With me...she'd have polkadots!
The Shadows Were Right - (B5 Spoilers)
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
Manticore said:I used to love B5 around 12 years ago (when I was 12), but I can't get into it now. The acting and dialog seriously turns me off.
I'm watching the series; up to the middle of season 4--they just liberated Proxima III--and I have to agree with you a bit on the acting. But I think it was the directing because there was so much consistency about it.
Many of the characters sound damn pissed a lot. Even when what was said to them really didn't require such a strong reaction. I'm talking about before things got really stressful. It seemed to be almost every character (except Lennier and Vir--both of whom are fantastic), so I'm going with direction rather than acting because when subtlety was called for, each actor was well capable of providing it.
I think Katsulas and Jurasik (G'kar and Londo) got their characters to that point rather early. Whether that was due to a change in direction regarding these characters or the influence of the actors, I don't know, but G'kar and Londo are far and away the most interesting pair on the show, with Londo and Vir second.
The Shadows weren't right, at least not in the end. Yes conflict and war does bring technological advancement, but then so does unrestricted experimentation, just ask the late Dr. Mengele, or in the B5 universe, Jha'dur. The question is, is it worth it? Is it worth inflicting pain and death for the betterment and well-being of others? Where would you draw the line? If one life, then why not ten, or a hundred or a billion because in the end it makes no difference.
Not to start a theology lecture but the way I see it, absolute chaos leads to absolute devastation and total order leads to total stagnation. Thinking in absolutes is usually the way of the fanatic or the self deluding and "shades of grey" doesn't exactly do it either since it implies that there are only two directions to move in.
Anyway, back to B5: As Sheridan said the point was that it's up to the younger races to find their own way between order and chaos and it's got nothing to do with anyone being "right", it's simply what is.
Not to start a theology lecture but the way I see it, absolute chaos leads to absolute devastation and total order leads to total stagnation. Thinking in absolutes is usually the way of the fanatic or the self deluding and "shades of grey" doesn't exactly do it either since it implies that there are only two directions to move in.
Anyway, back to B5: As Sheridan said the point was that it's up to the younger races to find their own way between order and chaos and it's got nothing to do with anyone being "right", it's simply what is.
Most of the time, absolutes do tend to indicate limited thinking. But I'm inclined to agree that there are certain things that are just plain right and wrong. For example, can anybody name me an acceptable circumstance in which child rape would be acceptable or justifiable? I didn't think so...
^ Evil committed in the name of survival is still evil.
So maybe it's not your mother, maybe it's the mother of the man who singlehandedly brings about the greatest golden age mankind has ever known. And his genetic code contains a 1-in-a-trillion-trillian variation which produces a cure for a disease which would otherwise wipe out mankind. So you can't even risk him being the result of a different sperm finding that egg----no interference can be tolerated in his conception or birth.
It's still evil, but it's evil in the name of a greater good. And that's exactly what grey areas are made of.
It's still evil, but it's evil in the name of a greater good. And that's exactly what grey areas are made of.
There's always ways around this sort of thing. Ever read "War of the Daleks"?
Anyway, my response to that would be this:1) Even a great golden age does not justify rape.
2) There doesn't even have to be any rape to begin with. Assuming you have evidence to back up your claims of this golden age, cure for a horrible disease, yadda yadda yadda, why not just explain it to the poor woman beforehand? And if, knowing all this, she won't go along with it, then why should you?
That still doesn't make it right.
I've already told you what I think of those.
I already qualified that out----this is an extremely unlikely genetic variation. It *has* to be that particular sperm and that particular egg. There's no explaining or delaying or interfering of any kind which you can do without changing that. (In fact, chaos theory suggests your very presence may change that even if you're nowhere near the event, but we'll ignore that for now.)
The whole point is that what is right and what is necessary are not always in alignment. Plenty of examples of that in the last century, mostly in times of war.
Well I didn't say always.
As for achieving something "good" by doing something "evil"...well for starters I don't really believe in the existence of either, at least not in a day-to-day human context.
However, in this purely hypothetical time travel/rape scenario the true crux of the morality is in choice. If she were to consent then that's a noble sacrifice, if not then it's a violation. I don't know that either option effects the outcome in anyway or that either is fundamentally "right" or "wrong" (those are entirely subjective concepts.) The only difference in my mind is that one way has respect for life, the other does not and it's up to the individual to decide if that matters to them.
OTOH, one could argue (god this is a twisted scenario I partially came up with) that the victim can't make an informed decision because they don't know the future while the time traveler does.
If raping someone was the only way to save the world from nuclear annihilation, would you do it?
Heh.
If raping someone was the only way to save the world from nuclear annihilation, would you do it?
Heh.
Since that can never happen, why even bother thinking about it?
It's an example. Want a real-world one? Sheridan even calls it out in one episode.
During WW2, Winston Churchill received intelligence that the Axis was planning to bomb a town called Coventry. He could have ordered the town evacuated, but doing so would reveal that the Allies had cracked Enigma; and that was deemed too great a risk. So no evacuation was ordered, and the town was destroyed.
There's some doubt as to the extent of the truth of this story, but even as a parable it has value. Sometimes the right thing to do isn't entirely clear, and a judgement call must be made which will damage someone either way.
During WW2, Winston Churchill received intelligence that the Axis was planning to bomb a town called Coventry. He could have ordered the town evacuated, but doing so would reveal that the Allies had cracked Enigma; and that was deemed too great a risk. So no evacuation was ordered, and the town was destroyed.
There's some doubt as to the extent of the truth of this story, but even as a parable it has value. Sometimes the right thing to do isn't entirely clear, and a judgement call must be made which will damage someone either way.
The parable is flawed because it assumes a fixed amount of money in circulation, and not (as in reality) that the money supply can increase over time. Therefore it is possible that the opportunity cost to the cobbler of replacing the window is outweighed in the longer term by growth in GDP leading to more income for him. If the money supply is fixed or the value of tied to a standard whose value is static, then it would be correct, but in reality one either has a standard who value is not fixed but is determined by supply/demand (eg gold) or has fiat money which is by definition not fixed in amount.
Whether the cobbler suffers net gain or loss depends on a multitude of variables intrinsic to the particular economy. In other words, there are shades of grey even in terms of whether the parable is right or wrong...
Turning to B5 - the shadows and the vorlons are just opposite aspects of the same coin. The concept of order & chaos in eternal oppostion, with the conflict leading to increased human productivity (and explaining suffering) is prevalent across a number of mythologies.
"Rape this child or I will kill a thousand people." What choice do you have there?
