So Like, What Was Babylon All About?

There was a definite transition in the show from political thriller to philosophical exploration, much to the disappointment of viewers. Its controversial ending leaves us to wonder- did the show devolve into high school level philosophy trying too hard to invoke thought, or was there something meaningful to be found? I'm not a philosophy student, but I figure it'd be interesting to give it a try.

If episode 11's exploration about morality involving flying through space and time was anything, it at least proved to us the the show was never really about whether suicide was right or wrong. It was about good and evil, evidenced as early as episode 2 when Ai questions Seizaki on morality in her interview. The idea is echoed in episode 7, where Ai describes the difference between good and evil being one of preference, like loving cats and dogs- the moral relativity argument. She requests that Seizaki thinks about why she does evil things, and what exactly is evil.

Finally in episode 12, the answer to the question- the thematic conclusion to the show, is given. "Continuing (to live) is good. Ending (a life) is evil". But it's a flawed statement contradicted by the ending itself. Seizaki must end Alex's life to prevent them from thinking that suicide is acceptable. By its own definition, that would make Seizaki evil, even though he was trying to do something good. There's also the fact that the statement does not explicitly apply to life- it could apply to crime. Surely continuing to steal, murder, or rape is not ethical.

But what if the gamer president's revelation was not the truth? What if it was designed to be wrong?

This entire sequence is just the expanding brain meme

Despite the so called "solution" to good and evil presented, the bad guy still wins. I believe the reason is simple- the solution was not only flawed, but it was a result of overthinking. Now the show does not deny that continuing to think about what is good and evil is not wrong. If anything, that is the only truth in the show. However, Alex spends so much time thinking about suicide and his revelation scene we are treated to is very cheesy and reeks of pretentiousness. Seizaki is so shaken up by Ai when she uses the age old high school level "morality is subjective argument" argument. As a result, Ai has continued to murder people. It is easy to see how the Shiniki suicide law is just a pretense that will allow Ai to murder people undetected, but the characters seem to miss it. Perhaps what the show is really trying to say is just- don't overthink it! Or you'd miss the forest for the trees. There isn't a magical solution, or at least one that comes as easily as it did to Alex. Go with your moral intuition, and don't act like a wannabee philosopher. You're not that smart.

Now I'm not sure if Babylon was intended to be an anti-philosophy statement. I feel like the writing in the show has generally been pretty bad since the nonsensical suicide debate in episode 6, so an idea as complex as this would be hard to pass off as intentional. But it's the only way Babylon makes sense.

-GaryMuffuginOak

I promised to write a proper review of Babylon, but I feel like this article would make a full length review redundant. In short, the show has some great cinematography and music, with a thought provoking ending- but that's really about it. The story was all over the place, and the villain didn't really go anywhere interesting. The worst parts of the show was sitting through its philosophy bits... but maybe that's because the show is meant to be anti-philosophy. Don't really know. 6/10.