trafficking continues because entities from the troubled teen industry find ways to do it legally. In a fantastic world all Doctor Doom has to do is operate from a country offering him a safe haven. Captain America saw this right from the beginning. He knows injustice is injustice and it doesn't matter what rules you have to break to fight it.
Ultron wouldn't even have existed if Tony had been more careful.
Except Tony is capable of feeling guilt. Real bad guys will drag you from your bed and have no humanity to feel guilty about it.
But what about when he's wrong? Like when he was ultimately helping Hydra? Or when a building gets blown up under his watch? Who is the Evil he's supposed to be fighting when even the governmental organization he serves is corrupted from the inside? Who does he fight then? And why? What, then, makes him different than the people he's fighting? Just because it's in America's interests doesn't make it good.
The point of my whole entry was that there IS no right answer. It doesn't exist. There is only what is palatable, manageable, and just. Captain America is a soldier. A good one to be sure. But soldiers don't make governments. Governments make soldiers.
Team Captain America is about freedom of the individual. Team Iron Man is about the security of the group. Two ideals that will clash endlessly as the world tries to figure out globalization.
Wise words.
Well, at least it's better than "Team Iron Man as fascist oversight group with dated views on law enforcement by having a Norse god to slay an unarmed black man" (aka heroes according to Mark Millar), or "Team Cap the continuing giving jobs to untrained teenage heroes even after a neighborhood was exploded due to this and compare oversight to slavery" (aka heroes according to JMS).
I think it's less about "freedom versus security", and more about "interventionism versus isolationism." The Sokovia accords don't hinder Cap's personal freedom in any way - they only affect his ability to punch other people.
Guy R I personally think Cap vs Iron Man is more akin to "state militia rights versus completely federalized military". Both sides can be incredibly dangerous.
ziqi92 I think you’re right on the money, good job
Love to see how Cap deontolgy aproach continues in Infinity War with the “We dont’t trade lives” line
If that wasn't something obvious...
Emilio Guerrero Barrera
And then a certain man of Iron trades his life for everyone else’s.
Good god, that’s poetic...
@@GriffintheBased Tony was on the way to titan when Cap said that they didnt meet since they beat each other at the end of Civil War until Endgame.
yet they trade tonys life...
he won't unless it's his own life.
"There's a giant spaceship hovering over New York! Quick, call a session of the UN Security Counsel!"
and when the damn session is held they decide to frikin nuke the city..way to go guys....yay...
That is how exactly how it goes
There wouldn't have been The Avengers if it hadn't been for Thanos sending Loki, so Vision was full of crap.
@jphilly819 Somewhat no...watch it again and give thought to what thor said "your work with the
tesseract is what true Loki to it and his allies it is a signal to all the realms of the earth is ready for a higher form of war "
The avengers were the one one who had to fight and suffer the consequence because of SHIELDS interaction
@jphilly819 Loki was already planning on taking Midgard (earth) whether the avengers were existing or not, and maybe even bringing Thanos down into the nine realms early on if the rest of Midgard continues to resist LATER on.
So no, that argument you used doesn’t work here.
"You try and save as many as you can. Sometimes that doesn't mean everyone." - Captain America
But you don't give up
Captain bitchrica sucks
@@human3213 L take
There is no right side here. The "correct" stance would be to take a bit of each side and strive for a balance, fine tuning at the behest of the situation. Otherwise you risk falling in the excess of either side.
This is correct. If you look at current world politics, especially when dealing with foreign policy and military actions, you are on the side of the current thought of Israel. To put it into perspective of the movie, the whole team sits down together and makes an understanding that they will sign the accords under the premise that they will do good and listen in all situations to the matters at hand.
However, cap said in the movie, "what happens if we are needed somewhere the accords wont send us, or worse if they send us somewhere we are not needed." This is where the team can overrule inside their own ranks and ask for forgiveness later. In this aspect, the avengers would turn into an NGO under the direction of the UN. Whenever their own ideas are challenged or if they need to act fast to prevent something or fix an issue, they act immediately and then when confronted, say, "my bad, end justifies means, evidence, we'll do better next time, carry on.
The part that gets me on this whole thing is that Tony was faced with this exact premise at the beginning of Iron Man 2. The government wanted his suit, he told them no...Rhodes offered a compromise to fold him into the existing chain of command (I'd consider secretary of defense if the hours were ammended lol). Instead, he shrugged it off, told them that they can't have his personal property, but told them that his means are justified as the attacks in the world went down (evidence) and he has privatized world peace...carry on
That line of thinking is a little too mature for most of the world.
In today's time world has to start becoming mature
Anderson Zerloti no the right side is cap because iron man is either directly or indirectly responsible for every single problem ever, and you dont see cap flying to another country and just killing terrorists, at least not in the way iron man does it ever since the first movie.
Sebastian Ramirez Cap was in anti terror groups during winter soldier and in civil war hunting terrorists
I’m Team Capt. and that is from what Rogers said in Winter Soldier “You’re holding a gun to everyone on earth and calling it protection, This isn’t freedom this is fear”
Mitch TheMilitaryCollector the nature of superheroes is itself a gun to everyone’s head. You cant defend absolute freedom in a world with those characteristics.
The manage of the avengers on a global scale although great for the movie it’s truly irresponsible and absurd.
Reducing everything to “colateral damage” it’s ridiculous
He also said said he compromised like hell during WW2
The Avengers operating independently of any oversight (against the will of 200+ countries) and causing innocent deaths and collateral damage in an effort to "protect the world" is more in line with that quote than the Sokovia Accords. #teamironman
@@thek2despot426 As it working with the United Nations would help...
_The Winter Soldier_ film shaped Captain America into what we saw later in the _Civil War_ film. Cap really didn’t know what to do with his life anymore ever since he woke up from the ice and became a man living outside of his own time. So what does he do? Well naturally, when you’re in an unfamiliar place, the first thing you ever do is look for something familiar, simply find anything or anyone at all that you know. However, everyone he once knew was either already dead or literally about to die and the whole world that he lived in was now unrecognizable to him. The only thing left in the world that he found to still be familiar was his old job, being a Soldier.
Cap naturally decided to join up with SHIELD because it was very familiar to the same military lifestyle he led when he was fighting our nation’s enemies in WW2. He was a typical boy-scout that was all about following orders and enforcing the will of SHIELD because he knew it was all in order to maintain peace and security. However, as the events of that film went on though, he later discovered how much of SHIELD and the government had become subtlety infiltrated over the years in secret. It was then that he realized how easily government oversight could become corrupted under people’s noses and why that was so dangerous; or how any organization could be infiltrated and twisted into something else, which then uses the people with good intentions in it without their knowledge.
This is why by the time the events of _Civil War_ come along that Cap has so little trust in being controlled by more government oversight again. Cap has no idea who might one day be controlling those governments from behind the scenes and if some of them may already have ill intentions. Captain America is apprehensive to give up his individual autonomy to make decisions and freewill to help the people he chooses because he doesn’t want to revert back into becoming the pawn that he was during Winter Soldier. In the end, even Ironman realizes this to an extent as well, but he knows that it’s too late for him to do anything and he already made his own decision that he needs to keep. So that’s why Tony secretly chooses to help release all the locked up Avengers even though they had sided against him with Cap.
I'm team Cap all the way, I'm not necessarily against oversight, but I don't blindly trust it either.
Cap is the same, he wasn't 100% opposed to any oversight, on principle, he was open to the idea, but rejected it when he saw all the human right abuses that they engaged in, which is a pretty clear sign that this oversight was going to be completely useless, and that keeping control in their own hands was the better option.
For example, they weren't going to "take in" Bucky, they were going to shoot on sight, based on grainy camera footage. They also laughed off requests for lawyers, have a secret prison compound, etc.
(Does anyone seriously believe that this oversight was going to be MORE worried about collateral damage, than the Avengers are? Remember when SHIELD's oversight tried to nuke Manhattan?)
I started watching a little of the series Arrow, because Michael Emerson (Harold Finch from Person of Interest, my current fandom) plays a role in the sixth season. And they deal with that "secret compound" thing by having a supposed good guy group (run by the wife of a main character; I only started near the end of the fifth season so I don't know if she's also a main character or not) hold a man captive with no government oversight at all.
When she gets called out on her bullshit, she actually puts up a not indecent fight, but I still can't accept a rationale that allows people held extrajudicially and secretly, with no checks and balances and public awareness. Even in a superhero world, that's sketchy.
snapgab Exactly, I don't see how anyone can legitimately side with Iron Man on this issue, long term anyway.
Cap rejected it before the abuse of power in your argument. The scene with oversight occurs before Bucky. He rejects it before the bombing while he is at Peggy Carter's funeral. The power abuse of others only occurs after this. The decision was to stand down or fight for Bucky, not about weather or not to sign the accord. Cap was never going to sign. He doesn't trust anyone but himself and Bucky (and maybe Falcon). Its a pretty dark comment on those in power not listening to citizens. He is the worst kind of moral elitist. All that said, I love Cap and I hate what this movie did to him. He was made to fight for the little guy and hates bullies but he is the biggest bully in this movie.
snapgab I want you to take the case of the Iraq invasion in 2003. Rogers' approach of Realism is what enabled America and friends to go ahead and topple a country and kill a leader because of an *_illusion_* of nukes that was denied by Hussein before the invasion. The invasion was deemed illegal by the UN. Without oversight, the US went in and fucked the region sideways. Iraq has only now been able to deal with ISIS, has very unstable politics and has grown resentment for the West because they fuck up everything they touch because they think they're all powerful. This resentment bred Terrorism. It created ISIS, Boko Haram, other terrorist organisations because the US was trigger happy and had no oversight. The US has killed *far* more people than would have died under the rule of Sadam Hussein, without a shadow of a doubt. Rogers' approach to the use of the Avengers is like that but with no illusion of any rules whatsoever. "Go In, fuck shit up, leave, make a movie out of it" seems to be what Rogers wants to Do, and it's an incredibly destructive and short sighted way of handling things.
He is looks stubborn on sokovia accord, coz as you seen in winter soilder the shield itself look powerful bt crubble inside coz wrong people are in charge for shield. This could happen to with sokovia accords.
Cap is like old grandpa which gives his opinion, sometime it feel salty to us. Bt many time we ignore him coz, we don't want hurts anyones "FEELINGS". Bt he is old school, he seen or been in things that make him visualize the difference between good and bad.
It is better to fail at doing the right thing
Than to succeed in doing the wrong
Related: As tailsteak put it, a Lawful Good perspective has Good as the aim, Lawful as the means, and when the two come into conflict, it's better to accomplish Good by means of Chaos than stick by Lawful and see Evil happen.
Some time deciding what is right is most difficult thing to do.
Thanks for this. My original interpretation was more simple: Cap represents an objective morality. There is a right and a wrong, and people should do what they need to do in support of the right. Stark represents democracy where people decide what's right and wrong. This video adds a new layer on top that makes it more ambiguous as to which "team" is more correct.
This video made me more conflicted as to who I believe was right, but at the same time, made me enjoy the movie more. And it was already my favorite Marvel movie!
BK that's your opinion. Trust me, there are plenty for philosophers that have a problem with moral relativity.
Team Iron Man is morally sound.
@@li-limandragon9287 no it's not. The Accords are evil
@Clippy "There's no such thing as objective morality or immorality. Also Cap is immoral for pushing his worldview on others.... wait."
Team Cap:
What would people say if Ultron destroyed the earth and the Avengers didn’t help? Nothing, they would all be dead!
Yeah that’s the frustrating part about the movie. Cap doesn’t stand up when the secretary go all “New York...” “Washington...” like wtf? What are they supposed to do? There’s a whole city flying into the sky.
The rule doesn't say the avengers can never go and help, it says they need permission before they go and help
@@orange-one And cap stated "What if we needed somewhere but we arent allowed to or when we dont want to and they order us to go regardless?" Not whit the same words too lazy to look it up.
Ultron wouldn't have existed if Tony and Bruce didn't take it upon themselves to develop "a suit of armor around the world" without input from anyone else. Ultron was a problem created by the Avengers, specifically Tony and Bruce, and therefore every bad thing that Ultron did was directly their fault
Cap for the win! (+Sorry for bringing your like count to such an embarrasing one
The Sokovia Accords made fighting Thanos even harder because the avengers were split.
Yes... they blocked the avengers’ secret weapon. Hawk Eye.
Avengers 1: Hawk Eye present... they won!
Avengers 2: Hawk Eye present... they won!
Civil War - Hawk Eye is on Cap’s team... Cap’s team side won!
Avengers 3: Hawk Eye under house arrest due to the Accords... they lose!
Avengers 4: Hawk Eye back in business... they Win!
@@masukuma Hawkeye wasn't under house arrest in Avengers 3, he was enjoying retired life with his family.
@@AQuestioner During the events of Infinity War - when Bruce asks Nat where Clint is, she states that after the whole accords situation both Scott and Clint took a deal and are on house arrest.
@@AQuestioner you can literally see his ankle monitor in endgame
#TeamGhostRider
Nick Cage!!!!!!!
I didn't see this coming.
Nicolas Cage
HELL YES
MrCaCaaaaaaaaa Who are you!? Go away creep!
BOOO your movies suck
The answer to this question depends on whether or not you believe humanity is inherently selfish or inherently altruistic. That depends largely on culture, environment, and personal experiences. Liberalist ideals only work if the collective will is consistently for the collective good. Realist ideals only work if the hegemon (eg The US, Avengers) will also behave in a consistent altruistic manner. If you put selfish players in either ideal then neither ideal will work. Neither system is perfect and there will always be those who disagree with what is decided.
Actually, human morals vary situationally, and individually, so any philosophy that says we are all inherently anything is likely to cause harmful mistakes, like we saw in the movie, such as a frame-up, bureaucratic pressure and political infighting in a superhero team.
Darla Lathan That's the point Cap was making. That's why it's dangerous to tie up their hands and put all the heroes on the books with a bunch of power hungry, fickle humans potentially running the show. As we saw there were people behind the scenes moving to use that for their own ends. Unless there's some sort of fail safe, the heroes on the books become attack dogs for only God knows what, which defeats the purpose of signing the agreement.
I see where Tony's coming from, I really do. But in their world, most shit is probably controlled by Hydra, 10 rings, the Hand, Serpent Society and various other shadow organization so if I have to choose between these unknowns, who decided the best course of action in the battle of New York was to fire a god damn nuke in the middle of it, and the avengers, who I trust will work their best to at least mitigate damage and save who they can REALISTICALLY, then I have to side with Steve
Nevermind that Stark's side supports profiling individuals based on inherent abilities, including genetic and racial traits.
Hes only coming from there because he helpled slaughter 177 innocent people
+Christopher Meacham
What are you talking about?
krusnik94 it's hard for the rich guy Tony to see that because he's mingled with those types of people who run the world. Cap is a poor man who gained extraordinary abilities who still kept his sendibilities about elites and their motivations.
sion8
The Sakovia Accords (a marvel studios equivalent of the 20th Century Fox licensed mutant registration act) requires that any human with enhanced abilities who does not sign on be confined indefinitely. Some humans with enhanced abilities do not have them by choice and cannot disable their abilities and do not wish to be licensed to exist by permission of their government.
That’s all good and all, but what about Martha?
😂😁😁😁
WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME!?
Wrong movie brother.
lol
Asking the real questions
The issue with using superheros as an allegory for powerful countries is that in real life, there aren't countries that you could say are "supervillains" that oppose them and threaten the overall future of humanity.
When it comes to real world politics, I'm definitely Team Ironman. But if every country that should be opposed was on the level of Nazi Germany a few months away from nuclear weapons and global domination, I'm for sure switching to Team Cap. The context of the world is too big a piece of the puzzle for it not to have been mentioned in this kind of discussion.
But like real life, the story is told from "perspectives". Who objectively decides who the bad guys are? Is Thanos a bad guy? And how is he different from Harry Truman?
@@WordsMatter1982 Yes Thanos is a bad guy. He's different because he's a badly-written cartoon villain who just wants to kill half of everyone. To compare him to a non-powered human president making difficult choices in difficult situations is inherently stupid.
Except some people also agree with thanos
@@Szanth bro. You fucking murdered him.
@@fightingmedialounge519 low IQ people who don’t know the basics of Economics.
Civil War is a very well thought out and deep film. It's my favorite comic book movie even above The Dark Knight and Logan
the Accords did not only advocate for the Avengers NOT operating without permission of national or international councils and governments. it additionally tried to enforce the Avengers following the orders of the government. or be punished for disobeying orders. so on top of being regulatory and restrictive of their movements, it also attempted to 'enlist' them as a 'weapon' to use for their...agendas.
this is problematic on two fronts:
1. they are not government employees. they have no contract or being paid by any government. yes, any private security organization is not allowed to operate within foreign borders without invitation or at least permission BUT, as a private organization, they can refuse to take the contract and respond with 'naah, i'll pass'. The Avengers were not given that...luxury, which is absurd, as they are private citizens and not regular army.
2. this does not happen in our world. this happens in a universe where Hydra had infiltrated even such an organization as the World Security Council and had control or influence on various agencies and governments all around the world. this is a world where the official governing authority had authorized a nuclear strike on New York, one of the largest cities in the world, and were willing to kill millions of civilians without even having intel or any knowledge on whether said strike and sacrifice of said million civilians would at least stop the greater danger of the alien invasion. in that world, New York would have been a radioactive crater and the aliens would have taken over the planet anyways, if the Avengers hadn't been there. So in practice they have been shown to have a. a better plan than the official authorities, and b. more care for civilian casualties.
soooo maybe they would have accepted to be controlled by a government. maybe. if that government hadn't proven to be ruthless and cavalier when it comes to their citizens, corrupt, and advocating for law and order when they themselves can throw it out the window when it suits them (ordering the execution of James B. Barnes aka the Winter Soldier without sufficient evidence of guilt, refusing him a trial when apprehended, imprisoning the Avengers -aka private citizens- in a black site with no trial or any due process etc etc etc)
sorry this is so long...
You forgot to mention how corupt the United Nations has been in our world. Numerous scandals that no one has been arrested for as far as I know. Either way, diplomatic immunity usually allows for people in charge to get away with horrible crimes in countries of diplomatic interest.
The nuclear strike is definitely inexcusable
Except the likes of tony, thor, and wanda have shown the avengers not to be best when it comes to handling power either.
Long philosophical breakdowns are the reason I'm here. The video had to leave out what you talked about to put the ideas they wanted to showcase on display, but you are right.
@Gaius Wyrden it makes perfect sense to me. Government Officials Panic and decide to use weapons when they know they won't be charged for it. They don't see it as their problem.
After seeing infinity war, i remain on caps side. A extreme amount of regulations and restrictions only destroys the greater good and cannot be a positive action.
Philosophy of Code Geass please
Mr. Otaku If you want a good video about Code Geas philosophy and morality, go to Alecsandxr's recent video (if you haven't of course) you will love it. :3
Oh pleaseeeee do this!
It's arguable that Tony as well was adhering to personal feelings when he was driven by the guilt of Ultron and his own actions. His willingness to surrender responsibility to the government is shortsighted in its own way as well.
Exactly. Instead of dealing with his own feeling of guilt, he decided the solution was give responsibility to others, so it would never be "his fault" again. Instead of acting like a "grown-up" and fully taking accountability for his actions, he would rather hand it to some form of abstract "parental figure".
I know that is a little simplistic, but that is essentially what Tony Stark is doing.
The sovereign borders excuse is pure bullshit because the Avengers enemies are not going to wait for them. Also the Sokovia Accords is not going to reduce casualties or collateral damages, the Accords it just a big excuse to take control over the Avengers.
the Sokovia accords is made by those who have no power, a way to control the 'Gods' among the Mortals
@Gaius Wyrden The Avengers are not thinking that they can do whatever they want. They are doing what is right since their enemies are not going to wait for them to have permission to enter into a sovereign border.
Also Tony have zero right to criticize the rest of the Avengers.
@Gaius Wyrden Tony created Ultron without letting the other Avengers know about Ultron's existent, and he never bothers to make a fail-safe in case Ultron becomes rogue.
There are many other stuff Tony did that end in disaster, so Tony has no right to criticize the other Avengers.
The other Avengers are doing the best to reduce disaster during a fight, so it is not their fault that many people die.
@Gaius Wyrden I know that, but it doesn't change that Tony has no right to criticize the rest of the Avengers. And doesn't change that Tony should be held accountable for all his mistakes and yet he is walking free from them.
@Gaius Wyrden Tony lost any right to criticize the Avengers when he made many "mistakes". Criticize someone for doing something wrong while you are also doing something wrong yourself is very hypocritical on your part. Is like when you are criticizing a smoker while you are smoking yourself. So it doesn't make sense that Tony is criticizing the Avengers when he is the one who is guilty of Ultron's actions.
Also, the Avengers have done nothing wrong to deserve all the hate for the public. They all did the best to save the day, the only time that they did something wrong was when Scarlet Witch blows up a building, but that was an accident. Anything else is not the Avengers' fault since it is not their fault that Loki decides to invade Earth, and it is not their fault that Ultron decides to become evil.
Ultron's actions it is Tony's fault and not the Avengers, they do not have the knowledge that Ultron even existed since Tony decides to keep it a secret. The Avengers did all they could to stop Ultron and to stop Loki. So both Tony and the Governments have not right to criticize the Avengers.
Team Thor
aydooknow Team Loki
Revengers?
I love how there's not only one conflict in this movie and that the MCU prior to the movie established the characters so well. Steve feels he has an obligation to protect Bucky, personally, politically he feels his hands are the best ones to respond to a crisis and he knows he cant trust institutions or governments to do the right thing all the time. Bucky is conflicted in having killed people and he feels he doesnt deserve imprisonment, Tony feels the weight of the collateral damage (Charlie Spencer), but in Iron man he took it upon himself to stop being a merchant of death. Rhodey is a soldier, Natasha wants to keep everyone together, Wanda feels responsible for Lagos and her home, Clint owes Wanda, Peter wants to side with Tony Stark but he is against the accords as he says "those things happen because of you" since, just like Steve, he doesnt want to let bad things happen and he takes it upon himself to become a super hero to save people as his first mission, Tony took him out of that way and involved him in crime fighting by arresting team cap, Vision thinks of the collective good, TChalla wants revenge then catches the real culprit and decides not to take it against Zemo, Sam ... Sam. Sam is also a realist like Steve who had to go against Shyieldra ? Hank also sides with cap logically because he stole from a big capitalist to give baack to the poor, he's a criminal but that doesn't stop him from doing the right thing
Beautiful movie
I wanted to cry several times
This movie is great because you know where your morals lie but you can't categorically side with one group of person or another because of how personnally involved these movies made us with their characters. Reminds me of that conflict in GOT the loot train attack, dont kill bronn, dont kill Drogon, dont kill Jaime, dont kill Dany, you dont know whom you can bear to see lose, be injured or die
Andrianarinivo I think you mean Scott, not hank
OHHH MY GOD! Yes yes yes.... i had thought orgasm as refer GOT loot train attack here. Becoz same situation are in both Captain america CW and that perticulat episode of GOT. Whom to trust, for whom i should envy or support? Its all called story and character built up. As we speaking MCU for now, i see character building as same as me getting mature with them(coz i m seeing this from collage time when we all try to be cool as Iron man bt not feel responsible like captain rogers). I am on all the way cap side coz he is right about having morally right and understand power of own, which make sure him the power used for wrong agenda as shield used by wrong agenda people.
Bt also feel pain of dividation from iron man side, when he say to cap "I m trying to stop tearing avengers apart" and their power should oprated under people of world. If that easy enough, i think UN have done some work on world peace(which is not possible for sure till last 2 man standing agaist each other on face of earth).
At last bit of movie, as soon as personal matters come in light, iron man become same exact position where Zemo was standing. which seek revenge and kill bucky. Bt rogers knews, he the only one can return back safely coz his relationship toward bucky is strong and not killed him(as we seen in winter soilder movie).
Looking forward for Infinity war, bt Civil war always be my favorite in MCU.
I believe there is no right answers.
I traditionally don’t agree with utilitarianism, especially in this case, and the movie shows us why it can go wrong. The utilitarian approach might rationalize what happened in sokovia but it bred more conflicts, as well. But at the same time, deontology isn’t always practical and we are looking for a practical answer here.
Anyway, Bucky was innocent!! He just wanted some damn plums!! Stucky for life!!!!
The film really shows how both philosophies lose their meaning when you lose sight over what the actual result of any one action is. Cap protects Bucky because he can't know what will happen to him if he doesn't. Ironman chases after Cap because he can't trust Cap won't make things worse for everybody. Neither of their philosophies end up helping anybody in the end.
But at least, the Sokovia accords promise some sort of stability. Their actions fail to solve anything, but their words, by signing the accords, make a difference.
Onin the sokovia accords are just an extension of what the UN is doing currently. They do a lot of wrong and cover up stories when it serves their interests. But it’s a little long to explain in here. Just like Cap, I don’t trust this kind of big government oversight. I mean remember what happened in New York? The government wanted to nuke the city because it seemed impossible to stop the invasion. If the Avengers were working under the accords at that time, and if the UN agreed with the US government, NYC would have been destroyed, with all its citizens. Not only that but how would have they consulted all the 100+ countries that signed the accord during the invasion and make a good decision in time?
The UN is just an extension of the US at this point, and most of the wars the US have been involved in recently were motivated by money or oil. I wouldn’t be ok with the avengers destroying countries in the Middle East for oil, and neither would they.
Not completely innocent. Mind controlled yes but hes murdered and hospitalised a lot of people.
GritsnBeans he has no control over his actions. How can someone be responsible for something he had no control over?
Eli N.S because the actions still cost the lives of innocent people. Control or not, if YOU commit the crime, YOU will pay. You can say that he had no control over his actions, but if that’s the case, then that person is STILL dangerous.
I think Tony Stark was so ready to embrace the accords because he's the one that unleashed Ultron on the world and he feels responsible. Which he most certainly is, but he implicates all the over Avengers in has pursuit of absolution. He never really owns what he's done he instead tries to spread the blame around to all the members of the team.
Yes. But they forgot to mention it in the movie which is weird as fuck
Why not make an opposite version of the accords?
Let them do what they want, but if the UN tells them to stop they have to agree.
DabIMON that's just as problematic
DabIMON that is literally the exact same thing. then the UN would still have the choice of whether the Avengers should be used or not
It's like giving the president of the US the power to intervene, and then get Congressional approval. Once we enter a situation, we aren't pulling out, regardless of the Congress, or NATO or the UN.
I’m not against the accords in theory, but I don’t like the specifics. Just ask Rwanda whether or not the UN can be trusted with “the collective good.”
@Democratic Communist how about stopping it all.
im on ultrons side.#teamultron
Darksithbenni finally someone who gets it
#TeamLoki
"They're doomed" -Ultron
All human are equally worthless
There are no strings on me...#ultron
I don’t think there really are easy answers.
Robert McKinnon, sometimes there are easy answers. Stark's side supports profiling individuals based on inherent abilities, including genetic and racial traits. Captain America fought against such things in WWII. Easy decision.
I get people are sad/mad that their loved ones were killed in these various catastrophies, but the alternative is the Avengers do nothing and the bad guys win. And if they have to wait for the UN to give the go ahead, an entity that has come under scrutiny multiple times for being slow to act and having too many competing interests, it could take an amount of time that could lead to hundreds or even thousands more lives being lost or the worst-case scenario: the bad guy wins because the hero(s) were too late. That's why I was and still am team Cap. It's not perfect but it seems better than Iron man's alternative.
Thank you! When I saw the woman who was mad at Tony in the movie, I understood her point, but the entire world would have been gone if they had not done this.
Yeah I understand your point and I agree but losing a loved one especially for the greater good is painful. It’s like if you lost your best friend but every one else lived your definitely going to blame someone
Then why not blame the random monsters that attacked the city, to me blaming Tony for trying to save them is harsh. Everything was beyond the Avenger's control and it bothered me to see this woman blaming the man who tried to protect everyone from the threat they should be blaming them on.
Not saying we don't need the avengers. But had they done nothing, ultron wouldn't have been created in the first place
This goes credit to HISHE, but the government is capable of being criminals since they wanted to nuke Manhattan due to the Chitauri.
Best political analysis of the movie to date.
This also makes the assumption that the UN is trustworthy
Josh Takacs which it's clearly not, nor has it really ever been trustworthy...
Josh Takacs
Which it is.
It is. We don't have a WW3 yet.
trisha Hernz that’s because a war with nuclear weapons would kill the political calls too. Not because of the UN. It’s easy to send people to die when you don’t have to face it.
Just a quick comment: In the universe of the avengers, the superhero cat is out of the bag. Assured destruction by the hands of the avengers is not enough to discourage super-powered villains, but if the avengers were to decrease in effectiveness (or dissappear), then more super-powered villains would show up more and more often.... creating more issues and tradgedy. There is no way to win at this.
Team thanos : wtf are those children arguing? I'd just wipe them out of existence. See children? Don't bicker around too much.
LOL.
As a philosophy major and an ardent fan of comics, let me just say that I enjoyed this segment more than anything I've seen on TH-cam in a long time.
Well, this film is twice as good as I first realised.
Jamin Jedi they didn't even cover the fill scope of the themes at play in this movie. There's enough material they didn't even address that they could seriously do a second part to this video and be completely justified.
Why was the movie garbage though? I thought it had its action, drama, and philosophical themes in check. It had a wide array of characters with different agendas who ultimately had to choose a side in the dichotomy. I am a bit bitter that it didn't include more characters but that's beside the point.
Wait a minute, I'd argue that you got the international doctrines reversed. It's actually teamStark the realist one, because with their attempt to limit foreign intervention they give priority to sovereignty, which is more or less the founding principle of realism.
Meanwhile, teamCap is the liberal one, because they put ideals over pragmatic thought (one might say "realist thought"), chasing what they perceive as evil regardless of borders and sovereignty, enacting a kind of behaviour called "Responsibility to protect" which is tipical of Liberal hegemonies like the post cold war USA, that through its (alleged) quest for global democracy and human rights has violated foreign sovereignty many times.
BTW, this is not intended to be a critique of the USA, i just used it as an example.
TheMrMayoyo I thought it was weird it shouldn't been reverse
I think it's important to acknowledge that these videos are written by people who are interested more in Philosophy and not IR theory (Calling someone a Realist and than relating them to Kantian moral philosophy demonstrates this to a degree). I think you make some good points though. Although, I would suggest that in this film Tony Stark is closer to Neo-liberal institutionalism. Cap, does not represent Realism though. For the most part, the Realist pantheon (in IR Theory) represents a rejection of morality limiting actions in the international realm and he would only be concerned with threats to US power or the Survival of the US states.
Disclaimer: I'm not a massive fan of the MCU and have only seen civil war on the TV while I was doing a few other things.
TheMrMayoyo - I think it depends on whether you consider the Avengers to be actors in the international system (like states), or more analogous to an NGO.
If they are independent actors, you could consider Stark a liberal/neoliberal in the sense that he believes that the Avengers' agency is/should be constrained by rules, while Cap is a realist because he doesn't believe in checks being placed on their sovereignty.
If the Avengers are more like an NGO, then I agree with your assessment.
thank god i found this comment i thought i was the only 1
My answer would be to sign the accords and then take bets on how long it takes for it to become necessary to break them.
@@Kharis- an amazing point, although how would you suggest they answer to the public?
@@Kharis- Beyond Ultron, im not quit understanding how its their dault the cites get leveled and lives are lost. The chitari invasion was nothing but them saving as many as possible, the sacovia incident was literally not their fault in the slightest and Hydra infiltrating shield had nothing to do with them as well. Blaming the avengers for the collateral of dangerous events isnt exactly fair and neither is expecting them to take full responsibility for every life that is lost. They’re only human.
@@Crazieyboy15 this is one of many major problems in the film. It's such a contrived point. This movie should have ended 10 minutes in, with Tony hacking Ross' stupid presentation and putting up images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki like he would have done if he still had the same spine he did in IM2.
In this debate, I've always sided with Steve for primarily two reasons: MCU-wise, when we most government isituationed up either controlled or being used by the like of Hydra and AIM-and add that the movie seems to imply you would need almost unanimous agreement of the UN nations-good luck stopping any serious threat before they have most of their plan completed. Second, when most of the DC/Marvel shows Earth to be on the whole not too much more advance than RL earth of the issue release, I compare the major world goverments trying to treat superpowered indivuals beyond Steve Rogers and maybe Iron Man as just another force that the old rules still work when that is at best the average staues of alians-to say nothing of beings like Odin and Thanos...it's like a midivial city or eroupean nation trying to maintain status quo if they had to deal with a 21st century state in terms of ability to respond and deal with large scale threats. Ya, sorry America/Russia/China, Thanos is not going to care where on nation starts and another end and not wait for you to agree if your only real threats are allowed in before continuing his plan.
that cause them to lose to thanos
Nah
Ironman s idea was better
Avengers created their own villains
@@human3213 but the opposite is also true.
Tony would have never been Iron Man if Obadiah didn't try having him killed.
Steve wouldn't have become captain America if the Red Skull and Hydra didn't exist.
The Guardians of the Galaxy wouldn't exist without The like of Thanos and Ego.
One creates the other, only difference is that the good guys genuinely try to make the world a better place, while the bad guys do the opposite.
I always think back to the end of The Dark Knight where Bruce Wayne finally comes to the conclusion that in order to truly be the dark knight, he needs to operate based on what's best for Gotham to maintain the people's hope for a better future. Even if that means taking the blame for the deaths of innocent people and Harvey Dent, Gotham has an outlet for they're doubt and it funnels down into hating Batman because he's not a hero, he's a protector. As much as it pains him to be hated for doing his heroic deeds, he needs to operate based on what's best for soul of Gotham regardless of how he's seen by the public.
In this case, I disagree with Black Widow when she said that the Avengers should be winning back the public trust instead of focusing on preventing global threats that have very clearly perceivable consequences should they not be addressed. The Avengers having the freedom to act on their own will would yield a higher chance for the greater good in the end over having to ask other countries for permission before operating IMO.
I felt bad for Tony at the end
Raemel Hurst I was mostly just mad because he acted so totally out of character.
Me too. But i'm still team cap
@@mandy79319 cap let tony down so many times. he did not deserve that ending
Azenith steve fought for others, lived for others and practically existed for other his whole life. Tony had pleanty of years in which he was a playboy and wasted his money in whatever thing he wanted, and at the end he even got everything he wanted (married, a daughter). Steve on the other hand has always been selfless and had never enjoyed his life. Sooo yeah i think their ending was perfect, cause cap finally got to be happy and enjoy life, tony had already done that for MANY years. So don’t come at me with this crap of “tony deserved the world and steve deserved to die” cause that’s simply not it and you’re just plain wrong my dudee
@@mandy79319 When did Steve actually do any of those things after the first avenger???? Even in his origin movie Steve still had a choice on whether to take the super serum, no one forced him to shoved it into his body. He did not sacrifice anything, he gained a super soldier body for goodness sake. Peggy and him didn't even DATE!! Tony wanted to mind his own business, but people kept coming to him for help. Tony literally busted his ass every time to get people to see reason and Steve was just selfish the whole time and screwed him over. He did not want to sign the accords. He split the group. Become a fugitive. Broke laws because of Bucky. Gave thanos the upper hand. Literally all of it could have been prevented had Steve not have been so selfish every single time!! Re-evaluate yourself.
#teamthanos I for one welcome our new overlords
You do mean our death, correct? Not our overlord, our executioner.
Pussy
@@MrDanteMason Boooboo gaga
From the first time I saw Civil War, I always assumed Tony agreed just because the accords took responsibility away from him.. he's always been the "leader" and taken the brunt of the praise and the blame, but the accords basically give him an out to say "Not my fault, call my superior, complain to the U.N..." etc.
I think his decision was 100% emotional just like Cap just in a different way.
Totally agree. It was all about passing the buck for Tony.
We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are still our own. -Cap
The sokovia accords, aka, the"let's all become servants of hydra when they inevitably infiltrate the U.N." accords
I wondered if there was a middle ground. The assignments from the government could be more like a request vs an order. If the avengers think it's within their power or moral code to go then they go. If the not the government fixes the problem on their own like before they relied on the Avengers.
Shield sort of was that and look what happened to them
@@Revkor well that’s because they were corrupted not because they were incompetent
@@Kukisei can be both
@@Revkor could be
Neither is perfect. I side with Tony, cos I do feel like no superpower should act independently in my own country. My country, my rules. Even if you come to help, you must come to help when I'm asking for help. It should be my responsibility to measure the problem, and consider possible solution. But this can go very wrong, just like Captains stand-point can go wrong too.
As long as there is conflict, there will be damage. There is no such thing as perfect solution, cos our world is imperfect.
What if your government is corrupt, houses or even helps a supervillain?
I personally side with Cap for the following reason
Sokovian Casualties with Avengers = 144 (if memory is serving me correctly)
Sokovian Casualties without Avengers = 7,000,000,000+
I understand that the accords do not necessarily disallow the Avengers to go anywhere, but signing does leave the potential for that to happen, which in my mind is reason enough not to sign. Plus the whole process of a country agreeing that it needs the Avengers to come and save them will take a hell of a long time, not exactly helpful in what could be a world ending situation. The safest hands are indeed still their own.
EDIT: That's actually a good point that I'm seeing as I'm re-reading my own comment. If something has ramifications that could affect the entire world, doesn't it kind of come off as slightly selfish if the single country that the event happens to be occuring in doesn't want the Avengers sorting it out. It's just something to think about.
Except there are a few issues. 1st, the Avengers go against threats that would destroy the ENTIRE PLANET. 2nd, the enemies are causing the threats are at a much higher level than just say a local tyrant or terrorist cell.
1, the avengers don't always do that as seen with crossbones, two, what happens when they cause the problem.
Yeah someone has to watch the watchers
I did enjoyed this movie when it came out. The action, the arguing over ethics and morals, but the thing that got me good, was that plot twist. When Zemo's motivations are exposed.
I didn't foresaw why he was doing it all, from the bits where he's listening to the old voice-mails from his dead wife. Also, its so great that Zemo's plan simply consists on revealing to Iron Man how his parents didn't actually died in a car accident, bit instead, they were killed by Bucky, and Cap knew about it
At that point, the movie gets really serious and everything takes another tone.
If only they did this early on the movie, maybe just before of the Airport fight scene, it would have been so much better. It almost feels like if another movie started at that point.
There is no right side or right answer. In the end, we're all just scared, and that fear controls our actions. Tony was afraid for causing more damage, while Captain America was scared that the heroes would't be able to save more lives under the new strict rules. At the same time, people like Zemo just focus on the damage done, and forget about the bigger threat that could have been caused if the Avengers didn't step in. No matter what you do, bad things will happen. You either accept life, or let your emotions cause more problems to the people around you.
Also there is no real villain, Thanos is just another victim of life like everyone else.
This video feels totally off base. Steve is working for the greater good as well as his own moral compass. Tony is just working out of fear driven by guilt for his previous failings. He wants someone to control him to lessen his guilt, so that next time something bad happens he can say he was just following orders. It's been shown time and again throughout the movies that the government can't be trusted when push comes to shove. They'll nuke New York City... That's basically the whole point of the Avengers' existence in the first place.
Agreed. Cap is all about *solidarity* and positive freedom nested within negative freedom. The latter is necessary for the former.
He's more left-wing than this analysis implies. Stark is a Randian turned Neoliberal.
Tony's guilt is still genuine and his intentions are still pure, he genuinely wants what's best for everyone and that's what he thinks is the best, regardless of who's actually right or wrong
@@AdequateProximityPH .Having "pure" intentions is almost beside the point. One can have the purest of intentions and yet still contributed to causing great harm. I would argue that Stark's intentions have always been somewhat in flux. Both Stark and Rogers are operating from within an ethical position, a worldview. Stark began as purely self-serving. Then he turned that selfishness and drive to create something that could be used - by him - in the service of doing good. Then, out of fear of the ultimate consequences of the path he took, he opted for the middle-ground (Sekovia accords). But when he says "we need to be put in check" it seems to me he's really saying "I need to be put in check". Stark has become aware of his own egoistic, narcissistic tendencies and he fears that side of himself even though without it, the creation of Iron Man would never have been possible.
However, that "putting in check" comes in the form of a top-down, bureaucratic, hierarchical oversight. It's not exactly democracy at work, is it? I think this feeds into Rogers' resistance. Sure, Rogers can be dogmatic and stubborn ("pure intentions") with his commitment to deontology - but it's a form of duty ethics that is not incompatible with the democratic process, concerns about problems of commons, social justice, and so on. They approach the same territory but from different positions -the analysis got that much right. Rogers can be reasonable, he's open to changing his mind. I don't think that Stark really is - unless the person advocating such a change of mind *is* Stark.
Stark reveals just how deep his selfishness goes when, faced with the footage of an *innocent man* - a victim - being violently coerced into committing an act that the "real" Bucky would never have done, he says " *I* don't care. He killed *my* Mom".
Rogers is more forgiving. I'd bet that he would have protected Barnes even if they had no history (although perhaps not as..er.."vigorously")
as someone who was torn between team cap and team iron man i support both sides. steve was right because if for instance red skull would return just like in the comics and builds his hq in swizerland the accords would probably hinder the avengers from helping because its none of americas buisness. for tonys side place yourself in the shoes of a citizen of marvel comic/movie new york: would you want aliens or sentient robots falling onto your head every tuesday of mourn the death of a well liked neighbour or even family members like zemo? for me , that was the beauty of civil war, because there are no right answers.
Please do a philosophy of the Halo series
th-cam.com/video/c3r03STeHCA/w-d-xo.html
Interestingly, I'm an Ultilitarian but still agreed with Cap all the way, on grounds that Tony's approach was unlikely to make things better in a global scale.
I think none of them are wrong. The point is not to decide who's right or who's wrong, but to find a middle ground on which they'll work. Not give up their individuality as a sovereign team itself but rather confirm to a few norms, rules and laws. It's not about limiting or harnessing the power of action the avengers have, but it's to vigil the very power that is neutral to collateral damage. What is best? To be free to help but in doing so, put a display to others that might not do so much good, or to make yourself less available to help, diminishing the collaterals but making opportunity to the ones that were waiting for you to rest?
It's really cool to see the deep meanings and philosophies in mass media and pop culture. These videos are so well done. I learn a lot about the thoughts behind some of my favorite shows/movies/characters, etc. and about all the different schools of thought. I am so glad this channel exists.
Philosophy of Grand Admiral Thrawn???
George Copers Art is the true gateway to knowing your enemies.
You replying to my comment made my day haha, Grand Admiral
Yes! Please! But not the one in Clone Wars series but Thrawn from Thimoty Zahn trilogy.
I loved the Darth Vader video, why not the Expanded Universe’s favorite character? Thrawn had just as much to do with revitalizing Star Wars as any other part of the franchise. And even in Rebels, Thrawn is still the same. He’s just not fighting the Vong is all.....or was he???
Sounds like fun
What I don't understand is why people are still hell bent on saying team cap or Tony. The accords and the in fighting was the hook of the story, but the meat of the civil war conflict was Tony vs. Steve and Bucky. That and the lack of trust and communication was the human conflict at the end that really mattered, not whether agreeing with oversight or disagreeing with it was ultimately the right action. It's ultimately an irrelevant point considering this a superhero story and we all know thanos is going to land In the next installments.
From that future perspective-the problem wasn't whether or not they signed the accords, the problem was that there was no unity in the team. Divisiveness is a bigger obstacle to success than picking a side and saying it's the best fit for all situation. There has to be flexibility at the end of the day, none of which showed up in the film until it was too late to make a difference. That's the problem
Wow, I thought about this myself, thank you for doing a video about it. In my opinion there are two correct answers about this issue, based on whether or not superheroes are real.
1. If superheroes are real, providing international oversight for superpowers is a must. The potential for collateral damage caused by superheroes can lead to real loss of life. If there is no control, they would be the same as "America World Police". You should not have a super power running around the world going to war with whoever they want willy nilly, like the american military seems to do now. I think international oversight was what the United Nations was supposed to do, however the american military seems to be able to do whatever they want, wherever they want, at all times with little to no oversight. Perpetual war and destruction over resources is wrong, and should be stopped.
2. If superheroes are NOT real (they aren't), then it doesn't matter about governmental control of superheroes. The collateral damage doesn't matter because the lives being lost aren't real, and the destruction makes for a great movie scene. If superheroes are good (they usually are), that means the things they do are intended to save more lives than they might accidentally destroy. Government control and red tape could slow heroes down when they need to be out there meeting the challenges as quickly and directly as possible.
That means, in the case of Captain America: Civil War, (despite being more of an Iron Man fan), I have to side with Captain America, because heroes need to be free to save the world. If you make it illegal for them to make quick judgement calls about how to deal with major imminent threats, you make enemies of what are potentially incredibly powerful allies. It is important to remember the difference between real and imaginary, the ideals of the imaginary should not carry over to real world application.
My big problem is that Iron Man's position in this movie simply transitions responsibility from a morally trustworthy group (The Avengers) to a demonstrably untrustworthy group (National governments), and Stark is more than smart enough to know about the people he's dealing with (i.e. the people he formerly to sell weapons to).
This isn't driven by real philosophy. Its driven by Stark's desire to escape from responsibility for collateral damage.
Civil War invalidated the entire philosophical argument later though.
In the airport fight, we know that there are a bunch of supersoldiers that Cap has to stop, meaning that he is automatically right in that scenario.
They changed the focus then, from 'who is correct' to 'save the world'. And at the climax, it was never about their beliefs but more about Tony's loss, Cap's decision and Bucky's life.
Parikshit Agarwal they didn't make cap right or wrong about the accords, they just changed what was caps main focus
Cap should have got the help and agreement of the others too. Going at it alone whether they were right or wrong would have been bad anyway. Lucky zimo's plan was to kill the super soldiers. Otherwise cap and bucky would have been doomed.
Except they could have figured that out sooner in a safer invorment if cap had just surrendered.
@@fightingmedialounge519 cap knew it wasn't possible bcz of the accords...... Tony was so into them at that time......
It's a murican movie after all.
Team Cap's position rests heavily on personal responsibility. The potentially destructive freedom that the Avengers have to forcefully bring about their goals is only evil if the individuals within the group have insidious intentions. However, if the intimidating power of the Avengers is wielded with integrity, wisdom and selflessness, then it allows them to be an impressive force for good. Do we trust the goodwill of individuals with power, talent and freedom, or must we shackle them so that the 'greater good' is ensured for the majority?
I personally believe that Tony's position of government control over the individual is flawed. As we see in Age of Ultron, he wants to create a shield around the world- whether people like it or not. This seemingly noble ambition has similarities to totalitarianism, and requires individuals to 'tow the line' so that a common agenda may be carried out. I'm with Captain America all the way: individual liberties and personal responsibility are more important than the securities which umbrella authority and conformist agendas may bring.
There's just no right answer.
For utilitarianism, when you sacrifice a lesser good for the greater good, it's already something that's going to end poorly for someone.
For deontology, it's extreme lawfulness, whether it's universal or personal ethics, will always end with the greater good suffering.
And (because I know some people thought this) if we just disassembled the Avengers altogether to keep the collateral damage to a null, then that's also going to bring some negative reaction. Mainly, now that the Avengers challenged the greater forms of "evil" with their mere existence, even if they're gone one day doesn't mean their challengers will. In fact the opposite may occur, and now that there aren't any all-mighty Avengers to stand in their way, their challengers will just go and do as they wish and bring more wanton destruction.
There is a reason why the super friends based in space.
Gosh, this is such a great channel, making a great video for a great movie. I love how you still left the answer to ourselves, like they did with the movie. I truly believe there is no right or wrong, same with many other things in life. The reason that this movie is so great is that it's not set in stone, you can argue with it. And you've done a wonderful rendition of the film. I'm still loving your channel -- and Marvel -- more and more every day :)
You all are killing it lately! Another great video.
Tony Stark wants to save everyone no matter the cost. Steve Rogers is a soldier and knows that it is impossible to save everyone but you should still try. I'm with Steve's opinion but only so far as all actions are intended for the benefit of the whole and not the few. He had to flaunt those rules a bit when helping Bucky but that was a good hunch as he knew something was off and found it to be Nemo.
The problem with "save everyone, no matter the cost" is, of course, that the goal and the cost are in conflict. "Save everyone" is not even achievable, and you're not going to make it *more* achievable by hamstringing those individuals with the power to step in against larger threats.
The ethics of a superhero universe and the ethics of our reality are fundamentally distinct. Unfettered power that crosses national borders is a menace IRL, but in superhero realities, you can't let red tape get in the way of stopping Galactus; you can't have the heroes stop chasing the villain because he ran up to Canada and they need to get clearance before they can pursue. And the potential fallout of a superpowered villain going unchecked is far more likely to do Great Harm than any IRL terrorist, even one with access to nuclear missiles. There's such a difference in scale, and in statistical likelihood....
No. You’re not right; this time you’re wrong. The casualties at Sokovia were not “Avengers Collateral Damage”, they were “Ultron Collateral Damage”. The whole problem with this false dichotomy is that, if you were to take the Avengers out of it, you get more death, not less. There is only one Avenger who is responsible for the deaths at Sokovia, and that is Tony-as he was the one who unleashed Ultron, a “suit of armor around the world”; well, now he’s just replaced a robot with a document, but it’s the same shifting of responsibility that he was doing then. Tony doesn’t act out of some adherence to Utilitarianism-he’s motivated purely by guilt. Cap, on the other hand, is not displaying any kind of deontology (ok, maybe with Bucky he does, but not with the Accords)-rather he displays the strongest utilitarianism of them all: if the Sokovian Accords has been in effect at the time that the Sokovia attack occurred, how would they have helped? How would their bureaucracy have sped of the rescue? How would their paperwork have helped save lives? There is no evidence that, in this regard, the MCU is different than our own world with its bureaucracy, and there is no way that such bureaucracy would accelerate response time. If Tony had his way, the Avengers would have had more, not less, “collateral damage”, while Steve is the one looking at realistic and utilitarian options.
the problem with him being motivated by guilt means we have to question the moral content and legitimacy of his actions. when we first meet tony in iron man 1 he lacks conviction and pretty much believes in nothing but himself. sure he may rationalize being an arms dealer as a means to an end for helping to secure world peace, but he's really just feeding his own ego and maximizing his own pleasure. of course later in the movie he changes and he does develop conviction and aspires to live (at least partially) in a way that is truly in service of something greater than himself and his own ego. he continues in this way until we see the ultimate culmination of his work in the creation of ultron. despite what everyone else says, tony is convinced that he is not only right but doing the right thing and decides to act on his conviction by bringing ultron to life.
what is the result of this? utter failure. ultron was a horrible idea and tony knows it. he dares to test the limits of his ideas (which is in some ways admirable) and is faced with the empirical evidence that his idea was wrong. fast forward to civil war and what consequences has he faced? none. tony feels guilty about this and rightfully so. his guilt is only increased when has to come face to face with an actual individual that was hurt by his failure. so instead of taking accountability for his own actions and facing the consequences for messing up he asserts that THE AVENGERS are a flawed idea, and that the group needs to be reigned in. this also highlights how he represents appeals to collective authority whereas cap embodies individual freedom, but that's another discussion! anyway, all this seems to suggest that, while sorry for way things turned out, tony is not willing to admit that he was fundamentally wrong and hasn't really changed his position. he does feel bad about this though, and so decides to sign the accords because he is ruled by emotion. in that way, his position and his arguments are both fundamentally weak and should not be accepted, despite whatever merits there may or may not actually be to signing the accords
First of all, Tony didn't created Ultron by himself - people always forget Bruce was there as well. And second, if you gonna play the blame game, that's on Wanda, not Tony. The point is, at that moment, with they leaving a mess and dead bodies missiong after missiong, what could have being done? That's what the movie is about.
No I'm sorry Tony did think he was to blame but dealt with it the wrong way.
The movie was dumb
Here in the real worldTony would have gone to prison for the rest of his life for all the people Untron, his creation, killed. He also would have lost everything, to pay the civil liabilities for all the damage he caused.
The writing for this movie is magnificent. The film also has one of the best ever action scenes, The airport scene. With the same writers and directors as this film helming the next 2 Avengers films I'm sweating with excitement
I've been waiting for you guys to tackle "The Good Place"! There are so many great philosophical and moral and ethical questions to tackle
the biggest criticism i have of team cap is the fact that their entire point hinges on the avengers being a force of good and the UN a useless bureaucracy. if i was a citizen of a country and some private american military with insane power and no legal consequences came into my hometown (which they will never have to see again and know nothing about the culture of) and destroyed it to chase someone they perceived as evil, i would be livid. the avengers aren’t always going to be good or right about things, and they deserve to be held accountable. not to mention that them being an american force could cause a war if them fighting in a country was seen as invading it. it’s like someone having a privately owned nuke.
I'm sorry, but I was on Tony's side the whole time.
I've always been the viewer who watched these movies being like "there are 100% people dying during all of this" and it seems insane that this group of people can just do what they think "is right" without any consequences what so ever.
Then captain America proceeds to assault literal cops because of what he thinks is right, while justifying it within his head. He does plenty of things that Kant would have considered off-the-table and we find out at the end that if he had just kept with the other avengers, his friend would have been taken into custody, and the story would have progressed with no conflict because the whole point was to make conflict between the avengers cast.
No, listening to the UN is not a PERFECT solution (looking at you CCP!) but claiming that you as an individual have more moral authority than entire countries is the epitome of narcissism, especially if you actually injure the people who are trying to do the actual good work (which he DOES when he beats the crap out of several cops, and causes multiple people to die in car crashes due to the car chase)
You guys should consider doing Hunter x Hunter as a philosophy. It's pretty interesting alone for its deconstruction of the shonen narrative, but the symbolism and the character progression is something I'd like to see a real deep analysis of.
CultureFuk'd yes please
I am almost upset Gran Torino hasn't been wise-cracked.
Please do a video on Gran Torino! Clint Eastwood didn't get an Oscar for it but a Wisecrack video on the movie would be close enough!
I thought you were talking about Gran Torino from My Hero Academia at first.
For me, thie movie is an allegory about the struggle between following my personal convictions / what I think is right for me (even if I lose some friends /teammates in the process because of our different profiles) or keeping a long & perfect friendship / work relationship that can't be replicated again (even if I stop fufilling my personal dreams and needs).
I love this channel because I miss philosophy classes. Can’t wait to go back to school... one day
There are no easy answers, but I’m still Team Cap.
Same. While I see some of the points on Team Iron Man as valid, I'd rather have superheroes respond to world-ending threats with actions and not subcommittee hearings. Two of the incidents mentioned by Ross (and one conveniently left out by him) have proven why oversight cannot be trusted to make the right decision.
What sticks me firmly on Team Cap is not just Bucky's innocence from the events of _Civil War,_ but also how shamelessly political Ross gets. It's pretty audacious of the higher-ups to authorize a nuclear missile strike on NYC, then turn around and accuse the Avengers of costing lives when they were the ones to do what Ross and his boys couldn't: *_Stop the alien threat_*
Wish Nick Fury could be there. He'd say something along the lines of, "The Avengers take the world as it is, not as the UN would like it to be. It's damn near past time for you to get with that program, Mr. Secretary."
*So you condone lies, secrets, and murder all in the name of freedom?*
J .S I think it makes for a more interesting story that the originally rebellious Stark sees how much he’s fucked up in the past and wanting regulation, while patriotic Steve is now paranoid of the government after Winter Soldier and thus is against the Accords
@Li-Li Mandragon
So you condone lies, secrets and murder all in the name of security? Because the UN are no saints either.
Not to be that guy, but Vision is full of crap. He has a point about their inherent power inviting challenge, but he is wrong both about conflict in general, but also about how the Avengers relate to this particular challenge as well. He knows better than anyone that the Avengers as it exists at that moment were a response to conflict. The Earth was in danger they all had to come together. Their continued existence has brought about conflict without a doubt and even invited challenge from those that would see themselves even more powerful, but the problem with laying all of that out however, means its rather apparent that the very idea of the Avengers themselves mean that most of those horses are long gone out of the barn.
It would be like America trying to put the Nuclear genie back in the bottle post Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just not happening. People know said weapon is possible, it exists, there is no taking it back or returning that knowledge to the either. Same thing with superhumans. They exist. So the question automatically becomes "What happens now?" The accords are an obvious attempt by the international community at control, but their reasoning was spotty at best. They hold up collateral damage as an excuse, but the issue becomes how would this have been avoided if the Avengers needed UN sanctioning? Would Aliens have not attacked NYC? Would Hydra have not infiltrated S.H.I.E.L.D.? The only good point they have is Ultron and that should have probably been something that Tony Stark went to prison for. I think *How It Should Have Ended* got things right with them saying that it should be the Tony accords and that everyone would happily sign those.
Is the logic that comic book worlds have that superhero become a thing on is own, a phenomena that exist just because rather a response to villians.
Batman begins said better at the end: Batman is a sign of a escalating battle between law and crime, which mean eventuall Crime will form their own version to meet it and it did with the joker.
And the problem of Tony getting away with is crap(and Wanda, dont doget it) is why Cap is wrong.
LupineShadowOmega I agree. He made the mistake of treating cooccurrences as causal relationship. That’s some rookie mistake an AI would never make. I blame the writers.
That’s kinda the whole point vision was making about conflict. The avengers were formed due to a conflict but now that that particular conflict is over, why are the avengers still here. Their very presence invites conflict. You mention nuclear weapons. The US was the first to drop a nuclear weapon, that very act caused other countries to developed their own nuclear weapons just because America had one
If the avengers, like in the first movie, just came together for a conflict and then dispersed then I would agree with you. But that is not how they function now, they have a head quarters and they hold frequent small scale missions. The avengers are no more a superhero organization but a Special Ops group, that is the only one of its kind in the world (other than Wakanda of course).
Can you please do a philosophy of “Captain America Winter Soldier”.
What I love about Civil War (movie) is that it managed to do something that the comic couldn’t, not give an answer.
In the comic the Superhuman Registration Act is the winning side and was said to be the right side this entire time. It was sort of hard to believe when Tony kept acting like a villain the entire time, such as locking hero’s in the Forbidden Zone, creating a Thor Clone, making Peter reveal his identity (leading to One More Day), and the death of Captain America. Regardless where one stands with the act, Tony’s action turned readers against them.
The movie, on the other hand, stated that both of these philosophy are right and both are wrong. Both Steve and Tony have a points to make, and the movie more shows how these two philosophies cope when neither side is willing to back down.
When anyone argue for the "greater good" it's often to promote a specific ideology, no matter if it is correct or incorrect. The "greater good" convinces people to join in on group think, to not consider thier own convictions and to not think critically of either.
The funniest part of cw was roddy telling cap to sign the accords because the UN is really respectable.
The correct realistic answer is you can't trust governments so the superheroes need to do those things.
cap sticks to morals and truths #teamcap
I love that 'we have to be put in check' line, especially after Age of Ultron.
A nice little breakdown of some of the major themes, but it misses some points and gets a few wrong. For example, Tony does NOT believe that oversight will lead to less collateral damage: collateral damage will always be a risk, but he doesn't want to bear the burden of it. His acceptance of the Sokovia accords stems from his feelings of guilt, feelings that he is particularly unable to deal with. Steve, on the other hand, believes in doing the right thing - but more importantly, he believes that he must shoulder the responsibility for the consequences. The ideological conflict stems from the fact that Steve believes in accepting responsibility, whereas Stark doesn't want that burden. I have always found Tony's argument lacking, and difficult to embrace - I can understand his reasons, but I can't accept his hypothesis. Steve does believe in doing what is morally right, regardless of the consequences, *but he is willing to accept the consequences*. (Remember in The First Avenger when he goes off to save Bucky, and when he returns he immediately turns himself in for disciplinary action?) Of course, in this reply I have completely failed to flesh out the nuances of the argument, but hopefully it's enough to make people think about it from a different perspective.
At the end of the day, one of Civil War's greatest achievements is the way it stokes conversation about deep and important topics, something that many movies that might consider themselves "above the superhero genre" have tried, and failed, to do in the past.
Peace and love, people!
xx
'Happened to be here' squad
Liberalism or Realism: There is no right or wrong answer, its how there handled is what's more important.
Cap wouldn't sacrifice Chloe
The thing is, Bucky would never get a fair trial. He was under mind control the whole time. Even Hawkeye was underneath mind control at one point, yet you see zero people trying to send him to prison after the first Avengers movie.
I felt *Tony* was right on this one. The argument which Cap is making is total nonsense for an outsider who lives in the MCU. How is someone going to feel safe with a bunch of superhumans running around the streets with absolutely zero oversight? Sure we know that the Avengers' morals will never falter but the people don't. What Tony's advocating here makes sense. The Avengers need to be put under check. Cap's hesitant about it (and rightly so) because he's seen institutions like SHIELD being controlled by HYDRA, and has lost trust in government agencies, but Tony does say that even after signing the accords they can negotiate later. By showing resistance and then being caught (which is what happened to Cap's team) puts them in a far worse situation than if they cooperate early on and sign. Pretty much the whole point can be summed up with what Natasha says *If we have one hand on the wheel, we can still steer. If we take it off...*
Now this isn't to say Cap's stance on the issue is totally off. The movie would've been quite boring if one of the teams was totally wrong. Anyway, I'm #TEAMTHOR
Great Video!
I always found Stark's view to be very compelling, mainly for two reasons: In Age of Ultron, Stark begins working on Ultron because of the enchantment of Scarlet Witch. In Civil War Cap and Stark break out a whole conflict because they have been tricked and played by Zemo. With some kind of governmental oversight it would be way harder for something like this to happen. The overseers AND the Avengers would have to be tricked. And for the second point, imagine you were a citizen of this world and all these ultra powerful beings would float around to their liking. Tell me you wouldn't sleep better if a few rules would apply to them. It's kinda like in Batman V Superman.
wrong. Look at Shield and it becoming Hydra
@@Revkor That one time that one organization got undermined is not exactly a reason for no oversicght happening ever.
@@TheRucksackman yeah but if it happens to Shield then happens to anyonething. thus why not a good idea
@@Revkor why would it happen to everyone when it happened to Shield once?
@@TheRucksackman because Shield was a top secret group and look what they almost pulled off under Hydra control. and the UN record is not any better. Groups can be corrupted
Cap isnt fighting for his own selfish needs, he’s fighting for the freedom of those with powers. The freedom to not be treated merely as a human weapon, but a real person with special skills (and possibly a thirst to help others) #TeamCap
team cap
Team cap🤘🏻
Tony in Iron Man 2 refused to sign over the rights of the iron man suit or work under the World Security Council, saying that they should thank him for privatizing world peace. In age of ultron he realised that the avengers cannot act freely, given his creation Ultron almost destroys the world.
Captain America started out as a soldier for America, and then an agent for SHIELD and WSC. He follows orders to take out what SHIELD deems as terrorist organisations. Then in winter soldier he finds out that Hydra has infiltrated SHIELD and the world security council, and have been pulling strings and deciding fates with capt as an agent to their plans.
Tony willingly signs the avengers to become an Amoral agency to the plans of organisations, making them into soldiers that obey orders, even if it was the wrong orders.
Steve decides that even if his country says that something wrong is something right and they deem you as a criminal for not following such actions, he has to stand on the side of the moral right.
Yes the movies do put us through different plots which show that Tony is right. They don’t show WSC giving corrupt orders. They show cap protecting a wanted criminal. Etc.
But we should remember that the outcomes of situations do not define who is right and who is wrong. Rather the ideas and the motivations behind it.
The only complaint I have is Tony not throwing the Harlem incident with Abomination in Gen Ross’ face. That would have bought them more time. When he was showing the Avengers all the destruction he should have shown them that.