I wanna do this one more time: Was Mal wrong when he shot that surrendering guy in Serenity?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, June 6, 2014 05:29
VIEWED: 19444
PAGE 6 of 14
If someone tries to seriously harm me, I might kill them. Given the choice, I'd rather not. But truthfully, I'm no Rambo. I can't take a lot of abuse & still come back swinging. And honestly, I shouldn't have to worry on someone else's well being who was out to do ME harm. I'll throw everything I have in 5 seconds. He drops before I'm done, fine. He don't drop after I finish, I'm in deep trouble. Hope he lives, won't cry if he doesn't.
Way I see it, you can't murder someone who's trying to kill you.
Crow was trying to KILL Mal. I don't get how some don't get that...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Way I see it, you can't murder someone who's trying to kill you.
Crow was trying to KILL Mal. I don't get how some don't get that...
Actually, he was not. He was tied up and threatening to kill Mal. With no way of doing it right then and there.
I can see how you can declare blurred lines, what with neither party having recourse to a proper authority to legally deal with that threat, but it's still not the same as "he was actively trying to kill Mal right then".
As for the soldier, I will never ever find it justifiable. This is from the same source inside me that finds the death penalty despicable and wrong. Killing in revenge is a moral surrender to the darkess we profess to despise.
I think that is exactly what that scene was supposed to show: Mal going over the edge. That speech and that shot is his darkest moment. He doesn't come back to his senses until later around the kitchen table when he actually starts treating his crew like human beings again, as opposed to tools/obstacles.
I love Mal as a character, but he utterly IS a murderer, out of convenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This is from the same source inside me that finds the death penalty despicable and wrong.
Well sure. I can be against the death penalty. In theory.
But when Quisling sells Norway out to the Nazis, you can guess where those nice good-hearted sentiments go.
They actually re-instated the death penalty just for him. So that just goes to show that even the most civilized people have limits of they're willing to put up with before they resort to killing.
Me, I draw the line at a number of places, but a big one is being a jackboot civilian killing piece of trash in a line of work intended to protect civilians and thus violating all kinds of oaths and ethics pertaining to not killing civilians.
Quote:
Killing in revenge is a moral surrender to the darkness we profess to despise.
Unifying darkness and light with minimal casualties is what the human experience is all about. Despising darkness is despising part of yourself. It's denying entirely valid emotional states, that we evolved to ensure our survival.
And sometimes, it is oh so very RIGHT to act on them. Because anything else would be less than human. It's like expecting a mother to not defend her children to the death.
Mal's a murderer. Doesn't make him wrong.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
gotta disagree...Mal is a "killer" not a murderer..
he made that clear to the good young doctor in the pilot epi.
he has been a soldier..in which he was a killer
he has shot and killed men with guns held to Kaylee's head, and in the case of the Train job - there was a real threat made that was completely believable..as soon as they would set that monster free, he would come back to kill members of the crew and ultimately Mal...I didn't see that as even an execution, just finishing the fight.
it's a level of clear headed justice that this country in real life has long ago lost sight of, which is in great part why we have such evil living among us..openly...not even bothering to "lurk" any longer..just openly making youtube videos of what they plan to do and then doing it.
i'm not saying I wanna be Mal or even hang with the guy..although long from now when an oppressive govt has left me little liberty I might find his offering of free sky worth more than the rations given by my slave holders.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Woah! Late to the fray here and some very interesting debates... I didn't read 'em all though.
To answer this question of:
"Was Mal wrong when he shot the surrendering guy in Serenity?"
Yep! It's uncool to kill peeps.
°...Well here I am.°
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well sure. I can be against the death penalty. In theory.
There are plenty of people who are against it in practice.
Quote:
But when Quisling sells Norway out to the Nazis, you can guess where those nice good-hearted sentiments go.
They actually re-instated the death penalty just for him. So that just goes to show that even the most civilized people have limits of they're willing to put up with before they resort to killing.
And I find that shitty and sad of them.
"If something very bad happens to you, you will want to kill people, too!" doesn't seem like a very valuable argument in determining whether actions are morally right or wrong.
Quote:Quote:
Killing in revenge is a moral surrender to the darkness we profess to despise.
Unifying darkness and light with minimal casualties is what the human experience is all about. Despising darkness is despising part of yourself. It's denying entirely valid emotional states, that we evolved to ensure our survival.
Emotional states are valid. Actions based on them are NOT all valid. The things we do in the height of trauma and emotion tend to not be proportionate, constructive, thought-through or necessarily compatible with our own long-term values.
People regret shit they DO all the time, they rarely have to regret shit they feel. Because feelings are valid but temporary.
Quote:
And sometimes, it is oh so very RIGHT to act on them. Because anything else would be less than human. It's like expecting a mother to not defend her children to the death.
That makes no sense. Self-defense from an immediate threat is entirely different from killing someone who is NOT an immediate threat, killing for revenge.
Killing for revenge may feel right. Doesn't mean it is right. It's a gratuitous act, an exertion of power to alleviate some lingering feeling of vulnerability. It's not a constructive act.
Quote:
Mal's a murderer. Doesn't make him wrong.
I disagree. Murder is pretty much the definition of wrong.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There are plenty of people who are against it in practice.
I like to keep my options open.
Am I somehow entitled to decide who lives and dies? To judge someone for what they've done? Definitely not. But if a person courts death, by killing others and bringing the possibility of retribution down on them, who am I to deny someone rushing headlong towards it?
The difference between the two of us is that you think that when someone stands down, the threat they pose has ended. But we're not talking about normal people. We're not talking about people like you, who would hesitate at the thought of killing anyone.
We're talking about people who DON'T hesitate, and WILL kill those who had never done any worse than try to live their lives. Because of the job, because of their boss, because of madness, because of their DUTY, the reasons are irrelevant.
But then you say, they're unarmed? They're not a threat? People like that are ALWAYS a threat. Because the threat isn't in the weapons they hold. The threat is in their minds and their attitude. They are far more dangerous than ANY weapon.
And if you let them go, they will kill again. These are not the kind of people who can reform. These are people who kill on order, or because they LIKE it, and believe themselves righteous for doing it.
And before you say it, yes, I know my own attitude means the exact same thing applies to me. I myself could be subject to a just retribution. And I'd welcome it.
Quote:
doesn't seem like a very valuable argument in determining whether actions are morally right or wrong.
Well, I'm just an amoral nutjob. What do I know about despising the darkness or morally right and wrong?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's change the movie just a tiny bit: What if the soldier had stayed hidden by playing dead? That's a sensible tactic for a soldier. When Mal grabs the corpse to chain it to Serenity, the "dead" body suddenly comes back to life and Mal, startled, shoots him dead, for real.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well, I'm just an amoral nutjob. What do I know about despising the darkness or morally right and wrong?
The soldier still is killed by Mal with only a tiny difference: Mal was startled by soldier. There isn't time for Mal to premeditate murder or use the soldier as an example to the crew of what will happen to them if they mutiny. Was Mal wrong in this new case?
Personally, I think it's more realistic than what was in the movie. (Joss does love too much his fake folksy Mal language.) I would have preferred to skip all the Mal speechifying: Mal does not explain his plan to the audience by talking to the crew and does not put down a mutiny. He is giving nobody any choices.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The soldier was dead to begin with, due to his own actions. The question of when he died isn't really consequential.
If he died from the anti-air-craft gun perforating the cockpit, if he died in the crash, if he died bleeding out from injuries, if he died surrendering to Mal, if he died because he played dead and tried to surprise the crew, if he waited out the crew and died from starvation in the wasteland of Haven with no civilization around him and no way off world, it doesn't matter. He was dead anyway.
Why should Mal shooting the soldier bother us when he was merely finishing off the job the Shepherd started? Book was responsible for the death, do we disagree with why Book killed the soldier? Do we think leaving the soldier alive to suffer or holding him captive would have been a better fate?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree that the soldier has to die. What I don't agree with is Joss having Mal use the soldier as an example of what will happen to the crew if they don't obey. Everything stops in the movie while Mal gives another speech, like he's addressing his troops and concerned about their morale. Then he underlines a point by executing a soldier. Mal really means business now, Jayne. You better shut your mouth or you're next.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME