Joseph J. Foy, in his article “Safe To Do What?” asserts that there are two moral philosophies present in the Hunger Games. One reminiscent of Tomas Hobbes idea that “in the absence of any dominant power to make and enforce rules, we have the right to do whatever we see fit,” and the other rooted in Immanuel Kant’s belief that “morality imposes obligations on us and ought to guide our conduct no matter what” (Foy, 207). But, I think that Foy needs to discuss the spectrum of morality when it comes to Katniss and what she is fighting for: isn’t Katniss entire premise of war the liberation of her people? If killing is the means to make so many people’s lives better, is it justified?
Katniss does not play into the selfish ideology of Hobbes, which states that the individual can and should act in their interests alone with no justice in mind, as Foy sometimes suggests. She protects Rue, a completely selfless act, and is the symbol for an entire revolution. Katniss does not merely just act of her own accord, but acts under the premise of being the hope for an entire nation of suppressed people, and how is that burden prioritizing her goals alone?
Katniss does not play into the selfish ideology of Hobbes, which states that the individual can and should act in their interests alone with no justice in mind, as Foy sometimes suggests. She protects Rue, a completely selfless act, and is the symbol for an entire revolution. Katniss does not merely just act of her own accord, but acts under the premise of being the hope for an entire nation of suppressed people, and how is that burden prioritizing her goals alone?