Squid Game

• 456 players
• in deep financial debt
• play a series of deadly children's games
• for the chance to win US$38 million
prize

• Hwang Dong-hyuk: the popularity of

this series was due "by the irony that
hopeless grownups risk their lives to
win a kids' game”.
I. Huizinga: when game is
no longer "played".
1) Play is free, is in fact
freedom.
• Players “choose” to
participate in the
Squid Game (the
participants of the
Squid Game sign a
Consent Form)
• The nature of
coercion = to how
much misery and
manipulation can a
person be subjected
before their decisions
no longer count as
truly free?
2) Play is not "ordinary" or "real"
life.
• the reason behind the
creation of the game is quite
trivial.

• the system is very

complicated:
• determining and
utilizing location,
• optimizing space,
• utilizing technology,
• security systems.
3) Play is distinct from "ordinary"
life both as to locality and
duration.
• after players returned to their
normal lives, some of them
felt that being in the Squid
Game was better than their
own normal life, because of
how miserable their lives
were.
4) Play creates order, is order.
Play demands order absolute and
supreme.
• in the game intense
sufferings are more ordered
and predictable.
• in the game we are all equal
if we observe rules.
5) Play is connected with no
material interest, and no profit
can be gained from it.
• the participants do not play
because they want to play
and enjoy the process of
playing
• they are there because they
want to pay off the debt that
has accumulated.
 • Questions about our values, the
II. Philosophy in Squid Game.
price of human existence, legitimate
violence, injustice suffered or
committed, gambling, freedom, and
equity.
• What value can be given to
human existence?
• Can democracy lead to
servitude?
• Is capitalism the worst of
systems?
• Can humanity resist death?
• Is friendship soluble in
violence?
• Can morality end up accepting
everything?
• Is justice equality?
• Is gambling always a decoy?
 • natural rules (natural law)
man-made rules (positive law)

State of Nature • an imaginary time and place where these

rules were not yet formed

• SON - in moral and political philosophy -

is the hypothetical life of people before
societies came into existence, the state of
humanity before society or civilization.
• Would people consider themselves equal
in the state of nature?
What kind of law would there be among
them “naturally”?
Would they accept that everyone has
some innate rights?
Would they adopt a rational or utility-
based approach?
Would the “natural order” be established
spontaneously or would the “natural
state” be a dark, wild state in which the
strong destroy the weak, as in the animal
kingdom?
 Hobbesian vs. Lockean perspective
Hobbes Locke
state of nature = hopeless, dark, chaotic, where a constant fear of state of nature = state of freedom and equality, but freedoms are not
death determines almost everything. unlimited. There is a “natural law” (not made by humans) that
restricts them.

people are equal by nature, but when more than one person wants the a rational person knows “by nature” that no one should harm
same thing, this equality creates a feeling of hostility, quarrel and a another’s life, health, freedom or possessions.
constant feeling of insecurity.

everyone is at war with everyone. People try to destroy their rivals or living in accordance with one’s own good nature (that is, his mind,
dominate each other for the sake of their interests. his nature) brings peace, good relations, living in security, protection
of property, in short, happiness.

“homo homini lupus” (man is wolf to man). it is “clearly written in the heart of all mankind”.
=> man should try to get rid of this darkness by means of laws he will => man has to do is to arrange his laws according to the “natural
make with his mind. The aim should be to get as far away from the situation”.
“state of nature” as possible.
 • Hegel (one can never act
Hobbes vs. Locke authentically unless s/he is
acting under extreme duress)
=> in Squid Game, players
start to kill each other — first
out of fear of life, then to get
the prize => Hobbesian lines.

• Seong Gi-hun refuses to

harm or kill other
participants and seems to
keep the humanity of others
in full view throughout the
proceedings Socratic hero as
a winner (being good is
valuable for its own sake)
=> Lockean lines.
Squid Game is another
manifestation of Glaucon’s
challenge from Plato’s Republic.
• Glaucon claims that the man
would use it to steal all of the
king’s riches and to rape his
wife. Why should he care, if
he will never be caught?
• Similarly, participants in the
Squid Game either die or live
to tell the tale exactly as they
prefer with no one to correct
them on the more gruesome
details.
 Can people who are objects and toys in the hands of the
greedy, spoiled, dissatisfied and cruel rich people be
expected to continue to obey social conventions,
religious principles and moral rules in a simulation where
the rules are shelved?
The series seeks to Can virtues such as respect for rights, compassion,
answer the cooperation, self-sacrifice, renunciation, and
responsibility continue to exist in an environment where
following eventually every player has to fight alone, knowing that
the losers are killed without questioning or trial?
questions:
Is it justifiable for people whose hopes have been
exhausted by changing life conditions, whose legitimate
paths have been closed, and who have been forced to
face their fears, to kill in order not to die? Put even
shortly: Can killing for survival be justified?