This month, I got confused when I saw commercials about the movie on
Spider-man 2. As far as I could
remember, I should have watched Spider-Man 1 and 2 years ago. I still remembered the main theme, apart from
fighting against bad guys and monsters, was that Spider-Man was human. He had to face all mundane troubles and
sufferings of life. Actually our hero,
Peter Parker, was even disadvantaged by his super power. He had to hurry here and there to save
countless lives. His super power was
nevertheless not all-mighty. He would
get hurt. He had to practice his
skills. He made mistakes. Worst of all, he still had to find a job so
as to pay his bills.
I did a bit internet searching and found out that actually the
now-showing movie was called The Amazing
Spider-Man 2: The Rise of Electro.
It served as a sequel to the 2012 movie The Amazing Spider-Man. What
I remembered were the trilogy: Spider-Man
in 2002, Spider-Man 2 in 2004, and Spider-Man 3 in 2007. For the trilogy, Toby Maguire was Peter
Parker and Spider-Man. Kirsten Dunst
acted as Peter’s girl friend Mary Jane Watson.
In The Amazing Spider-Man 1
and 2, Andrew Garfield acted as Peter
Parker and Spider-Man. Emma Stone acted
as Peter’s girl-friend, whom was a different one from the trilogy, Gwen
Stacy.
I did not remember watching The
Amazing Spider-Man. I am not too
fond of these kinds of comic movies. The
plot is usually weak. The focus is
mainly on special effects, especially with 3D technology. However, I did like Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. The message was clear: Life is
multi-dimensional. Being talented in one
area does not mean that you will be exempted from all other sufferings. While Peter was exhausted and neglecting his
beloved ones (including himself), he questioned his heroic acts of saving
others. Then came the famous quote from
his uncle Ben Parker: “With great power
comes great responsibility.” Peter
got instant enlightened on hearing this and continued the struggle with his
great power.
Obviously I did not attain enlightenment as easy. Was it true that with great power there came
great responsibility? Why didn’t the
owner of great power enjoy himself? Or
could he not take advantage of his gifted power and bully others? I recalled reading a book written by Michael
J. Sandel named Justice: What’s the Right
Thing to Do? The writer explored
three approaches to justice. One says justice means maximizing utility or
welfare – the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The second says justice means respecting
freedom of choice – either the actual choices people make in a free market (the
libertarian view) or the hypothetical choices people would make in an original
position of equality (the liberal egalitarian view). The third way says justice involves
cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common good. The writer favored the third mentioned
way of justice. He believed that justice
was not only the right way to distribute things. It was also about the right way to value
things.
The arguments were complicated, and each not without its
shortcomings. However, it seemed that it
was common ground that resources of the society needed to be distributed. It was only the ways of distribution that
were not in agreement. John Rawls
(representing the liberal egalitarian view) in his book, A Theory of Justice, gave a very good explanation on why distribution
of resources served the purpose of justice.
He invented the Difference
Principle, which stated that “only
those social and economic inequalities are permitted that work to the benefit
of the least adapted members of the society.” He explained that “The difference principle represents, in effect, an agreement to regard
the distribution of natural talents as a common asset and to share in the
benefits of this distribution whatever it turns out to be. Those who have been favored by nature,
whoever they are, may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve
the situation of those who have lost out.
The naturally advantaged are not to gain merely because they are more
gifted, but only to cover the costs of training and education and for using
their endowments in ways that help the less fortunate as well. No one deserves his greater natural capacity
nor merits a more favorable starting place in society. But it does not follow that one should
eliminate these distinctions. There is
another way to deal with them. The basic
structure of society can be arranged so that these contingencies work for the
good of the least fortunate.” Those
gifted by the lottery of nature were only in an advantage because the society
happened to value their talents. Rawls
maintained that even efforts in later life could be the product of favorable
upbringing. “Even the willingness to make an effort, to try, and so to be deserving
in the ordinary sense is itself dependent upon happy family and social
circumstances.” “It seems clearly that the effort a person is
willing to make is influenced by his natural abilities and skills and the
alternatives open to him.”
So Uncle Ben did make sense.
With great power comes great responsibility. I did see followers of Uncle Ben around. Some of them tried their best using every means
to increase their power. Before
accomplishing great power in their own subjective sense, they bore no
responsibility at all. Some of those
with great power exercised their great responsibility towards a few selected by
their own good selves. Some others took
the great responsibility to impose their value judgment on us, the less
gifted.
(Source: HKMA News May 2014)
