Mal and his people are just low-life thieves...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 14:32
VIEWED: 39973
PAGE 6 of 17
I guess our definitions of "hero" and "heroic" and very different from each other. :)
To me, reversing a wrong you did is something you do have to do. Otherwise, you're bad.
And I'm not saying Mal cannot be a hero, period. I am just saying that his pirate life on the rim doesn't deserve that distinction.
Mal is a hero in the way that he himself describes in Jaynestown. "Every man ever got a statue made of him, was one kind of sumbitch oranother."
Mal is a hero in that he has done a heroic thing or five. But his regular life is not a heroic one by any stretch of the imagination. Not even a particularly moral one.
I am saying this mostly because I've seen it implied a lot in this thread and I personally disagree, that's all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal and his people are great people and I would like to know them in real life. Forming groups like that and having a "Family" that looks out and takes care of its own is a rear thing indeed. Serenity's crew is just that ....... We know some about them have a past and a family but I think that situation calls for them to be separated and away from their families.
Joss has talked a lot about "The Frontier" and how "Firefly/Serenity" is supposed to work off the idea of "The Frontier". It makes sense that they have different kinds of morals and sense of family. The West, The Frontier whatever had people who made their living many different ways but I think that "the Alliance" has made it hard for anyone on "The Frontier". Firefly has delt with issue of the outer planets getting the right medicines and other things that they need to survive. So, maybe people need to be a little tougher and rougher on the outer areas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dc4bs:
Sorry. I can't cotton to the notion the guy surrendering was innocent.
He was an active participant in the unprovoked slaughter of an entire settlement.
Look back to the war trials after WWII, etc... It's up to a soldier to refuse "bad" orders. The soldier is held responsible for his own actions.
And how much did he seriously know about the people they were attacking? Are all soldiers always briefed about every detail of what they are told to do?
What if they were told "these are terrorists working on weapons of mass destruction"? Preventative measures such as those aren't exactly an unheard of thing, even if they are morally and legally ambiguious.
I find it odd that this soldier crawling out of the aircraft with his hands raised in surrender would deserve to die more than the man who ordered the slaughter that Mal ended up letting go. If there was nothing morally wrong with shooting that soldier then Mal should at least have had the consistency to kill the Operative, too.
Besides, it was only an example. I'm not about to found the "Justice for Unnamed Alliance Soldier" league.
Quote:
How bout this:
You are walking down the street with your wife/sister/brother/best friend etc...
A stranger walks up and shoots them dead in front of you and then tosses you their gun and raises their arms...
You honestly would go find a cop and politely ask for this person to be arrested? You hoestly have any doubt of this persons guilt? You are the only witness. It will be their word against yours. By the way, he happens to work as a security guard for said court and you happen to have a record of previous arrests for various crimes.
Why is it so hard to make a distinction between "What is humanly understandable" and "what is right"?
I could easily snap and shoot the man in revenge. (More realistically I'd be hysterially crying and trying to revive my husband/sister/best friend, really.)
That doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. It's just a basic human response.
I grant that an Alliance court is most likely corrupt. It's still murder to kill a man who surrenders.
That's why doing the right thing is generally so very hard, because the universe doesn't always reward it with satisfaction or justice.
These things exist parallel next to each other. In the same way, Mal is both a petty crook with loose morals and a hero. One doesn't exclude the other.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why is it so hard to make a distinction between "What is humanly understandable" and "what is right"?
I could easily snap and shoot the man in revenge. (More realistically I'd be hysterially crying and trying to revive my husband/sister/best friend, really.)
That doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. It's just a basic human response.
I grant that an Alliance court is most likely corrupt. It's still murder to kill a man who surrenders.
That's why doing the right thing is generally so very hard, because the universe doesn't always reward it with satisfaction or justice.
These things exist parallel next to each other. In the same way, Mal is both a petty crook with loose morals and a hero. One doesn't exclude the other.
Nicely put, once again. Look, I'm not trying to condemn Mal's actions here. Were I in his place, I hope that I would have the strength of will to do exactly as he did.
That doesn't make his choices morally right by any stretch of the imagination, though. He was reacting to his understandably strained emotions, not thinking about right and wrong.
The fact that he doesn't always make the most moral choices is part of the reason I love the character so much, part of the reason I keep watching. I never can predict what that guy is going to do next. If I knew he was always going to do the right thing, all of that dramatic tension would disappear.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by itsbroken:
you seem very narrow minded PR.
-----
Back off there, buddy. I didn't call you any names.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This thread is very interesting; neat to see where people draw the lines of things like this.
I'll just throw this out. The Alliance is just like (almost?) all large, empiralistic governments; it relies on a (at least partially) put down group of people to prop up a smaller group of people. You can include the U.S. in this group, though our working class has it better than a lot of other put-down groups. All Mal wants is to be able to live his life. If the put-down group in the 'Verse were to all think like Mal, the Alliance would crumble. Can't have that.
In all, I think there are a lot of aspects to this argument for the Firefly 'Verse, just like in the real world. Very few answers are good for everyone, especially for Mal and the crew. So, do what you have to, the best you can.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's exactly why I'm so fascinated by his character. He's a walking contradiction... An enigma. Book once asked Inara the same question and her answer sums it all up for me... Human error.
I love my Captain!!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, here's how I see it:
1: In response to the person who suggested that Mal would be more heroic if he worked within the system: First, that logic only obtains if there is a real fighting chance of such change happening--and we don't know enough about the Alliance to judge if this is reasonable, or even possible-- but Mal is under no moral obligation to attempt it! Mal did not choose to be a citizen of the Alliance. His status as such is a condition imposed on him by virtue of being on the losing side in a war of conquest! The Alliance is lucky that Mal and his fellows didn't choose to go all Maquis on their ass.
2. The killing of the Alliance pilot on Haven was fully justified. That pilot had just murdered an entire settlement of Alliance citizens in peacetime! Yes, it could be argued that he was just following orders. The first time that defense was tested was at Nuremberg; it didn't go well for the defendents. A subsequent attempt to use the same argument involved a small Vietnamese town call My Lai. You may have read about it.
That pilot had the choice to follow orders or not. He chose to obey an order that was, no doubt, illegal even under Alliance law.
And yes, Mal had no right under that law to act as judge, jury and executioner, but since the Parlament, through its Operative, obviously considers itself above the law, what other options did he have? Letting a mass murderer survive? Taking him prisoner, thereby imposing yet another danger on himself and his crew?
Finally, as to Mal "threatening" his crew by cocking his weapon: There can only be one Captain aboard a ship, especially a ship at war, which is what Serenity most certainly was by that point. Granted, they were all planetside at that moment. That was why Mal offered them the option of remaining dirtside. If they chose to lift ship with him, it would be under his command. You pay your money, you takes your choice.
"It is often better for a Commanding Officer to be wrong than for him to be indecisive." -- Robert A. Heinlein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I have a few points I'd like to make...
A number of years ago, an elderly person I was very close to (family member even) was raped. Now, I am not a violent person; however, if the rapist had been in front of me at the time I would of killed him in a heartbeat (if not done much worse to him prior to the killing). This would of course have been morally wrong. Does this make me a bad person? I certainly like to think it does not. People are capable of terrible acts.
Now, what Mal does was certainly reprehensible and immoral. Is he evil? Is he a bad person? I don't believe so. One thing I have thought about the various times during the tv series and also in the movie when Mal has killed people is that he only kills because of necessity. As Joss Whedon says, a hero doesn't kill people. Now these two ideas don't seem to be compatible, but I believe they are.
Lets think about some of the times we've seen him choose to kill or not kill someone - In the pilot, he kills the Fed without a second thought. Dobson represents a threat to his crew. Not only because he will turn them over to the Alliance if he ever gets away, but also because they need to get outta' Whitefall as quickly as possible because of the impending arrival of the reavers. However, Mal chooses not to kill Patience who he has every right to be really pissed at. After he has her pinned under her horse, she poses no threat to him or his crew.
When Mal kills the converted reaver in the episode Bushwacked, I don't believe anyone would have a hard time conceiving of this as not only necessary, but merciful.
Mal chooses not to kill Atherton Wing in Shindig even though the rules of society allow for this possibility.
Mal chooses not to kill Rance Burgess even though I'm sure he would dearly like to at the end of Heart of Gold (although he's not going to lose any sleep over Petaline killing him). He controls his anger and takes him back to the people of town for their judgment.
As for the movie:
Mal is not in the best place at the beginning of the movie. Him throwing the young man off of the mule was indicative of this. I believe that Book and Inara leaving the ship and the constant threat to the crew of capture by the Alliance because of the presence of the Tams on Serenity have really worn him thin. As he pushes the man from the mule, I think that he rationalized it in his mind, ie: 'the ship won't run with five' and also maybe the guy might make it back to the vault, who knows? I don't think he was trying to kill the guy. But then when the reavers got a hold of him, he of course killed him out of mercy.
Mal shoots the unarmed operative in Inara's chambers. Mal viewed the operative as an extreme threat to him and his crew.
Mal shooting the unarmed Alliance soldier is probably the closest thing to cold-blooded as he has ever come. Nonetheless, I think his killing of the soldier was also calculated and not completely out of rage. What was he going to do with the man? Take him with them? Drop him off on another planet so that the guy can tell everything about them to the Alliance? Or leave him on Haven, most likely to die there by himself? I think Mal wanted to kill this man, but I also think he saw it as somewhat of a necessity.
Mal chooses not to kill the operative in the end. First of all, he realizes that making the operative discover that everything he's believed in is wrong is probably worse than killing him. Also, he had disabled the operative and therefore, he no longer posed a threat - not to himself or his crew this time (I'm pretty sure he believed they all were toast anyhow) - but a threat to the completion of the mission.
Okay! Long-winded, I know 
Anyhow, I don't believe that Mal is a hero in the tv series. However, he becomes a hero by his choice to do the right thing at all costs in the movie. The fact that Mal is even willing to risk his crew is even more telling than him risking his own life. He strongly believes that the rest of the 'verse needs to know what has happened.
And as far as him just being
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
2. The killing of the Alliance pilot on Haven was fully justified. That pilot had just murdered an entire settlement of Alliance citizens in peacetime!
So I guess the question is: Is there a distinction between what's justifiable and what's right? Vengeance in this case is certainly justice, but couldn't it be argued that showing mercy to this murderer would be a more morally sound choice?
Again, not saying that I would show mercy; I would have actually been more gratified if Mal had walked on over to that man, ripped him out of his ship, beaten him senseless, and strangled him with his bare hands. Watching that scene, I would have cheered him on.
But, if Mal had left him alive... It's concievable that the soldier might have come to see that Mal was on the right side. Maybe he would even have gone back to the Alliance under cover and worked to help bring it crashing down! Hard to imagine, but we'll never know if it would have been possible, will we?
If such an outcome could have been, wouldn't it have been a more suitable way of avenging Book? Isn't the merciful course the one that Book himself would have wanted Mal to take?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME