Spoilers Timeless: Season 1 on NBC

[Christopher]

Okay, that's wild... Sherlock mentioned H.H. Holmes's murder hotel just last week, and now here's an episode about it. What are the odds? I've never even heard of this bit of history, at least not that I recall. Was this something that got a lot of publicity sometime in the past year, so that it might've inspired the writers of both shows to do something pertaining to it?

It's also rather wild that Ford was willing to advertise on a show that claims its founder and namesake was a member of an evil conspiracy.

The actor they cast as Houdini actually reminds me a bit of Michael Weston, who played the role in Houdini and Doyle last year. Of course, they are playing the same historical figure, but that's not always a guarantee with actor portrayals. Although I don't think this guy was as effective an actor as Weston.

Oh, great, and Lucy is the latest fictional character to suddenly be established as claustrophobic when it's plot-convenient. If she's so panicky in tight spaces, why has she been fine with getting into that tiny time-travel capsule for the past several months?

 

[Guy Gardener]

Or that tunnel out of the Alamo?

 

[sojourner]

Supernatural used H.H. Holmes last season.

 

[Galileo7]

Okay, that's wild... Sherlock mentioned H.H. Holmes's murder hotel just last week, and now here's an episode about it. What are the odds? I've never even heard of this bit of history, at least not that I recall. Was this something that got a lot of publicity sometime in the past year, so that it might've inspired the writers of both shows to do something pertaining to it?

It's also rather wild that Ford was willing to advertise on a show that claims its founder and namesake was a member of an evil conspiracy.

The actor they cast as Houdini actually reminds me a bit of Michael Weston, who played the role in Houdini and Doyle last year. Of course, they are playing the same historical figure, but that's not always a guarantee with actor portrayals. Although I don't think this guy was as effective an actor as Weston.

Oh, great, and Lucy is the latest fictional character to suddenly be established as claustrophobic when it's plot-convenient. If she's so panicky in tight spaces, why has she been fine with getting into that tiny time-travel capsule for the past several months?

I was shocked when I viewed an hour documentary on H.H. Holmes's murder hotel several years ago. The Holmes history is horrible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._H._Holmes

 

[Ovation]

I highly recommend Erik Larson's The Devil in the White City. An excellent history of the fair and H.H. Holmes.

Actually, anything by Larson is worth a read.

 

[Mr Awe]

I guess I must be about the only one who hadn't heard of H.H. Holmes before! Although, I do watch Sherlock and have the episode in question recorded.

This was a pretty enjoyable episode. The time and place were interesting. Good story and Lucy had a great idea enlisting the help of Houdini.

Oh, the Flynnsanity! I didn't think the crazed Flynn was in character. Yeah, he'd be upset by the fact that Rittenhouse was unchanged. But, he knew they had other followers and I don't think he'd be quite so besides himself about it. Upset yeah, but not so far gone.

I hope we haven't just witnessed the show devolving to a slightly crazy bad guy with less subtlety who is just going to target Rittenhouse members one by one? That's what it seemed like.

I too was a bit disappointed by the lack of change in the series. I'm starting to get the sense that this series is going to be a conservative one in terms of the protagonists and premise. It's going to be the good guys trying to stop the bad guys and a shadowy organization. Sure, they might change things around the edges a bit, a new bond movie here a slightly different outcome there, etc. Lucy's missing sister is a big one but that's kind of built into the premise at this point. Killing the Rittenhouse guy in the previous story was a chance to stir things up but they decided to essentially hit a reset button.

I'll still be watching the series but I'll be on the lookout for whether this establishes the pattern of sticking with the format.

That said, Flynn's attempt to turn (shoot, what's his name) to the dark side was interesting. I'll be curious what they decide to do with that. Not that I think he'll go bad, but maybe he can use the knowledge to his benefit somehow. Seems like there'd be less drastic measures than killing the parents. Maybe just a small event that messes up the conception of the murderer. Mess up the timing just a bit, even an hour would suffice. Inject the mother with some long lasting birth control? There are means short of murder!

Mr Awe

 

[Christopher]

That said, Flynn's attempt to turn (shoot, what's his name) to the dark side was interesting.

Wyatt Logan.

Seems like there'd be less drastic measures than killing the parents. Maybe just a small event that messes up the conception of the murderer. Mess up the timing just a bit, even an hour would suffice. Inject the mother with some long lasting birth control? There are means short of murder!

I think that using time travel to deliberately prevent someone's birth would still constitute murder. The crime of murder doesn't require direct violence, it requires malice aforethought, i.e. the deliberate choice to act (or fail to act) in a way that would cause a living person to not be living anymore. Maybe the legal definition of murder wouldn't encompass it, because it specifies "unlawful killing," and one could quibble over whether the word "killing" could apply to preventing someone from having been born in the first place (and it'd be hard to have that debate without getting drawn off-topic into the abortion issue). Still, from a moral standpoint I think it would be tantamount to murder. The fact that nobody remembers the person's existence doesn't change the fact that the time traveler has deliberately chosen to destroy that person's life.

 

[Mr Awe]

Wyatt Logan.



I think that using time travel to deliberately prevent someone's birth would still constitute murder. The crime of murder doesn't require direct violence, it requires malice aforethought, i.e. the deliberate choice to act (or fail to act) in a way that would cause a living person to not be living anymore. Maybe the legal definition of murder wouldn't encompass it, because it specifies "unlawful killing," and one could quibble over whether the word "killing" could apply to preventing someone from having been born in the first place (and it'd be hard to have that debate without getting drawn off-topic into the abortion issue). Still, from a moral standpoint I think it would be tantamount to murder. The fact that nobody remembers the person's existence doesn't change the fact that the time traveler has deliberately chosen to destroy that person's life.

That's a good ethical question to ponder. In this case, you could see it as a form of capital punishment because conveniently the murderer has been convicted of 2 other murders.

My point was that it wouldn't involve murdering either innocent parent as Flynn suggested. As for preventing a birth, well, I suppose someone's take on that might be roughly in line with their take on abortion. I suppose knowing in detail the nature of the life that you'd be preventing could change your opinion on that though. In this case, the murderer won't get much sympathy and you'd be saving at least 3 lives (Wyatt's wife and the 2 others). That sounds like a good tradeoff!

But, if you knew that the future person was good, yeah, that would make it harder to do in good conscious!

Mr Awe

 

[Christopher]

That's a good ethical question to ponder. In this case, you could see it as a form of capital punishment because conveniently the murderer has been convicted of 2 other murders.

Private citizens have no legal authority to carry out capital punishment. There's nothing in the legal definition of murder that makes an exception for revenge. And personally I've never understood the attitude that if someone does something evil to you, that somehow makes it okay to do the same evil thing to them. Morality isn't something you can just switch off and on like that. If it's bad for them to do it to you, it's equally bad for you to do it to them. We should strive to live up to our own standards in all things, not look for opportunities to live down to the worst people's standards.

In this case, the murderer won't get much sympathy and you'd be saving at least 3 lives (Wyatt's wife and the 2 others). That sounds like a good tradeoff!

And what about all the thousands of other people that the murderer interacted with in his lifetime, for better or worse? Removing his entire lifespan from history could have countless unpredictable consequences, some of which could cause other lives to be destroyed or erased -- in the same way that saving the lives of the Hindenburg's passengers ended up erasing Lucy's sister. What if, because he was never born, his parents went mountaineering instead of staying home with him and died in an avalanche? What if the fifth-grade teacher who held him after school for detention instead went home early that day and got hit by a bus? There's no way to be sure of the impact. That's why it's so wrong to tamper with time for selfish reasons.

 

[Mr Awe]

Private citizens have no legal authority to carry out capital punishment. There's nothing in the legal definition of murder that makes an exception for revenge. And personally I've never understood the attitude that if someone does something evil to you, that somehow makes it okay to do the same evil thing to them. Morality isn't something you can just switch off and on like that. If it's bad for them to do it to you, it's equally bad for you to do it to them. We should strive to live up to our own standards in all things, not look for opportunities to live down to the worst people's standards.




And what about all the thousands of other people that the murderer interacted with in his lifetime, for better or worse? Removing his entire lifespan from history could have countless unpredictable consequences, some of which could cause other lives to be destroyed or erased -- in the same way that saving the lives of the Hindenburg's passengers ended up erasing Lucy's sister. What if, because he was never born, his parents went mountaineering instead of staying home with him and died in an avalanche? What if the fifth-grade teacher who held him after school for detention instead went home early that day and got hit by a bus? There's no way to be sure of the impact. That's why it's so wrong to tamper with time for selfish reasons.

I agree with the legal assessment that private citizens can't legally carry out capital punishment. However, I was talking about it from an ethical standpoint, which is not the same thing. Also, using time travel to prevent someone's birth wouldn't full under capital punishment from a legal standpoint anyway. If time travel were invented, they'd new laws to cover the multitude of potential new crimes!

So, from an ethical standpoint, I'd disagree and say that preventing the birth of the murderer of Wyatt's wife is a good thing. Yes, the murderer's interactions with others will not exist. However, the interactions between the 3 victims and their loved ones will now exist. I would not want to throw that away.

I'll agree that it is a tough thing. Normally, when you make decisions about a course of action, you don't see the actual before and after effects of the decision. You can guess about what if you do this versus that, but there's a lot of uncertainty. With time travel, you see the specific effects and unintended consequences. It used to be this way exactly and now it's that way exactly. The ripple effects of actions can spread far and wide and are now often apparent (if the time traveler chooses to look) rather than just theoretical.

Mr Awe

 

[Guy Gardener]

If legally there were provisions for time travellers were made, it would be to enforce absolute trust or absolute mistrust, which would be dependent on the faith any such present has on the future to working in their best interest.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with the legal assessment that private citizens can't legally carry out capital punishment. However, I was talking about it from an ethical standpoint, which is not the same thing.

So was I. Revenge is never ethical, and I include capital punishment in that. If killing is wrong, it's always wrong. Payback is not ethics, it's childish self-indulgence.

So, from an ethical standpoint, I'd disagree and say that preventing the birth of the murderer of Wyatt's wife is a good thing. Yes, the murderer's interactions with others will not exist. However, the interactions between the 3 victims and their loved ones will now exist. I would not want to throw that away.

And what makes those three people more important than everyone else on the planet? Selfishness is not ethical either. You don't get to screw up thousands or millions of other people's lives just so you can get what you want. That's pretty much what this whole season of The Flash has been dedicated to teaching Barry Allen -- that using time travel to fix your own life is criminally selfish, because it's bound to screw up other people's lives. No one person has that right. Using power just because you have it is the opposite of ethical behavior. Ethics is more about knowing when not to use power.

 

[Mr Awe]

So was I. Revenge is never ethical, and I include capital punishment in that. If killing is wrong, it's always wrong. Payback is not ethics, it's childish self-indulgence.




And what makes those three people more important than everyone else on the planet? Selfishness is not ethical either. You don't get to screw up thousands or millions of other people's lives just so you can get what you want. That's pretty much what this whole season of The Flash has been dedicated to teaching Barry Allen -- that using time travel to fix your own life is criminally selfish, because it's bound to screw up other people's lives. No one person has that right. Using power just because you have it is the opposite of ethical behavior. Ethics is more about knowing when not to use power.

You mentioned the legal angle ("Private citizens have no legal authority to carry out capital punishment. There's nothing in the legal definition of murder that makes an exception for revenge."), which is why I brought up the distinction between ethics and the law.

Ethics is more a personal thing and while for you capital punishment is always wrong, that may not hold true for others. For myself, I'm actually against capital punishment. That's not because I'm against killing some bastard who's done something really heinous. It's more because our justice system has been proven to make mistakes in terms of guilt, particularly with minorities. You can't undo an execution. I'm also perfectly fine if that person rots in jail for his/her entire life. Given that think both forms of punishment are acceptable to me, I default to the non-capital punishment.

However, with the time travel scenario, the only way to save those 3 victims is to prevent the birth of the murderer. That's a good trade off. Letting the murderer live or die both have countless ripple effects and unintended consequences that would be impossible to calculate the entire pros and cons of both choices. However, there's a concrete difference of 3 lives that you're saving from a horrific end.

I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on this, which is fine and not surprising given the nature of the ethics question! I'll grant you this, the unrestricted vigilante nature of it does give me pause. But, for the specific case we're talking about, it sounds justified to me.

Mr Awe

 

[Christopher]

However, with the time travel scenario, the only way to save those 3 victims is to prevent the birth of the murderer.

That's an absurdly hasty conclusion to jump to. Time is so complicated that no human mind could possibly model the full range of possibilities, either causes or effects. That's why it's so reckless to mess with it for personal gain.

That's a good trade off.

Ethics is not a swap meet. It's not about profit and loss -- that's the crudest, most juvenile level of ethical thinking. Ethics is about doing the right thing whether it benefits you or not. And most importantly, it means having the maturity to look beyond your own self-interest and recognize that sometimes the only ethical choice is to do nothing. Doing the wrong thing with good intentions does not make it right.

I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on this, which is fine and not surprising given the nature of the ethics question! I'll grant you this, the unrestricted vigilante nature of it does give me pause. But, for the specific case we're talking about, it sounds justified to me.

It's using a nuke to swat a fly. Nobody has the right to change the whole universe for personal gain. That's an immoral act no matter how noble the excuse you make for it. Ends do not justify means.

 

[JD]

This one was pretty good. I got a kick out of seeing a episode with HH Holmes so soon after they referenced him in Sherlock. Lucy teaming up with Houdini was a lot of fun.

 

[Mr Awe]

That's an absurdly hasty conclusion to jump to. Time is so complicated that no human mind could possibly model the full range of possibilities, either causes or effects. That's why it's so reckless to mess with it for personal gain.



Ethics is not a swap meet. It's not about profit and loss -- that's the crudest, most juvenile level of ethical thinking. Ethics is about doing the right thing whether it benefits you or not. And most importantly, it means having the maturity to look beyond your own self-interest and recognize that sometimes the only ethical choice is to do nothing. Doing the wrong thing with good intentions does not make it right.




It's using a nuke to swat a fly. Nobody has the right to change the whole universe for personal gain. That's an immoral act no matter how noble the excuse you make for it. Ends do not justify means.

I disagree with, basically, everything you say above. But, let's focus on one aspect for now, the "swap meet", as you described it. To some extent at least, it really is about weighing the pros and cons. I'd assume that normally you think it's unethical to lock up an individual. Presumably, you make an exception for people convicted of certain crimes. What makes it ok in that situation versus other situations? It's the same thing after all, confinement of an individual. The difference is all the benefits to society because a dangerous person is locked away and a deterrence effect.

Those are good things, they provide benefits to society, and justifies locking the person up when you wouldn't otherwise. Society could instead impose other penalties such as a fine or community service, but for certain crimes society says that is insufficient because you don't want dangerous people on the loose.

If your loved one, significant other, son, daughter, etc was murdered and you had the ability to prevent it by using time travel to prevent the birth of the murderer, are you really telling me that you wouldn't do that? You'd have a tough time living that one down with others who knew the victim!

One more point, every time you make a decision in the real world, you are effectively changing the entire universe. You just don't know the precise the outcome. At least in the scenario we're discussing, you know that you'd save those 3 individuals from being murdered.

Mr Awe

 

[JD]

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here too, but for me the problem is you just really can't be sure how much of an impact that person would have. Even if they don't do something hugely influential, for all you know they could still influence someone who does. Say they killed other people besides your loved one, and that influenced someone to go on to become a cop, and as a cop they stopped the next 9/11. Would you really be willing to potentially doom thousands of people just to get your loved one back?

 

[Christopher]

f your loved one, significant other, son, daughter, etc was murdered and you had the ability to prevent it by using time travel to prevent the birth of the murderer, are you really telling me that you wouldn't do that?

Assuming it's a fictional universe where history can be "overwritten" as in this show (which is impossible in reality), then hell, no. I don't have the right to play God, to rewrite everyone else's reality for my own convenience. That's obscenely selfish. It's the act of a pathological narcissist, not an ethical adult. The question you should be asking is, would you be okay with someone else rewriting your entire life to bring back their loved ones? What if saving their wife meant changing your life so that you never met your spouse, or never had your children, or were an only child when you had a sister before? Would you feel they had the right to do that to you and your loved ones just to save their own?

As long as you define ethics purely from a self-interested point of view, you have no ethics at all. Morality is about considering other people's rights and needs as equal to your own -- treating them the way you'd want them to treat you. To say that you get to affect other people in a way that you wouldn't want to let them affect you is a double standard.

And I would not erase someone's entire existence either, because that would make me a murderer. As I've been saying all along, nothing gives me the right to take away another person's life, no matter what they've done. Because my morality isn't about what other people do, it's about what I do. It would be hypocritical of me to pretend that I can suspend my own guiding morals just because of something somebody else did. That's not the way it works. Other people are responsible for their actions and I'm responsible for mine.

You'd have a tough time living that one down with others who knew the victim!

And if I erased someone's existence, then they would be my victim. Like I said, morality goes both ways.

One more point, every time you make a decision in the real world, you are effectively changing the entire universe. You just don't know the precise the outcome. At least in the scenario we're discussing, you know that you'd save those 3 individuals from being murdered.

Which is an arbitrary, tunnel-vision justification for an action that would affect millions of other lives in ways you can't possibly predict. I don't have any right to prioritize those lives above everyone else's. I don't have any right whatsoever to take the responsibility for that choice onto myself.

Besides, you don't even know if it would work. Say the guy became a murderer because his parents abused him. Say you prevent him from being born -- maybe his parents will just try again, have another kid a month later, and abuse that kid so that he grows up to be a murderer too. With the same life history, he might end up in the same place and kill the same people. Or, hell, he might grow up to be an even worse murderer and kill more people.

 

[Mr Awe]

The question you should be asking is, would you be okay with someone else rewriting your entire life to bring back their loved ones? What if saving their wife meant changing your life so that you never met your spouse, or never had your children, or were an only child when you had a sister before? Would you feel they had the right to do that to you and your loved ones just to save their own?

This is a tough part of it and I don't think there's an easy answer either way. But, look at this way. Let's postulate the scenario described in the show. You, as the time traveler, have the ability to either leave history alone and the murderer kills 3 people or you can intervene and prevent the birth of the murderer. Regardless of your choice, your decision has a huge impact on other people.

If you choose not to intervene, you are condemning those 3 to be murdered and their loved ones experience a lot of suffering.

However, if you choose to intervene, sure, you might prevent the existence of some people or otherwise affect their lives. It's possible, but you don't know for sure. And, if something was changed along those lines, they'd never know it so there wouldn't be the suffering from the knowledge of the loss.

Either way, it's a choice. It's not an easy choice for sure and I think reasonable minds can disagree. For me, it seems like if you choose not to intervene, there's definite harm. If you do intervene, there's only the possibility of harm but it is not definite. And, I'm sure a lot of would have to be decided based on the specifics of each case, as you'd do in a court of law.

As long as you define ethics purely from a self-interested point of view, you have no ethics at all. Morality is about considering other people's rights and needs as equal to your own -- treating them the way you'd want them to treat you. To say that you get to affect other people in a way that you wouldn't want to let them affect you is a double standard.

That's a part of it. But morality and ethics change over time. Just look at what was considered acceptable ways of viewing and treating other races, women, and people with different orientations. The societal norms about what was considered ethical treatment has changed over time. Even today, there are plenty of backward people who'd still mistreat those groups.

In ethics, there is an inherent amount of personal assessment of what is right and wrong. And, there's a personal assessment of what constitutes acceptable recourse for the wrongs. Ethics vary from time to time, and person to person. What you consider an absolute wrong isn't necessarily shared by others who could, nonetheless, be bound by their own ethics. Ethics are not universally absolute.

Mr Awe

 

[Christopher]

If you choose not to intervene, you are condemning those 3 to be murdered and their loved ones experience a lot of suffering.

No, I'm not. Failing to undo a murder committed by someone else does not make one responsible for the murder. If a doctor fails to revive a murder victim, you wouldn't say the doctor condemned them to death. The responsibility for the crime lies with the murderer. Because the murderer thought he had the right to make decisions about other people's life and death. He was wrong to think he had that right. And it would be wrong of me to think that I had the same right.

However, if you choose to intervene, sure, you might prevent the existence of some people or otherwise affect their lives. It's possible, but you don't know for sure.

Bull. We're talking about millions or billions of people whose lives could be affected. On that scale, that outcome is not merely possible, but inevitable. The only reason to assume it isn't is if one lacks the imagination to see the bigger picture or the education to understand the laws of probability. And if you don't have those, you sure as hell don't deserve to be entrusted with the power of time travel.

That's a part of it. But morality and ethics change over time. Just look at what was considered acceptable ways of viewing and treating other races, women, and people with different orientations. The societal norms about what was considered ethical treatment has changed over time. Even today, there are plenty of backward people who'd still mistreat those groups.

But that's because they don't recognize the principle I'm talking about, treating others the way you'd want to be treated in turn. All movement toward greater rights and morality is simply a movement toward more people living by the Golden Rule.

In ethics, there is an inherent amount of personal assessment of what is right and wrong. And, there's a personal assessment of what constitutes acceptable recourse for the wrongs. Ethics vary from time to time, and person to person. What you consider an absolute wrong isn't necessarily shared by others who could, nonetheless, be bound by their own ethics. Ethics are not universally absolute.

Oh, that's a very convenient thing to hide behind when you're trying to justify doing something self-centered. What I'm saying is that I'm trying to respect the rights of others, not trying to twist ethics to justify what I want to do.