The Greek philosopher Aristotle argues that human beings are not born with inclinations toward either virtue or vice; rather, each person's moral character traits are cultivated through a combination of social influence and individual rational choice. Sons of Anarchy relies on our fascination with “anti‐heroes,” morally ambiguous protagonists for whom we often cheer. Aristotle stresses the importance of the right environment for becoming virtuous, especially when it comes to children. Far from being pure, the SAMCROpolis tends to nurture both virtues (...) and vices in its “citizens.”. Part of the show's appeal stems from recognizing the members of SAMCRO as kindred spirits who exemplify‐albeit to dramatic extremes‐the mixture of virtue and vice found in every human being's moral character. The particular mix of virtue and vice that comprises Jax's moral character may, in the end, be exactly what SAMCRO needs at this moment in its history. (shrink)

For the Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, Redwood Original (SAMCRO), loyalty to the club's other members is the most important quality in a member. Tig's attempt on Laroy's life is a case of misplaced loyalty, in aid of a murderer and inspired by a lie. Some philosophers are highly suspicious of loyalty, because they see it as focused on something higher than another person or group. Loyalty to fellow members is what the club is and disloyalty to fellow members is (...) a serious threat to its existence. While SAMCRO's punishment for disloyalty is severe, some kind of sanction for disloyalty is required for any club or group to survive. Since loyalty itself does not require any particular act, it does not require an act of wrongdoing. But we can be fairly certain that Tig would agree that loyal brothers are good to have if you ever need an escort home. (shrink)

As hunters, Sam and Dean kill monsters because such creatures pose a threat to the lives of innocent people. Sam and Dean are confronted with a complex array of moral issues in killing.Supernatural depicts hunters as ordinary people who know of the hidden supernatural evil that exists in the world and choose to spend their lives fighting it. Hunting, as the name suggests, involves tracking down these creatures and figuring out a way to destroy them. There are three fundamentally important (...) types of creatures in Supernatural: monsters, spirits, and demons. As hunters, Sam and Dean are motivated to kill monsters to defend innocent people from being victims of those monsters. As hunters, Sam and Dean follow typical rules of morality when dealing with people, but if they're warriors, those rules might change significantly. Warriors are bound by “Just War Theory,” which gives combatants special permissions for killing enemy combatants. (shrink)

Zachariah's description of a wonderful fornicating life for Sam and Dean captures some truth but it also misses the importance women play in shaping the Winchesters' moral decisions. In general, important women in the lives of Sam and Dean fall into three broad categories: mothers, lovers, and monsters. Sam and Dean are all too familiar with this philosophy of utilitarianism. Many times they have sacrificed relationships with women for the sake of their mission. Throughout Supernatural the objectification of the Winchesters (...) is contrasted with a happy domestic life. Sam and Dean are mistaken in thinking that their only value resides in the roles they play in the larger battles of good and evil; if they looked deeper they would see that they both would prefer a loving relationship with a woman. (shrink)

In many ways, the values SAMCRO holds dear reflect those of the “warrior” ethic typified by the heroes of Homer's epics. Such values include positive qualities, and less desirable qualities, such as ruthlessness, brutality, and a drive for vengeance. Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle promoted alternatives to these warrior values, some of which may provide a way out of the troublesome life of mayhem that J.T. and Jax seek to leave behind. The desire for freedom is strong in humans. (...) Aristotle believes that friendship is one of the most important things in life. The first kind of friendship is based on enjoying pleasurable things together‐riding Harleys, drinking beers, or whatever a person likes to do with others. But we need to recognize our duties beyond the circle of our friends, family, or motorcycle club and have duties even to people who mean nothing to us personally. (shrink)

The work of the Specialized Academic Council for the defense of theses for the degree of the doctor of philosophical, historical and sociological sciences on religious studies continues. The creation of which in the Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine has been to inform readers on the first issue of this bulletin. During April-September of this year, 6 theses have been defended: five candidates and one doctor's degree.

This chapter deals with one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, inappropriate appeal to authority (IAA). IAA has many different facets. At its core, it is a fallacy that assumes that because someone is an authority, we should listen to that person. The problem with IAA is that it ignores content in favor of credentials and power. There are a few different ways in which IAA can occur. IAA seems to be the result of a flaw in human thinking. (...) Social cognitive theory, a theory that helps explain human action, notes that humans tend to act like each other. The tendency to listen to authorities who are not authorities explains why celebrities are able to sell us stuff. The important thing to remember about IAA is that it is not just a fallacy that comes up in arguments that do not matter. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'affirming a disjunct' (AAD). It presents a few examples of fallacies in arguments caused by an ambiguity in the English word or. Because context makes the meaning clear in everyday usage, we might never have thought about this ambiguity before, but we actually use the word or in two very distinct ways. One type of or is known as “inclusive”, and the other type is known as “exclusive”. (...) AAD occurs when someone mistakenly believes that an inclusive or is an exclusive or. Importantly, not every or statement can fall prey to AAD. The argument known as a disjunctive syllogism sets out two possibilities that are mutually exclusive. When someone is dead, she/he is not alive, and when someone is alive, she/he is not dead. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'intentional fallacy (IF)'. The IF is an odd kind of fallacy. Rather than being a fallacy focused on logic and argumentation, it is a fallacy that focuses on art, relating to how we judge art and engage in literary criticism. The IF focuses on the fact that we often think that there is one right interpretation of a work of art. According to David Fenner, the IF “states that (...) we do not need to know, nor can we on most occasions, what was in the mind of the artist in order to interpret the art work”. So, it seems unreasonable to use the artist's intention as the most important way to understand a work of art as the artist's intention is often unavailable. The IF is an error in art interpretation that causes us to realize important things about art. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'legalistic mistake'. The use of “legal‐like” terms abounds outside the legal domain. But sometimes the users of these terms commit the fallacy Joel Feinberg called the legalistic mistake. On widening the use of such legal‐like terms, we must be cautious, for we might find ourselves guilty of making inferential mistakes or even proffering pure nonsense. The error, according to Feinberg, is committed by “one who, in stating a moral (...) question using a legal‐like term, uncritically imports the precision of that term in its strict legal sense, while excluding appeal to the kinds of criteria which alone can decide its use”. In “On Being 'Morally Speaking a Murderer’” Feinberg introduced the idea that, sometimes, using legal notions outside legal contexts may lead to a peculiar kind of fallacy he called the legalistic mistake. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'proximate causation'. One commits this variety of causal fallacy when one mistakes the relevance of proximate causation. One mistakes the relevance of proximate causation when one thinks the fact that something is a proximate cause makes it irrelevant to the story of how the event in question happened. Mistaking the relevance of proximate causation can also “go the other way”. That is, one can overinflate the importance of (...) something being a proximate cause. This is often done by those looking to avoid responsibility for their actions. Matters of causation are never simple. And sometimes whether something is a proximate cause is relevant to the issue at hand. But we must be careful to make sure that we do not mistake its relevance. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, etymological fallacy (EF). To understand the EF fully, it is important to break down the word etymology, which is a practice that in itself informs the conversation surrounding the fallacy. EF is a willful use of a former definition of a word that has changed meaning and/or developed new connotations because the change does not benefit the one committing the fallacy. To avoid committing the EF, individuals should approach (...) language as they would a scientific process: they may hypothesize the word means X, but after further research and consideration, realize that indeed a word now means Y. Either way, the changing nature of language must be considered and individuals should be learned enough and flexible enough to communicate within the time and culture they inhabit. Clinging to etymons while ignoring the evolution and everyday use of language is neither logical nor truthful. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called “adverse consequences”. The argument from adverse consequences can be seen as an argument that is intended to be pragmatic ‐ about what we should do, not about what is true ‐ but then comes to the wrong kind of conclusion. In many genuinely pragmatic arguments, however, adverse consequences are relevant to the conclusion and no fallacy is committed. So it is important to notice exactly what the conclusion (...) of the argument is. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'unfalsifiability'. The unfalsifiability fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim that is impossible to prove false. Falsifiability – the ability to be falsified or proven wrong – is considered a key criterion for deeming a hypothesis scientific. Conspiracy theories often rely on unfalsifiable claims in which the theorist ardently defends a theory despite any facts that disprove it, suggesting only, “Well, it's a conspiracy. It's impossible to disprove”. (...) Once the criterion of falsifiability has been established, it is important to examine a statement or theory more critically. The defense of horoscopes not only involves an unfalsifiable claim but can also involve anecdotes. As it turns out, when tested objectively, claims made by horoscopes tend to be false considerably more often than many people recognize. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'equivocation'. Patrick Hurley writes that the fallacy of equivocation “occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that the word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument”. This fallacy happens often within discussions and debates concerning the alleged tension between science and religion. The best way to avoid this fallacy is to take care to ensure that (...) key terms, especially ones with multiple meanings, in our arguments are being used consistently; that is, that the words retain the same meaning throughout the argument. It is also important, for the sake of lucidity, to ensure that it is clear which meaning we intend to be using throughout our argument. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy: appeal to tradition (ATT). ATT means to ignore the evidence that we should change because we have been doing something for a long time. ATTs are tremendously useful fallacies. ATTs hinge on sentimental tendencies and unwillingness to change, and are particularly dangerous when they prevents change. ATT seems to suggest that there is something good about tradition that trumps any other concerns. The problem is that since tradition has (...) nothing to do with morality, it is really easy for ATT to be used to justify anything, from continuing to tell children that Santa exists to preventing an oppressed group of people from voting. Perhaps at the core of ATT is belief that family and cultural traditions are important. In some ways, ATT is a popular fallacy of grandmothers all over the world. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'amphiboly'. More formally speaking, the fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the meaning of a phrase or sentence is indeterminate or ambiguous, particularly as a result of poor syntax, and especially when further inferences are drawn based on the acceptance of an unintended meaning of the passages. Amphibolies can also have the potential to either threaten political careers or make them indefinitely memorable. The ambiguities found in cases of (...) amphiboly usually arise from mistakes in grammar but also from various forms of linguistic booby traps. It is important to note, however, that not all instances of amphiboly are trivial. The interpretation of carelessly constructed legal contracts and wills, for instance, has been known to produce unnecessary and painful conflicts. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'psychologist's fallacy'. William James, in his Principles of Psychology, coined “the psychologist's fallacy”. It is a fallacy of relativism. James articulated the psychologist's fallacy as if it were a confusion between first‐person and third‐person points of view. Importantly, an experience and its description are different, and from the first‐person point of view, whatever a person experiences is identical with what that experience is. Therefore, the first‐person point of (...) view of an experience, because it is the view of actually having the experience itself, is itself the truth of the experience. To avoid this fallacy, one needs to ground arguments with claims that hold necessarily and universally. Neither descriptions of experience based on subjective judgments nor the occurrence of specific accidental‐psychological events hold necessarily or universally regarding human psychology. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'special pleading (SP)'. One way to grasp the meaning of the special pleading fallacy is to focus on a general principle of fairness: We ought to treat individuals alike unless there is some relevant difference between them that merits the differential treatment. Avoiding SP can be very difficult for two reasons. First, the fallacy takes so many forms. Second, SP can be difficult to avoid because it is (...) often invisible to the one who commits the fallacy, and in this respect it is like a bad, invisible cognitive habit. The fact that SP can be, and so often is, used simultaneously to hide and to underwrite hypocrisy and prejudice makes it an important informal fallacy of reasoning that affects everyday life. (shrink)

God's character remains one of the big mysteries in Supernatural. We certainly see God's impact on the world, and occasionally, we're told he has miraculously interceded on behalf of the Winchesters or Castiel. Spinoza said, ”The knowledge of evil is an inadequate knowledge.“ But after concluding that God exists, Spinoza concludes that evil does not. Ironically, while many thought of Spinoza as the Devil, he denied the Devil's existence. As Supernatural illustrates, loving relationships don't need to be mutually beneficial; one (...) person may even risk his life to save another person he loves. Often philosophical, the ending scene may hold the key to understanding God in Supernatural. The Philosopher John Locke argued that the idea of redemption could be arrived at in principle by the same sort of reasoning that arrives at the idea of God. (shrink)

Supernatural fans often associate Season 3's popular “Jus in Bello” episode with the world's quintessential zombie movie, George Romero's Night of the Living Dead. Romero's zombie films, beginning with Night, fill the survival space with multiple, diverse survivalists who are forced to work through personal differences stemming from jealousy and petty annoyance to racism and bigotry, issues of morality, theology, and other social and cultural differences. Indeed, the setting is the first link to Romero's Night, whose cramped Pennsylvanian farmhouse is (...) little different than the poorly fortified police station holding Sam and Dean. The demons congregate listlessly around the jail. This is an obvious visual homage to the isolated Pennsylvanian farmhouse in Night. The work of the demons in “Jus in Bello” like the zombies in Night and Dawn, is ceaseless and instinctual. (shrink)

We often lament our limited nature as human beings. Supernatural is certainly no stranger to this theme and often contrasts the many weaknesses of man to the awesome power of angels, demons, and otherworldly creatures. It should be enough to show that angels can reasonably be atheists by showing two things. First, the best arguments in favor of the existence of God are no better if Anna and Cas think about them, and second, that these angels are also in no (...) better position than we are to deny what is perhaps the strongest argument against the existence of God. The cosmological argument for the existence of God begins with a couple of observations about the universe. The first is pretty obvious‐“things exist.” The second is that everything that exists was caused to exist as it is. (shrink)

In the final minutes of the Season 3 finale of Sons of Anarchy, it appears that Jax Teller has betrayed the MC and lived up to his nickname: “The Rat Prince.” But it is actually a set‐up to reduce the jail time for SAMCRO members. The life of freedom and camaraderie that J.T. sought when forming the MC became increasingly impossible due to the means he needed to employ to secure the club's success. The social order he founded turned out (...) to be incompatible with the very values he intended for it to foster. Jax's inward struggles offer an accurate depiction of the nuances at the heart of Machiavellian politics. He values the club beyond self‐interest, and his “public‐spiritedness” ultimately redeems his actions. Even as he engages in deceit and violence, Jax expresses sentiments closely aligned with his father's concern for the well‐being of the club and lives its members. (shrink)

Despite the modern trappings the values of the Sons of SAMCRO and their old ladies are even more traditional than those of mainstream society. The parallels between the culture depicted in Sons of Anarchy and the one depicted by Homer's epics make the show philosophically interesting, because moral philosophy in Greece began as a reaction against Homeric values. Just as the Sons bear the Reaper on their cuts, Homeric warriors often decorated their armor with violent images to make clear their (...) status as killers. Those who have drawn blood for the club wear the “Men of Mayhem” patch. There are many ways in which the Homeric heroes outstrip the brutality of SAMCRO. The parallels between SAMCRO's and Homer's conceptions of a good life show us both what is commendable and condemnable about life in the MC. (shrink)

Moral philosophy is concerned with matters of right and wrong, and with answering questions about how we should live. Moral philosophy aims to tell us how to think about particular moral dilemmas; it aims to give us principles by which we can make moral decisions; and it aims to give us insight into how those moral principles are grounded. This chapter presents a discussion on certain gropus of creatures that fall clearly outside of the boundaries of the moral community. These (...) are the antisocial monsters and low‐functioning monsters. Another group, namely the moral monsters, take moral reasons into consideration when they make decisions, and because of this, they are included in the moral community. (shrink)

In Sons of Anarchy, the male members of the MC are only one part of the story, as the Charming women play equally pivotal roles in the action. This chapter takes a look at the women to see how they wield their power, what they do with it, and how it is limited by the world in which they operate. The stories told on Sons of Anarchy are familiar to us. The character's lives ebb and flow with hopes and fears, (...) gains and losses, friendship and enmity, love and resentments, and regrets and triumphs that we can identify with. We ride alongside the characters as they strive for the ideals that make life worth living, such as friendship, love, and happiness, though none of the characters seems to have achieved these ideals perfectly in their lives. (shrink)

Supernatural illustrates two dominant ideals of masculinity, the warrior and the sovereign. The sovereign has what Isaiah Berlin described as both positive and negative liberty. Negative liberty is freedom from things, like restrictions, restraints, obstacles, coercion, or force. The season finale reveals that this feud is based on an overly simplistic understanding of their two masculine ideals. Positive liberty is the freedom to do things. For the sovereign, this means having the unfettered ability to choose goals and accomplish them. Supernatural (...) is largely about men navigating their masculinity. The characters and the show itself appear to have some vacillating opinions of women and femininity. Love is a paradox in Supernatural with its masculine ideals of strength and independence. But in order to be masculine, one must first and foremost be human. And to be human, one needs love. (shrink)

Questions of identity involve the attempt to determine what exactly makes a person or thing what it is—what makes Tara Tara or what makes Charming Charming? The chapter analyzes Ricoeur's ideas on personal identity to see if they can help us make sense not only of Tara's identity, but also of how SAMCRO and some of its members maintain their identity across time. Ricoeur describes how we weave the two types of identity, sameness and selfhood, together to form a narrative, (...) a story that allows us to understand how we are able to preserve our identities through time. Narrative identity links up a person's character and the anchor of promise keeping, the practice of keeping one's promises. Finally, the chapter talks life history of John Teller, which is delicately intertwined with the fate of every member of SAMCRO. (shrink)

A ghost is a supernatural being that is typically described as capable of appearing to, speaking to, and even doing harm to a person. But it is also described as a being that you cannot touch or affect in the usual ways. Lots of things seem weird at first, but humans don't think of them as supernatural. It's easy to see how material things interact with each other. After all, they are, by their very essence as things filling space, things (...) that cannot merge into each other. Descartes' view is not just a philosophical speculation; it is also a scientific hypothesis. Although Descartes' reasons for dualism are based primarily in deep philosophical meditation, his reason for identifying the pineal gland as the seat of the soul is based in his investigation of the human brain where Descartes finds an anatomical explanation for some obvious facts about human perception. (shrink)

Season 4 episode of Supernatural, “It's a Terrible Life”, is a demonstration of an overarching Marxist theme in the series: the American dream is impossible, because we are alienated and disconnected from our labor through capitalism. The alternate world in “It's a Terrible Life” not only typifies the broader world of the Winchesters in Supernatural but also highlights the fact that the Winchesters' lives mirror in horrific manner a terrible life we're all trapped in. “It's a Terrible Life” accurately demonstrates (...) that as long as a system exists wherein the workers are not the owners of the means of production, laboring for its own sake is merely an illusion. (shrink)

Jax Teller, Clay Morrow, and the other members of SAMCRO are first and foremost bikers and mechanics who fix bikes. Many bikers experience riding as therapeutic, since a good ride can help a suffering soul to forget the worries of life. Martin Heidegger argues that practical skills, such as the ones Tig needs to repair bikes, are the most fundamental form of knowledge. Many bike owners don't feel confident when they have to do repairs and finally face the dreaded encounter (...) with the un‐ready‐to‐hand. In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Robert Pirsig notes, that many bike owners are afraid to get their hands dirty with engine oil. Caring for a piece of technology is exactly the opposite of treating it instrumentally. As Pirsig explains, even fixing a mechanical problem can become an occasion of participation, unity, and reconciliation with the world. (shrink)

The solemnity, sacrifice, and concern for the state of the soul portrayed at Opie's funeral seems out of place among anarchists on motorcycles. The chapter analyzes if Opie's wake should be regarded as a religious rite as Sons of Anarchy are not a Christian sect, nor do they belong to any religious body that Americans commonly embrace. The chapter touches upon gender inequality in religious rites, and male bonding that becomes a primary good and maybe even something like a religious (...) duty. German classicist Walter Burkert terms such a group is a Männerbund (or MB), literally an “all‐male society.” The chapter explains the significance of ubiquitous symbol for the Sons of Anarchy MC – the Grim Reaper logo. Like the image of Santa Muerte, the Reaper logo is what scholars of religion call a hierophany. Finally, the chapter talks about the tragic flaws in the faith of SAMCRO. (shrink)

Our baser instincts are kept in check by our system of laws and the punishments that give them teeth. Without them there would be utter chaos. It is this reasoning that informs the popular association of “anarchy” with “chaos.” Anarchists believe that when freed from the debasing influence of oppressive social and political institutions, individuals will lean toward harmonious co‐existence. SAMCRO's degeneration from what John Teller originally intended does not mean that anarchism is an unrealizable ideal. J.T.'s idealized version of (...) anarchism is certainly seductive as it offers escape from life's constraints and promises a freedom which we all at one time or another long for. The club has become increasingly unworthy of its name‐unless we take “anarchy” in its colloquial sense of “chaos” or “disorder.” Once we understand what being a Son of Anarchy should entail, it is clear that SAMCRO is not living up to its name. (shrink)

Although Rousseau and his successors may have supplied J.T. with his vision for SAMCRO as a community dedicated to freedom from stultifying social conventions and institutions, it may be Hobbes who can best explain how the Sons of Anarchy lost their way and why their fall into violence was, as J.T. describes it, “inevitable”. Much of the violence the members of SAMCRO commit is motivated by nothing more than this primal instinct to protect oneself and one's “family” from harm. Prudence (...) dictates that SAMCRO delays retaliation until they better understand Zobelle's game. Hobbes's term for this supreme governmental authority is the Leviathan, a name he borrowed from the biblical book of Job. From Hobbes's point of view, J.T. was a Son of Pride before he was a Son of Anarchy, for it was pride that planted in his mind that reckless aspiration for “liberation from shackles and restraint of government”. (shrink)

Sons of Anarchy puts us in a world where bikers and other criminal gangs rule, where violence is normal, and where everyone is tattooed. The conjunction of these three things calls to mind our tendency to form expectations of people based on their appearance and especially on how they have chosen to permanently alter their bodies, with ink or in other dramatic ways. The fact that many people modify their bodies, whether through tattoos, piercings, or muscle toning and weight loss, (...) betrays the natural identification each of us feels with our body. We recognize the Sons of Anarchy characters in part by their tattoos, which reflect their choices, values, and personal histories. Getting a giant Grim Reaper tattoo that transforms one's appearance to reflect one's loyalties is akin to other ceremonies that induct someone into an organization or demonstrate someone's dedication to something. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on four areas Aristotle considered when determining what something really was, namely, essence, predicates, judgments, and potentials. Understanding and employing these concepts in our own concept of monster will help us avoid our currently tainted love of Supernatural. According to Aristotle, there are essential and accidental aspects of being. In the simplest terms, the essential aspects are the things that could not change about something, while the accidental aspects are things that could change. Aristotle's third taxonomy of (...) being is found in judgments of truth and falsity about a thing. These judgments can apply to questions of essence, accident, or any of the categories. Any question about the essential nature of monsters requires an answer that applies to all monsters. (shrink)

According to Christian theology, after being properly judged, bad souls are damned to Hell for eternity after being judged. Supernatural differs in that some of the souls in Hell weren't even judged, they just made very bad deals. But regardless of whether you think the mythos of Supernatural is even correct on this point, the fact that we recognize these are very bad deals should tell us something about the choices that land us in Hell. Our attitudes toward the experience (...) of punishment highlight an interesting feature about Hell in Supernatural—a person in Hell might not be there because they lived a bad life, but because they made a really bad deal with a demon. There is a problem with justifying Hell's existence this way, which our “deals with demons” examples from Supernatural make clear. Without a doubt, Hell is fundamental to Supernatural, but is definitely not a justifiable punishment. (shrink)

We can think of the club not as a small business, but as a would‐be “anarchist‐syndicalist commune.” Anarcho‐syndicalism is a kind of anarchism based in labor unions, where workers take control of the economy not through a top‐down government bureaucracy but through revolutionary labor associations called “syndicates. The club resembles just such a syndicate: it's hierarchical, but, unlike capitalist enterprises, it is a democratically governed hierarchy. The state is essentially an instrument of class struggle and will gradually “wither away,” as (...) both the “anarchy” of capitalist markets and the centralized command economy are replaced with socialist anarchism. This chapter portrays the difference between Marxists and classical anarchists such as the French Pierre‐Joseph Proudhon and the Russian Peter Kropotkin, for whom the state should immediately be abolished. SAMCRO seems anarchistic in its principal economic relations, too, with decisions about production, distribution, and labor made by members of the MC collectively. (shrink)

The past is, indeed, so essential to the club that they might just as well be called the Sons of History. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel argues that history follows a rational course of development that begins with civilization's earliest and crudest forms of thinking but culminates in modern science and philosophy. Thinking develops and matures through a process Hegel calls “dialectic.” A dialectical process has often been described as one in which an initial “thesis” is set against an opposing “antithesis,” (...) with the opposition between the two provoking a process that “sublates” or “uplifts” them into a hybrid or unified “synthesis.” This dialectical hybrid preserves what is good and right in those originally one‐sided positions, forging them into something higher. (shrink)

The Supernatural universe consists of both supernatural and natural beings and elements. The spernatural beings include God, archangels, minor gods, leviathans, angels, reapers, demons, and spirits. The natural beings are humans and other organic life. To see the differences between naturalist thinking and supernaturalist thinking, two possible explanations of a mental illness should be compared. A naturalist explanation would use neurobiology to explain mental illness as driven by brain anomalies either in structure or chemistry. By contrast, a supernatural explanation of (...) mental illness might involve the possession of the person by an evil spirit or demon. Due to the fact that organisms are self‐replicating, and replication cannot be perfect in the material world, genetic codes must evolve. A naturalist could hypothesize that souls self‐replicate through the very same biological process that delivers all our children, since whenever we replicate we tend to also increase the total number of souls. (shrink)

Casey, in Supernatural, alludes to one of the oldest and most resilient arguments against the existence of God, the problem of evil. This problem arises from an apparent conflict between the existence of evil and the attributes that Western theists attribute to God. Casey's challenge to the existence of God is called the logical problem of evil by philosophers. Casey's problem of evil focused on an apparent logical inconsistency between believing in a God that is all‐powerful, all‐knowing, and all‐good, while (...) at the same time believing that evil exists. The soul‐making defense doesn't appear to be enough to solve the problem for Dean. While it seems true that an all‐powerful, all‐good, all‐knowing God would have the power to create a universe with soul‐growth, containing significantly less evil and suffering than the universe of Supernatural, that's just not Dean's world. (shrink)

Heaven falls into chaos during God's absence, and Hell becomes fairly democratic. With Lucifer caged up and out of the picture, demons build a relatively civil society through contracts. This is sovereignty by institution as opposed to acquisition. The leviathans are unlike the angels in that the angels lacked a unity of wills. Driven by their nature, people—and angels—cannot live in harmony without a central and absolute authority to keep them in order. Without the presence of God to command the (...) angels there can be no peace, only a natural state of war. The fact that even the heavenly host can fall into a Hobbesian state of nature does not bode well for humanity, but maybe that's why business has been so good for the King of the Crossroads. Each demon, after all, has willingly agreed to enter into the civil society of Hell. (shrink)

Aquinas talks about a topic with which fans of Sons of Anarchy are all too familiar: homicide and murder. For Aquinas, murder is the private, intentional homicide of an innocent human being and always wrong. This is called the Murder Principle. Murder is the killing of an innocent. This seems to leave the Sons—a private organization rather than an arm of the state—without the legitimate authority to take a life. Watching Sons of Anarchy makes us increasingly suspicious of the moral (...) authority of the state and its agents, who hardly seem like the competent “doctors” of Aquinas's amputation analogy. Contemporary philosophers have articulated the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE), the gist of which states that it is sometimes morally permissible to bring about as a foreseen but unintended side‐effect what one would not be permitted to bring about intentionally. Aquinas's Murder Principle condemns much of what the Sons do. (shrink)

Watching Sons of Anarchy, it is easy to get caught up cheering for career criminals and hard not to root for SAMCRO's hijinks. Philosopher Nietzsche believes most philosophers have overlooked “where our good and evil really originated” and thinks we need to investigate this origin before we can assess the value of our reigning moral ideals. It is not the selfless or meek person, but the strong individual and the community that fosters and honors his strength that provides the basis (...) for what Nietzsche calls master morality. The Sons of Anarchy exhibit master morality in ways that challenge our understanding of morality. Their goodness is so different from what we customarily deem to be good. We cannot be sure what Nietzsche's reaction to Sons of Anarchy would have been, but it is possible that at certain moments he would have regarded it as an answer to his prayers. (shrink)

The women of Sons of Anarchy have pivotal, powerful roles in the drama, despite not being official members of the MC. Here we have three images of motherhood: the bad mother (few things are considered worse in our society) who endangers her child, the powerful matriarch who comes to the child's rescue, and the mothering healer who is responsible for keeping Abel alive. While the Mothers of Anarchy, on the surface, have no control, in reality they use their power in (...) the private sphere to influence the public sphere and effect great change, albeit with little public recognition for their efforts. While the traditional masculine and feminine spheres are firmly in place within SAMCRO, with the men making all the decisions about the club's future behind the closed chapel doors, the power this mother (Gemma) wields is monumental. (shrink)

If SAMCRO can legitimately declare war, then the Sons of Anarchy may still be bad boys, but at least they' are not immoral butchers. The just war theory spells out the criteria that must be met for the use of armed force to be morally justified. They are: Just Cause, Proportionality, Necessity, Right Authority, and Likelihood of Success. To be just, a war must fulfill all six criteria. The chapter presents arguments that suggest, in principle at least, that SAMCRO does (...) have the authority to declare war against an adversary. The club is not so different from existing political institutions. Like all great television, Sons of Anarchy can teach us a lot about the real world. We do not need to condone everything SAMCRO does. But we should be careful not to condemn everything the club does either, even when it resorts to violence. (shrink)

Throughout Supernatural, we watch the Winchesters resist, embrace, and redefine their roles in the family business, “saving people, hunting things.” These tensions echo a topic that philosophers have explored for thousands of years—free will. According to the existentialist philosopher Jean‐Paul Sartre, each person is in a constant state of shaping himself and his place in the world through free will. Dean is admirable in his ability to resist bad faith and act as captain for Team Free Will. In Supernatural, the (...) choices people make are impacted by their soul. Knowing that Sam could simply walk away from hunting to pursue a normal life shows Dean that they no longer share the same sense of moral responsibility. For good or for ill, Sam and Dean are responsible for their actions, which is better than you'd expect from an ex‐blood junkie and a high school dropout with six dollars in his pocket. (shrink)