CA:CW Analysis

poedameron-tony:

It’s definitely a hard ethical debate and personally, the people coming down hard on either side of this issue and trying to declare one side morally superior to the other, those people trying to make this black and white…

THOSE people are “wrong”. I’m not saying your opinion about a fictional film is wrong, it’s an opinion, have fun! I’m just saying that trying to force ethics into absolutes is wrong. There are people defending Steve, there are (fewer) people defending Tony and both sides seem to think that it’s impossible for both sides to be right and wrong at the same time.

My personal views:

1. The Accords: honestly, they had nothing to do with Bucky; they must’ve been in the works for months. Rumlow blowing himself up was not the catalyst. I believe the Accords probably would’ve been presented to the Avengers within the week anyway. So if you take Bucky out of this whole situation, Steve probably would’ve signed, and then the team would have been able to amend the Accords so they can still function as a superhero team. Steve almost signed anyway. Are they  perfect solution? No, but they’re a start. Tony was right that they could sign the Accords and then amend them. And honestly, the USA acts outside of UN approval all the damn time, it’s not hard to do. Signing the Accords is political posturing, that’s all it is.
2. Wanda: Steve was seconds away from signing the Accords when he learned that Wanda was on house arrest. Um… duh, of course she is? While it wasn’t her fault Rumlow blew himself up, and she did her best to deflect the blast, people still died – granted, WAY fewer than would have died if the bomb had exploded on the ground. However, the rest of the world hasn’t wrapped their head around that yet, so for appearances and her own safety, it makes complete sense she’s stuck at home. She probably should’ve been TOLD that though; I don’t get why it was this huge secret they kept from her.
3. Bucky: Steve was right to go after Bucky and get him out of there. Why? Because the police/military had been ordered to “shoot on sight”. Steve knew this; he knew the government had ordered Bucky to be murdered without a trial, without questioning, without due process. So ethically, Steve was 100% right to go out and protect Bucky from you know,death. Was imprisoning Bucky good? Well, when Steve and Sam finally catch Bucky, they restrain him. Steve was right to pursue things without “government approval” in this case because that simply would’ve killed Bucky.
4. Tony: His entire story arc from IM I has been about accountability, about trying to make the right choices, about trying to keep the world safe as awhole. Initially he thought maybe that meant doing things on his own. Then he learned there were bigger problems, and he became part of the Avengers, but that still didn’t solve everything. I think he thought that maybe the judgement of humans just isn’t good enough, based on how the council tried to bomb New York during Avengers 1, and how it turns out all of SHIELD is infested with HYDRA during CA:WS. So he tries to build Ultron, and that backfires… So now he’s going the next step up the human ladder: from tiny councils and individuals trying to decide things, from state-run organizations infested with corruption, up to the international level. Surely, here, there will be good people.  

There are no easy answers. No party was 100% right or wrong.