'Let's be bad guys.' My Son to me: 'Dad, they're BAD guys?'

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, March 30, 2009 21:14
VIEWED: 8405
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 21, 2009 8:46 PM

My Son is tackling the gray area of Serenity. He asked if it's okay to steal from a bad government as long as you don't hurt anyone.

HELP!!!!!!

I dare not show him the scene where Mal shoots the surrendering Alliance guy on Haven!!

How can I explain this to his ten-year-old-yet-brilliant mind?

The turned-around Chrisisall

ZZETTA13

Saturday, March 21, 2009 9:09 PM

Sometime in war good people do bad things. It isn't always right, it's just the way it is. When the time comes people have to weigh their options. Hopefully they will make the right choice.

As the father of two grown sons, I hope I've taught them to think before they act.

Z

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, March 22, 2009 5:58 AM

Chris,

Z gave probably the best answer ever. He's a dad, like me, and I suspect that if you've done your best you already know the answer as well.

SGGaproudDadisall

Tawabawho?

IMNOTHERE

Sunday, March 22, 2009 1:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
My Son is tackling the gray area of Serenity. He asked if it's okay to steal from a bad government as long as you don't hurt anyone.

Does it have to be "okay"?

Mal and the crew are criminals, and the Alliance (unlike the scenery-munching evil of Star Wars or Robin Hood) is really no better or worse than the UK or US government (as your son should be beginning to realize if you let him watch the news).

Ask him what he thinks Fanty and Mingo would have done with their share of the money, and what other "businesses" they would be involved in.

Ask him who wold have got the blame, and lost out, as a result of the payroll being stolen.

Show him "The Train Job" and ask what would have happened if Mal hadn't, purely by coincidence, found out what was in the crates he had stolen.

...and then - when you have him ready to string 'em up - change sides and give him Mal's point-of-view.

The lesson is, you don't have to agree with everything someone does or believes in to care about what happens to them or share in their adventures. You can try and understand someone's actions without either condoning them or condemning them, and if they "get caught" you are allowed to have an opinion as to whether they should pay the price or be forgiven.

You can't let a film, book or TV show tell you what is right or wrong, because they don't show the real world, and the writer can play with reality in order to manipulate your emotions (e.g. Mal finding out about the medicine in the Train Job). However, although they won't give you the answers, shows like this might help you ask the right questions - especially if you spot what the writer wants you to think!

Hmm. Quite a lot to lay on a 10 year-old. Maybe don't start him on Battlestar Galactica just yet

CHRISISALL

Sunday, March 22, 2009 1:45 PM

Thanks guys.

The laughing Chrisisall

PEACEKEEPER

Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:49 PM

As with all entertainment shows, they are an escape from the "real world". There are things in life that we often feel like doing, but cannot . Entertainment provides a means to get those impulses off your chest without actually hurting a fly. Im sure theres a way to explain that in plainer language that a youngster could understand. If you get my meaning.

KWICKO

Sunday, March 22, 2009 3:23 PM

Might be a good time to sit him down and start teaching him concepts like situational ethics and consequences of one's actions, things that often AREN'T looked at with any kind of lingering eye in most TV shows.

Ask him what he thinks would happen if HE tried to steal - from the government, from the store down the street, from a friend, etc. Then ask him to think it through, and see where it goes. "And then what?", etc., etc. Usually thinking through the possibilities to the possible consequences will teach a valuable lesson. "Yes, you can steal and 'get away with it' - for a time. But sooner or later, you're going to get caught. Or you're going to run into someone who was hurt by your actions."

Mike

A baby seal walks into a club...

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Or you're going to run into someone who was hurt by your actions."

Or maybe fight an Operative.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 12:52 AM

Unfortunately, strictly speaking, Mal, Jayne, and Zoe are "bad guys." They just have redeeming qualities, and sometimes, from a looser ethical perspective, they do the right thing. Because of that, we're still able to root for them, even when the "bad guy"-ness takes over them. When they're bad guys, we hope that they come to their senses and become good guys again.

RCAT

Monday, March 23, 2009 7:19 AM

Most kids above 8 years old that I've encountered can wrap their heads around the idea of "Robin Hood" to some degree. For many (or at least for me) this was/is the first example of right v. law. I guess the idea of grey areas grows from there for many. The concept of stealing a loaf of bread to survive v. stealing from the weak for personal gain is an extension of that concept, I suppose...that's part of Mal's conflict (as a the moral person that he is) in series and if explained/interpreted in the right way could be quite a lesson to young-uns, IMO.

RALLEM

Monday, March 23, 2009 8:48 AM

Maybe you could tell your son about Frank and Jesse James who fought on the losing side of the American Civil War and afterwards felt disenfranchised by the Government, so they turned to a life of crime. Then you could maybe talk to him about the people the James brothers hurt with their actions. Or maybe you could just explain that this is a romanticized show where the characters were thrust into extreme situations and concepts of right and wrong shouldn’t be taken from it in black and white terms.

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

PEACEKEEPER

Monday, March 23, 2009 9:16 AM

Or maybe theres far too much analysis going on here and just explain to him that it is actually "make believe".Jeess!!!!

ZZETTA13

Monday, March 23, 2009 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rcat:
Most kids above 8 years old that I've encountered can wrap their heads around the idea of "Robin Hood" to some degree. For many (or at least for me) this was/is the first example of right v. law. I guess the idea of grey areas grows from there for many. The concept of stealing a loaf of bread to survive v. stealing from the weak for personal gain is an extension of that concept, I suppose...that's part of Mal's conflict (as a the moral person that he is) in series and if explained/interpreted in the right way could be quite a lesson to young-uns, IMO.

One of my all time favorite movie quotes is from “Time Bandits”

“ Robin Hood...why do you steal from the rich?”

RH, “ Because the poor have no money!!”

Z

GILOVE2DANCE

Monday, March 23, 2009 11:09 AM

As Wash said, "Honey, we're crooks. If everything were right, we'd be in jail."

I'm sure you'll be able to explain everything in a way that'll make sense to your son. Kids are smart.

RALLEM

Monday, March 23, 2009 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Or maybe theres far too much analysis going on here and just explain to him that it is actually "make believe".Jeess!!!!

Or there is that.

http://www.swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, March 23, 2009 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Or maybe theres far too much analysis going on here and just explain to him that it is actually "make believe".Jeess!!!!

I agree with PeaceKeeper, at least keep it real simple, "well, when they steal they're being bad."

PEACEKEEPER

Monday, March 23, 2009 1:23 PM

As my Dad always used to say to me. "shut up,son. ITS JUST A BLOODY FILM!!!!!!

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 2:05 PM

Problem is, the Robin Hood analogy isn't an accurate one. That Inara even makes that comparison is either an indication of either some naivety or some delusionment.

Granted, Mal and Zoe are rebelling against a government that, while not always evil, the side they tend to encounter is uncaring, harsh, bureaucratic, and sometimes downright corrupt.

However, most of the crime they do, government officials or the government itself is not the victim. Mal tries to steal only from nasty folk: Magistrate Higgins, the security company on Lilac (you can bet there's probably some criminal element there, Alliance contract or not), other thieves. But that's not always how it works out, and he doesn't always return the medicine. What's more, he does kill people, he doesn't give his bounty to charity, and he profits from what he does.

You can steal a loaf of bread to survive, but no one thinks about the bread merchant's living. Could be they're as bad off. Or what about if you decide to steal a prototype medicine because you need it and can't afford it? Think of all the other people you've denied treatment from your actions.

Stealing is selfish, and it hurts people. Killing is wrong. Doesn't matter what you're rebelling against.

Therefore, while there ARE shades of gray, and you can understand WHY the crew does some of what they do, Mal, Zoe, and Jayne are professional bad guys. Anything else is being just a bit too forgiving of their faults.

Of course, because they do have redeeming qualities, and because the 'verse would be worse off if they weren't around... If it was ever up to me, and I'd caught them, I'd let them go, just like the Sherriff of Paradiso.

CYBERSNARK

Monday, March 23, 2009 2:50 PM

I pretty much grew up immersed in the Rebel Alliance, so I'm more than comfortable with the idea of law breaking. Han Solo taught me everything I know.

The trick is to look at motivation.

They don't commit crime just 'cause it's fun. (Well. . . other than Jayne, they don't commit crime just 'cause it's fun.) It's an ugly situation, but they have no other choice.

Mal & Co. have shown no hesitation to take legal jobs. In fact I'm sure they prefer it (fewer folks shooting at them, for one). The trouble seems to be that legal jobs cannot sustain them financially (even at the bare-bones level they usually subsist at). The pay isn't good enough, the taxes are too high, the bureaucracy means that they'd spend weeks sitting in dock waiting for paperwork to tell them they can load the cargo that's sitting at the foot of their ramp --in order to turn a profit they'd need massive cargo ships or entire shipping fleets --and I'd bet that Blue Sun owns all of them too, which means you'd need license fees and monthly dues.

Looking at the Alliance's signs of conspicuous consumption (Miranda, the city-sized starships, Blue Sun's monopoly, etc), there doesn't seem to be any economic crisis. There's more than enough money to go around, it's just that about 90% of it is lining the pockets of the Core Worlders and the Parliament. We see that the people on the rim have to grow/forage their own food because the Alliance is not providing any service.

Outsiders like our BDH are offered exactly two choices: starve legally as the Alliance taxes you 150 cents on the dollar, or break the law and maybe get food on the table.

Hell, that might well have been on of the points of the Independent's side during the war --a more equalized economy where it's possible for private interests to turn a profit. Hell, Blue Sun may well have been what allowed the Alliance to win the war (the biggest fish in the pond helping to kill off any competition).

Maybe if the Browncoats had won, tariffs would be low enough to let independent shippers make a useful living, and Mal wouldn't have to smuggle Geisha bobbleheads.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

MANWITHPEZ

Monday, March 23, 2009 2:57 PM

I realize this is a serious situation. That being said this reminds me of my daughter's first response to Firefly.

We had just watched Lonesome Dove, and my daughter was young enough, I thought, for it not to have bothered her. She didn't really pay attention to much of it. We were watching Firefly, and she apparently loved the music, especially the theme song. When I asked her if she liked the show, however, she said that "cowboys scare me."

She equated westerns with horror films.

So, I thought about it. Horrific deaths are emplyed in both situations, especially in Lonesome Dove. She didn't view Firefly as science fiction, she viewed it as a western, hence, horror. I honestly thought she wasn't paying attention to the show. Turns out, of course, she was paying much closer attention than I gave her credit for. There is a similiar level of stylized violence employed here.

This situation has passed, and she does like Firefly now. And westerns as well. We watch 3:10 to Yuma last time I saw the kids, and she seemed to like that plenty.

Just struck me as unusual, is all.

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

http://manwithpez.livejournal.com

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 2:57 PM

No doubt about it. Rim world industry is at a disadvantage, and they're kept at a disadvantage because Alliance war patriots want to see the Independents, and by extension, the Rim, punished. So they don't receive the supplies or the civilization the Alliance promised, because every bit of legislation that could help the Rim ends up locked in rewrite/nay vote hell.

You can't fault someone for trying to keep living. But that doesn't make what they do right, just desperate.

RIPWASH

Monday, March 23, 2009 3:03 PM

I tend to agree that the Robin Hood thing isn't accurate. They ARE bad guys, but likable ones and that's what I've told my kids. Mal, Zoe and Jayne directly; Wash, Kaylee, Inara and Book by association; Simon and River because they are refugees.

Like Mal says in "Train Job": We're NOT thieves. Okay, we ARE thieves, but that's not the point.

I mean, they make no bones about it. They know what they are and we shouldn't resist it. Most, if not ALL, thier jobs has to do with breaking the law in some form or another. They steal, they smuggle illegal goods, they harbor fugitives, they kill at times. All to stay alive and keep flying, but still illegal.

To them - Mal, Zoe, Jayne, etc. - there are morally grey areas because of their past and their beliefs, but you can't get past the fact that in their society, what they're doing is wrong.

Don't struggle with the gray areas to a kid that young. Just say, "Yes, they're bad guys, breaking the law of the society they live it. We may like them, but what they're doing in the show is wrong."

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
but you can't get past the fact that in their society, what they're doing is wrong.

Don't struggle with the gray areas to a kid that young. Just say, "Yes, they're bad guys, breaking the law of the society they live it. We may like them, but what they're doing in the show is wrong."

Is a lion wrong when it kills a gazelle to feed it's pride?

I take exception to the notion that breaking any unreasonable or self-serving law as being "wrong."

As head of the household, if I make a law that any spilling of milk on the carpet will get my Son no supper for a week, would you fault him for cleaning up a spill quickly and not tellin' me about it??

Laws are written by them that can, sometimes not with the best intentions for the masses. Sometimes just because they can. Sometimes to line the law-maker's pockets. Such is the history of human law. I'm referrin' to people here. Fallible, honourable, selfish, upstandin' people. I reject the idea of the Superior Elite knowin' by their very nature what's best for us (just look to our present financial situation).

"Gray areas" sometime just mean situations you yourself never had to face.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
As my Dad always used to say to me. "shut up,son. ITS JUST A BLOODY FILM!!!!!!

Films enter our consciousness, and sub-conscious. The colour some of the way we see things IRL. An unanalyzed film can be a dangerous thing sometimes, embedding an unwanted message or feeling about something.
Example: Batman is best watched with the conscious idea the Bruce Wayne is somewhat off his nut, else the idea of righteous vigilantism becomes acceptable, and torture of peeps without due process can become the norm in one's mind.

The laughing Chrisisall

RIPWASH

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
but you can't get past the fact that in their society, what they're doing is wrong.

Don't struggle with the gray areas to a kid that young. Just say, "Yes, they're bad guys, breaking the law of the society they live it. We may like them, but what they're doing in the show is wrong."

Is a lion wrong when it kills a gazelle to feed it's pride?

I take exception to the notion that breaking any unreasonable or self-serving law as being "wrong."

As head of the household, if I make a law that any spilling of milk on the carpet will get my Son no supper for a week, would you fault him for cleaning up a spill quickly and not tellin' me about it??

Laws are written by them that can, sometimes not with the best intentions for the masses. Sometimes just because they can. Sometimes to line the law-maker's pockets. Such is the history of human law. I'm referrin' to people here. Fallible, honourable, selfish, upstandin' people. I reject the idea of the Superior Elite knowin' by their very nature what's best for us (just look to our present financial situation).

"Gray areas" sometime just mean situations you yourself never had to face.

The laughing Chrisisall

Way to take what I said and blow it WAY out of proportion!! Why you always gotta pick on ME, Chris?

Don't take exception to it as I clearly meant no offense by it at all.

Read my entire post. The characters of the show admit they're criminals. They don't even try to hide the fact. Yes. They're criminals. They do things that are against the law. Plain and simple. They have a conscience about what they do sometimes, but more often than not, they're doing it for their own gain as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (for the most part

). So the basic answer to your son's question is, "Yes, they're bad guys." They kill, steal, smuggle. Period. Those that helped slaves escape during the pre-Civil War era were doing so against the law. I don't agree with that law, but they were breaking said law. Harboring Jews in Nazi Germany was against the law. I don't agree with that law, but those that did so were breaking the law. Plain and simple.

Like Smokey and the Bandit. Good golly, there's nothing morally wrong with transporting beer across state lines, but it was illegal and therefore Bandit is a bad guy. We like him, but he's breaking the law.

Equating what animals do in the wild where there are no "rules" except survival of the fitest is not the same thing as humans doing something contrary to the rules set up by system of government.

Right or wrong, the Alliance is the ruling body of the 'Verse. They set up rules and regulations. What Mal & Co. do is against the laws of that governing body and therefore illegal and "wrong" - IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SHOW. And that's the frame of reference we're talking about here. The show.

Simon was in a Black-out Zone. An area set up by the Alliance and we can only assume it is off limits. Simon broke the law being in that zone. He was doing so for good reasons, but still breaking the law of the Alliance. Not neccesarily a bad guy, but a law-breaker nonetheless.

With the whole milk thing . . . *sigh* . . . you're a harsh man to make that kind of rule in your house (LOL), but UNDER YOUR RULES, he broke the law. Whether you catch him doing it or find out about it . . . I wouldn't fault him, no. But he DID do what you told him NOT TO. And yes, I know that was hypothetical.

Yes . . . grey areas are tricky things. I don't generally care for 'em myself (I kid, I kid).

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

Right or wrong, the Alliance is the ruling body of the 'Verse.
What Mal & Co. do is against the laws of that governing body and therefore illegal and "wrong"

Again, I reject the use or the word "wrong" here. Illegal yes, but that cannot instantly be equated to a moral right or wrong.

Man writes law.
Man can be a d**k.
Therefore: Laws can be "wrong."

The laughing Chrisisall

RIPWASH

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

Right or wrong, the Alliance is the ruling body of the 'Verse.
What Mal & Co. do is against the laws of that governing body and therefore illegal and "wrong"
Again, I reject the use or the word "wrong" here. Illegal yes, but that cannot instantly be equated to a moral right or wrong.

Man writes law.
Man can be a d**k.
Therefore: Laws can be "wrong."

The laughing Chrisisall

Not disputing that, bro. Only saying that in the context of the show they are wrong in the eyes of the Alliance. They know it and admit to being criminals in the Alliance justice system.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:09 PM

Killing and stealing aren't those kind of arbitrary laws, though. Every single government or community must have some covenant about what is considered a person's property that they can protect and expect the rest of the community to leave alone.

Most communities tend to recognize a person as owning their body, and look down on people taking and killing other people's bodies. Communities also tend to recognize the things that a person has made, traded or bought as belonging to them.

Within a community, universally, across and without all kinds of religion, there is a universal standard that people shouldn't kill or steal from their neighbors/friends/family/kin. It is HARMFUL to the person acting to hurt other people. Tell me the misanthrope hardened by their life of crime has not been hurt by what they've done, even if they don't see it that way.

Even in anarchy communities some sort of loose unspoken agreement must be present, or all you'll get are bullies running around taking by force, and possibly even reestablishing a non-anarchic form of government.

Laws against killing and stealing aren't arbitrary and something to be ignored when convenient. They're necessary, and not just because they're laws. They're a fundamental piece of human nature, and in a perfect world, should not be broken for selfish reasons, both for the mental and physical well being of the breaker, and for the community at large.

It's not a perfect world, and that's why sometimes we can allow some leeway, as in the case of Mal and crew. But it doesn't change the fundamental fact that it's wrong, only that sometimes breaking those laws are understandable and necessary, like when a person defends their own life from those that would take it.

Expand upon that self-defense to include lifestyles, food, or whatnot as you will. The basic message is there, and it's what my perspective is.

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Only saying that in the context of the show they are wrong in the eyes of the Alliance. They know it and admit to being criminals in the Alliance justice system.

Clarification brings agreement.

The laughing Chrisisall

RIPWASH

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:12 PM

Took us long enough! LOL

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Killing and stealing aren't those kind of arbitrary laws, though.

But they can make a law that keeps a ship from finding honest jobs, that seem right to you?
Make laws that force laws to be broken & who's really in the wrong?

So if an impartial court sentenced that surrendering dude on Haven to death for crimes against humanity, or Mal shoots him, what's the objective difference? Mal did it more to avoid complications & save time than anything else IMO, but really, from outside the situation, who cares?

Inequity, more than any other single factor, influences the 'Versal crime rate, way I see it.

The laughing Chrisisall

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:38 PM

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
Again, I reject the use or the word "wrong" here. Illegal yes, but that cannot instantly be equated to a moral right or wrong.

Man writes law.
Man can be a d**k.
Therefore: Laws can be "wrong."

Not to get all theological but that moral law you speak of is from the bible, old testamenty and such, y'know Moses came down with the stone tablets and then... (you seen Raiders of the lost Ark, right?). Defintative rights and wrongs were kinda fuzzy back then so they needed something written in stone (parden the expression) :) Anyways moral laws, the kind that allow you to rest your head to sleep at night and don't keep you awake through fear of God, are different to the man made laws which though heavily based upon religious moral laws aren't the same. Man made laws you can bend and twist to suit your needs, the other kind (moral) - well I expect we're all in for a bit of a shock when/if we meet a certain Peter fellow in the clouds.

..not sure what my point it actually...

...Er maybe that the best thing 'Sonisall' can do in the world is know he's gone through the day and not caused anyone any harm.

Or in the words of Bill and Tell

"Be excellent to each other and Party on dudes!"

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:44 PM

In that situation, Mal cares. He cares enough to kill the guy. And angry as he was, I'm pretty sure, being who he is, that on some level it's hard for him to kill someone who is surrendering. And when he is forced to do it, I think it's a bit damaging to the psyche. That means it was technically wrong.

Your argument that it was the easy, time-saving thing to do doesn't exactly convince me otherwise. Would it have spared the man undue suffering by killing him? If Mal had actually accepted the man's surrender (hypothetical, I know), do any of us think Mal would have allowed any of his crew to torture the man for what he did?

I also imagine the surrendering Alliance jerkface who was following orders and killed Haven cares too. But we don't care about him or his stinkin' family, because they're Alliance jerkfaces. Right?

I've never argued that the strictness of the Alliance laws and their efforts to undermine trade in the Rim were right. Never. In fact, I think they're being damn petty.

That's what makes the crew's law breaking understandable. But it doesn't make their killing and stealing right, because what they do has consequences beyond just sticking it to the Alliance government.

Now, if you REALLY wanted to break my mind, you'd bring up that one time Mal steals from that slaver guy. But then again, who's really going to suffer when that slaver has no money to feed his slaves?

AGENTROUKA

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:44 PM

I firmly reject the equation of religious laws with morality.

One can be firmly moral without having a shred of religion, and people have been for millenia outside the influence of the particular morals of judeo-christian commandments. Just saying.

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:45 PM

Agreed. Laws against killing and stealing exist without religion, and also exist across a wide religious spectrum, not confined to just one.

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Not to get all theological but that moral law you speak of is from the bible, old testamenty and such, y'know Moses came down with the stone tablets and then... (you seen Raiders of the lost Ark, right?).

If memory serves, Indy broke some of those rules at times.

The laughing Chrisisall

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I firmly reject the equation of religious laws with morality.

One can be firmly moral without having a shred of religion, and people have been for millenia outside the influence of the particular morals of judeo-christian commandments. Just saying.

Never said people who believed it are religious. Just saying thems it's origins that's all.

Anyway did you see my quote from Bill and Ted - that's the real issue :D

Good to see you again AR

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In that situation, Mal cares. He cares enough to kill the guy. And angry as he was, I'm pretty sure, being who he is, that on some level it's hard for him to kill someone who is surrendering. And when he is forced to do it, I think it's a bit damaging to the psyche.

When he does it, I actually tear up some. Mal takes a step to the Dark Side.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Or in the words of Bill and Tell

"Be excellent to each other and Party on dudes!"

I can't wait for that future, dude.

The laughing Chrisisall

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Agreed. Laws against killing and stealing exist without religion, and also exist across a wide religious spectrum, not confined to just one.

Yes but they didn't exist before, that's all I'm saying. Not implying anybody is religious because they adhere to a law written on a stone block, far from it.

Hey - I eat pasta but I aint Italian.

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:58 PM

Well... It's sort of a chicken or egg argument, but I think religion arose from when people came together as a community and talked among each other to reach a consensus about how they think natural phenomena occurred. After all, one person believing something spiritual isn't a religion, it's spiritualism.

So I think, even before people could come together to create a religion, they had to reach an agreement to not kill each other in order to form a community in the first place.

So I think laws came first.

Anyway. To be fair, even though it's basically true, it is just a bit too over-simplifying to call Mal, Zoe, and Jayne bad guys. I don't claim that they're evil, or that they enjoy what they do.

Bringing in some outside (and possibly really nerdy, don't judge me!) terminology, I'd call them chaotic neutral in general. Sometimes they might manage some true acts of benevolence or malevolence, but mostly it's "I'm looking out for me and mine, and to hell with the Feds."

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 4:59 PM

Well put IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 5:07 PM

I'm also willing to admit, that of all things they could smuggle or steal, choosing to deal in supplies like food for Rimworlders who don't have it, when they could be doing more profitable cargo... That does say something positive about them. Even if they don't do it on charity.

And Alliance salvage laws are total bullshit. No one was using those food bars, so why should a person be punished for stealing them off a derelict and getting them to people who need it?

Great humanitarians, the Alliance ain't.

(But I still argue that in general the killing and stealing is a no-no, and that they're bad guys to the people who suffer the consequences of their killing and stealing)

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, March 23, 2009 5:28 PM

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:
(But I still argue that in general the killing and stealing is a no-no)

I'd have to agree with you on this - but what makes Firefly and Serenity so good is that just for a moment, in a totally make believe world you get to experience that rush of breaking the laws, of subverting the system, and just briefly sampling what it may be like to be 'bad'. That's fun! C'mon being bad is fun, every now and then you have to howl at the moon just so as you know you're still alive right!? And people who do that make you keep you're sense of self alive and that's important. That's how a regime is held in check, because without those bad guys, without the conflict, the regime would take over - THX 1138 style.

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 23, 2009 5:39 PM

Kinda how Star Wars went to, in the last prequel. The Emperor was bad, but taking him to trial when the entire system was corrupted would have been futile. ( or would it ? ) That's the rub then, as to how you see the world. Was Anakin naive, to think the Emperor wouldn't work the system, and use all that corruption to his benefit, or was he really that far gone to the dark side, and actually wanted to take him to trial, and there by play along w/ the ruse that the system worked.

"As much as I respect what he's doing, really the economy is something he should focus on more than the brackets. "
- Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, after Obama snubbed Duke in his Final Four picks.

The U.S. economy WAS on fire under Bush, for 6 years. Until the Democrats took control of Congress. It's been all down hill since then.

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 5:41 PM

I'm printing this whole thread as soon as it's finished; good posts all around.

The laughing Chrisisall

AGENTROUKA

Monday, March 23, 2009 7:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I firmly reject the equation of religious laws with morality.

One can be firmly moral without having a shred of religion, and people have been for millenia outside the influence of the particular morals of judeo-christian commandments. Just saying.

Never said people who believed it are religious. Just saying thems it's origins that's all.

But... that's really the point. They're not the origin.

Just one list that survived because of certain circumstances.

Bytemite put it pretty well. There were laws about these things before, they just didn't happen to morph from Judaism into Christianity and become established as state religion by a Roman emperor, thus connecting many different societies through the Catholic church and intertwining Western culture with this particular religious set of laws. It's easy to put on a lense that suggests the ten commandments were the beginning of law and strong morality, but that has never been true.

Quote:

Anyway did you see my quote from Bill and Ted - that's the real issue :D

Truth!

Quote:

Good to see you again AR

Thanks! Same to you!

CYBERSNARK

Monday, March 23, 2009 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Was Anakin naive, to think the Emperor wouldn't work the system, and use all that corruption to his benefit, or was he really that far gone to the dark side, and actually wanted to take him to trial, and there by play along w/ the ruse that the system worked.

That is the rub. The Empire/Rebellion conflict was never about "Evil" versus "Good," AFAIC, but about "Lawful" versus "Chaotic" (yes, there were just as many good people within the Empire as there were dangerous sociopaths among the Rebels --and the sad truth is that many of these "good" people needed to be sacrificed, because they would never have allowed what the Rebellion wanted to restore).

I remain convinced that, for Sidious, despite being a Sith Lord, revenge on the Jedi was just a side-effect of his true goal: he was a civilized man who wanted to bring peace and order to a corrupt, violent galaxy. Anakin, when it came right down to it, was the same way.

The only problem was that they were both convinced that order --i.e., a strong set of laws and harsh punishments-- was inherently good. True, strong laws would (in theory) cut the crime rate, and centralized power would ensure that the bureaucracy is kept under control and that the Head of State can make policy decisions quickly (without the Senate to make a mess of things), but the cost of this "security" is the loss of everyone's freedom. It requires everyone to be made the same and put in their socially-mandated box, never to escape.

The Empire/Alliance would most definitely try to "take the sky." I'm sure the "protectors" of society would love nothing more than to enforce legally-authorized spacelanes --no one would be allowed to break from their pre-assigned course or affect the traffic pattern. No shortcuts, no dawdling, no staying off the radar. No more "flying," just "traffic."

The most peaceful and orderly place you'll find is a graveyard --or Miranda.

The universe needs chaos. It's chaos that allows evolution and change. Without chaos, no one will ever have the chance to become greater than they were born. The risk of falling --of "evil," is a necessary one.

That's why Justice is more important than Law. Law is inflexible, it's based on the principle that we are all fundamentally the same. If a society was ever able to maintain that status --where the laws applied to the CEOs and heads of state as much as to the inner-city dropouts, subsistence farmers, and free traders, then yes, law and justice would be the same.

Justice is flexible. It has to be, because "law" can too easily be turned into a weapon of corruption, ignorance, apathy, and fear. When it does, illegal (and even immoral) actions become necessary --though never preferable.

One should never seek another's death --but should be prepared to accept that outcome if no other choice is possible.

(Yeah, I'm still in the Rebellion.

)

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, March 23, 2009 8:43 PM

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:
But... that's really the point. They're not the origin. Just one list that survived because of certain circumstances.

Wow! Ok well it's semantics, but I see your point...

Quote:
Bytemite put it pretty well. There were laws about these things before, they just didn't happen to morph from Judaism into Christianity and become established as state religion by a Roman emperor, thus connecting many different societies through the Catholic church and intertwining Western culture with this particular religious set of laws. It's easy to put on a lense that suggests the ten commandments were the beginning of law and strong morality, but that has never been true.

- And these laws that existed before are...? Based upon which writings? I'm only asking because I'm ignorant of that of which you speak so matter of fact. I was under the impression that the religious belief behind most societies of the ancient world dictated the laws that it's society would endure and strive to uphold - wether it was the Phoenicians, Egyptians or whomever, not the other way around. But hey, I could be wrong - I have been on so many occasions before.

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 9:10 PM

The first known written set of laws, the Code of Hammerabi (I think that's spelled right) were civil laws, not religious. They bear a number of similarities, however, to religious laws that have been carried into the modern day.

However, I wasn't even talking about that. I was speaking more generally. Religion = requires community consensus. Community = more than 1 person. More than 1 person = not killing each other.

So, by that logic, Law -> Community -> Religion.

And I also take the fact as circumstancial evidence that pretty much all religions have some version of some very similar laws (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal in the very least). I believe that indicates that those laws predate most religions, and those laws had to be spread early on to become globally accepted mnemes in all the religions we see. Either that, or some laws are a basic part of human nature, and existed before communities as well.

But that's just what I think.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Monday, March 23, 2009 9:17 PM

It's all good Bytemite. Nicely stated and fair. Quite how we all got around to this I don't know but it's been interesting.

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 23, 2009 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

The universe needs chaos. It's chaos that allows evolution and change.

Didn't Gary Oldman say that in Fifth Element?

The laughing Chrisisall

AGENTROUKA

Monday, March 23, 2009 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

- And these laws that existed before are...? Based upon which writings? I'm only asking because I'm ignorant of that of which you speak so matter of fact. I was under the impression that the religious belief behind most societies of the ancient world dictated the laws that it's society would endure and strive to uphold - wether it was the Phoenicians, Egyptians or whomever, not the other way around. But hey, I could be wrong - I have been on so many occasions before.

Legal systems not based on writing were pretty common among German tribes, for example, so written evidence can hardly be the measure of existence for ancient law. The Code of Hammurabi is an actual early legal text, though, from around 1800 B.C.

And I was specifically talking about the ten commandments you singled out before, not a separation of law and religion. Obviously there was no strict separation of spirituality and other aspects of life in early societies, but that doesn't mean that they only considered killing wrong because their religious theories declared it, but that spiritual experience and social insight went together. Murder being unpleasant and thus generally undesirable would have been a social insight in the very earliest of human societies and religion, being a way of making sense of the world, would incorporate that. Then religious study in turn influences social insight by putting it into a certain context.

Laws being developed over time within a society, based on a variety of factors.. just seems to make more sense to me than placing it all in the hand of religion. Where would religions get the idea for such laws if not based on social insight?

ETA: Once again Bytemite said it much better and more concisely than I did. Why do I even bother?

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 10:24 PM

You're better with the details, AR, and you covered the idea of universal human sensibility influencing law and then religious law much better than I did.

Let's see. Going by specific biblical examples... There's a law in the bible that believers shouldn't yet pork, as it is an unclean meat, unholy in some way.

This was actually an early public service announcement about health and hygiene. People observed that unless treated properly, pork meat could make people sick. Not understanding why this was the case, they made a religious law against the consumption of pork to protect the public.

I also think that a lot of the religious laws regarding women and their cycles were intended to aide couples in producing offspring and increasing fertility. And, though I have much, much less evidence for this, I suspect the laws against homosexuality were ALSO made based on viable offspring/fertility reasons.

MSA

Monday, March 23, 2009 11:20 PM

I'd go with " sometimes good people make bad decisions because they didn't think through all the choices. Everyone makes mistakes. It's important to realize when you make mistakes and try to make up for it ( show him the Train Job where Mal makes a mistake by robbing Alliance and then fixes it... I'd cut it before he kicks Crow through the engine though)

To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.

PEACEKEEPER

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:29 AM

Guys, at the end of the day good people are taught the difference between right and wrong by good parents and a good social environment. Providing your kids get a basic grounding from you in everyday life, thwey will be mature enough to realise that the entertainment industry doesnt need analysing in such great detail. They will already know the parameters as a matter of course. If your children are going to be socialised purely on the basis of film and tv, then youve got a problem.But im sure youve already taught them the basics before that.I would stop worrying about it and just carry on screening what they watch. Films have ratings that enable you to pick and choose carefully. Once that choice has been made, watch, enjoy and dont worry about it so much.

IMNOTHERE

Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I also take the fact as circumstancial evidence that pretty much all religions have some version of some very similar laws (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal in the very least).

I'd put most of that down to "natural selection" of religions: the religions which survive will be the ones who's rules foster long-term stable societies. Say what you like about the major modern religions, they are associated with civilizations which have endured.

Any religion which tells its followers "thou shalt eateth deeply of thy neighbor's brains" or "stealeth all that ist not nailed down, and if it ist nailed down setteth it alight" probably isn't going to survive long enough to write any long bibles. They're the ones from those mysterious uninhabited islands with the big golden altar and all the bones, or the smoldering remains of a ranch somewhere in the Midwest...

Sadly, this religious Darwinism doesn't seem to stop civilisations indulging in sophistry over precisely whom thou shalt not kill or what thou shalt not steal, especially if the "whom" or the "what" belongs to someone else's civilisation...

BYTEMITE

Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:53 PM

It's a good point: religion CAN be a vehicle for moral law and bring moral law to a population, and what you suggest does play a role in its survival. I would add that a positive view on procreation and sex also would be important, except we have one very major modern example that suggests it isn't as important as we all would think.

Anyway, my argument is more about whether religion is the original source of law, or if law had to come first.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:56 PM

Law came first.
Ugg has bone, Ugg makes rulz!

The laughing Chrisisall

IMNOTHERE

Friday, March 27, 2009 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I would add that a positive view on procreation and sex also would be important, except we have one very major modern example that suggests it isn't as important as we all would think.

Perhaps that just shows that its easier to stop people robbing and murdering (which nobody particularly wants to happen to them) than it is to stop them procreating (which many people of both genders seem to aspire to)...

Quote:

Anyway, my argument is more about whether religion is the original source of law, or if law had to come first.

Is there a difference? We can try and rationalise law in terms of its effectiveness in maintaining civilization, but look out of the window and you'll find the main pillar supporting the law is the great army of people who think that you should follow the law as an act of "faith" because It Is The Law.

That's certainly what all the people emailing the BBC this morning supporting the use of anti-terror surveillance powers (that we need to stop the Bad Hats nuking our cities) to prosecute littering and dog fouling seemed to think.

BYTEMITE

Friday, March 27, 2009 12:19 AM

Following the law as an act of "faith" in it is different from religion. A religion must involve explanations about why things are the way they are. A law just tells people what to do. Laws are part of religion, but law is not a religion.

Besides, there are reasons to follow some laws apart from faith.

IMNOTHERE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A religion must involve explanations about why things are the way they are. A law just tells people what to do.

Until you ask (to put it in a non-denominational way) what the turtle is standing on*. Then most religions will quickly resort to telling you what to do (i.e. stop asking questions).

Quote:
Besides, there are reasons to follow some laws apart from faith.

But is there any compulsion or enforcement without some sort of faith? You can construct a rational "enlightened self-interest" justification as to why it is, on the whole, better not to (say) steal, but to make it an absolute law rather than a guideline needs something extra.

The general consensus elswhere on this thread (with which I don't disagree) seems to be that our Big Damn Heroes are sometimes in the wrong, even though we still love them.

If you stole Bernard Madoff's wallet and distributed the contents among his creditors, I don't think there would be any shortage of jurors ready to convict you because stealing is wrong. No rational, evidenced argument that, in the current climate, a spot of light Robin Hood-ing would do wonders for public morale without necessarily destroying society would trump the "its the law" argument.

Even as an atheist, you can't prove every assumption that underpins your life from first principles - some things you have to take on faith. What Faith-with-a-capital-F provides - whether it is in a religion, a particular body of laws, a political ideology - is a single, pre-packaged, not-to-be-sold-separately set of beliefs.

Me, I prefer the a-la-carte approach.

(* Yeah, yeah, I know, its a

turtle - it swims - but what in?)

BYTEMITE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:

Until you ask (to put it in a non-denominational way) what the turtle is standing on*. Then most religions will quickly resort to telling you what to do (i.e. stop asking questions).

Demands and outcry raised from defensiveness are also different from a law.

If you were to start talking about the Pope's stance on birth control, then I would agree with you that is a law developed from religion. I've never said that those DON'T exist.

Quote:
But is there any compulsion or enforcement without some sort of faith? You can construct a rational "enlightened self-interest" justification as to why it is, on the whole, better not to (say) steal, but to make it an absolute law rather than a guideline needs something extra.

For the particular laws I'm talking about, those against murder and those against stealing, I'd argue that yes, in most people there is a compulsion of enforcement. Most humans don't like to see other humans suffering, or like to see another person injured or dead. When one person kills another, the consequences of their actions are right there before them, and most people are negatively affected, especially if the death was accidental, but sometimes even when it was not. If a person were to see consequences of their theft, as our BDH's do in the train job, often they would feel remorse, and sometimes they might return the stolen goods.

The main obstacle in the way of this natural enforcement is justification. The murderer telling himself his victim deserves it. The thief telling himself he needs something more, and that his victims won't miss it. The problem with justification is that it is an attempt to rationalize what others would view as wrong or a mistake. I hold that any event in which justification is utilized is evidence that the justified event was or would be a mistake or wrong. It hasn't steered me awry yet.

Quote:
The general consensus elswhere on this thread (with which I don't disagree) seems to be that our Big Damn Heroes are sometimes in the wrong, even though we still love them.

If you stole Bernard Madoff's wallet and distributed the contents among his creditors, I don't think there would be any shortage of jurors ready to convict you because stealing is wrong. No rational, evidenced argument that, in the current climate, a spot of light Robin Hood-ing would do wonders for public morale without necessarily destroying society would trump the "its the law" argument.

But that's just the thing. Our BDH's ARE wrong, even if they try to make amends for what they've done, as in the train job. That they feel they have to make amends is evidence that they think they've done something immoral. The act of making amends doesn't make their original action right.

The Robin Hood analogy doesn't always apply, and often rarely applies to them. Furthermore, I think that the Robin Hood stories are just that. In real life, it never turns out that you can steal from the Sheriff of Nottingham and the regent of Yorkshire without ultimately negatively effecting the lower class under their jurisdiction. The lower class will be punished for accepting the wealth that Robin Hood tries to distribute to them, sometimes indiscriminantly if the tyrants were unable to determine who actually had their money.

Since Bernard Madoff is a thief, and reviled by the public, I'm relatively reassured that he will be punished without any need to resort to vigilantism. And I also think the money will be redistributed or, if the money is all gone, reimbursed to the creditors without the intervention of the public... And in this climate, taking more money from the public pool to give to those creditors, well, who suffers there? On the other hand, his clients and creditors tend to be important parts of or unstable economy, so NOT giving them money has consequences as well. All in all, it's a lose-lose situation.

Quote:
Even as an atheist, you can't prove every assumption that underpins your life from fi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

IMNOTHERE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But accepting law based on faith seems to me like a very large danger of never questioning the validity of some laws.

I think you've got my point turned around.

My impression is that the vast majority of "law abiding" people accept "the law" as an act of faith, and rarely question it (unless they've broken it and need a way out).

I'd regard questioning laws as good - up to a point - but you won't find much certainty that way, and people seem to like certainty, which is why religious, political and legal belief systems are so popular.

But even if you question the law "up to a point", deciding where that point lies will be a personal "leap of faith" unless you propose a highly unethical series of experiments to establish empirically (e.g.) exactly how many guilty men can acceptably be let free to avoid sending an innocent man to jail.

Would a touch of "Robin Hood" or other vigilante justice be the start of a slippery slope to anarchy, or would a bit more rough, poetic justice actually improve the stability of society? The truth is, I don't know, you don't know and our politicians don't know - so we accept the "slippery slope" argument on faith.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, March 28, 2009 10:10 PM

I prefer to look at the application of law on a case by case basis. And most of the examples I hear of regarding vigilante style murder or theft, I can think of some unintended impact down the line that reaffirms that killing and stealing are wrong.

IMNOTHERE

Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I prefer to look at the application of law on a case by case basis. And most of the examples I hear of regarding vigilante style murder or theft, I can think of some unintended impact down the line that reaffirms that killing and stealing are wrong.

Fine. That's the ideal way to do it - case by case, not entirely based on some simplified abstract principle of "right and wrong".

Except, if you're really going to do it rationally, it has to be a cost/benefit analysis which gives equal weight to any positive consequences (e.g. the vigilante may have taken a dangerous and hard-to-convict person off the streets or, by taking matters into their own hand, embarrassed some complacent authority into action). Now, maybe it is rare for those factors to outweigh the harm - but if you summarily ignore any possible positives and only tally the negatives (or, as is common at this stage, resort to dogma such as "two wrongs don't make a right", "the end doesn't justify the means" or "who watches the Watchmen

(tm)") then you're back to treating laws as articles of faith.

Question is, is society ready for that sort of reflection, or would the result be some sort of horrible by-the-numbers points system which totally lost sight of "justice".

Mind you, we're making it difficult by concentrating on the biggies like "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal" which have a pretty strong consensus behind them.

More to the point would be (dragging this back to Firefly) whether Mal is right or wrong not to have his ship's papers up to date, or transporting wobbly-headed geisha dolls without paying the duties? After all, one of the failings of the Alliance is that the outer worlds get all the disadvantages of taxation and bureaucracy without seeing any of the promised benefits, and the black market could be all that is keeping the region from collapse.

On the other hand, ISTR something in the bible about rendering unto Cesar what is Cesars...?

Incidentally, in the book Queen of Angels by Greg Bear (spoiler shields in case you ever plan to read it):

Select to view spoiler:

...throughout the story, the first Artificial Intelligence is trying and failing to be "born" by passing the final test which will show it to be truly self-aware. Much philosophy is expended trying to solve this, but at the end what does the trick is news of a terrible injustice suffered by the AI's "sister".

Interesting idea - but then current thinking seems to be that the evolutionary pressure behind intelligence was social success within a tribe, and all that stuff about using tools and painting on walls was just an unintended consequence...

BYTEMITE

Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Except, if you're really going to do it rationally, it has to be a cost/benefit analysis which gives equal weight to any positive consequences (e.g. the vigilante may have taken a dangerous and hard-to-convict person off the streets or, by taking matters into their own hand, embarrassed some complacent authority into action). Now, maybe it is rare for those factors to outweigh the harm - but if you summarily ignore any possible positives and only tally the negatives (or, as is common at this stage, resort to dogma such as "two wrongs don't make a right", "the end doesn't justify the means" or "who watches the Watchmen (tm)") then you're back to treating laws as articles of faith.

True enough. It's mostly the killing factor in that equation I'm not so found of; I don't even support capital punishment when our legal system does it. Because of my perspective, cases where capital punishment might be appropriate are hard for me to determine. I kind of feel like everyone has some intrinsic value, and I don't like seeing families bereft, even if it's over a criminal.

Capital Punishment really doesn't seem to deter those individuals who might actually warrant it, and the system seems to be set up so prosecutors either manage to get a plea bargain, or get all the glory for going for the harshest sentence possible. I may not know the solution, but it seems to me there has to be one somewhere between imprisoning someone for the rest of their life with all the taxdollars that go into it, and our society killing people and undermining itself with hypocrisy. It suggests to me that our government and society has a frightening lack of respect for life.

Nor do I support cases of government theft; confiscation, using legal loopholes to push people off their property... It's a sign of corruption, a sign the system isn't working for the people anymore.

Quote:
More to the point would be (dragging this back to Firefly) whether Mal is right or wrong not to have his ship's papers up to date, or transporting wobbly-headed geisha dolls without paying the duties? After all, one of the failings of the Alliance is that the outer worlds get all the disadvantages of taxation and bureaucracy without seeing any of the promised benefits, and the black market could be all that is keeping the region from collapse.

Now we get to the point where I'll admit even my own logic is fuzzy. I admit that the consequences of theft (which smuggling kind of falls under if you squint, it's sort of stealing from the government) are a lot more complicated and harder to pinpoint than murder. And the argument I've been making is more successfully applied to cases when the criminal and the victim are of similar socio-economic status.

Because they're out on the Rim, when they steal, Mal and crew tend to be stealing from people without a lot of money. Even when they're stealing from the Alliance, like Niska tells them in the train job, it's often not the whole story.

But it can definitely be different when the victim is much higher on the food chain.

Like when the crew steals from the hospital on Ariel. Restocked every HOUR? Seriously? That IS a case of them never really noticing the medicine is missing, hopefully none of their patients need any in that hour.

Or when they take the Lassiter from Haymer, who apparently acquired it, and his vast wealth, in an unethical fashion during the war.

To kind of ease our consciences, Joss and his team of writers often go out of their way to have the crew takes jobs stealing from more shady types of people, like possibly that security business on Lilac, or to have them doing illegal salvage. Even I'll say that the Alliance laws against salvage have got to be the most bureaucratic, un-humanitarian bit of garbage to ever come out of parliament. The government would seem to just let very much needed supplies like food sit out in space when they don't have the resources to recover it. Not only is it wasteful to not allow inde

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 30, 2009 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But before I could actually say that the crew is doing the right thing in those cases, I'd want to examine unintended consequences closer.

What would've happened if they'd had to shoot someone during the heist in Serenity? Would they have tended the wound & forgotten the robbery?

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 30, 2009 9:14 PM

My initial response is no. But that does depend heavily on whether or not the Reavers show up.

If the heist hadn't been interrupted, they wouldn't have killed anyone. The only person who'd have been shoot would be the security guard, and that would have been by choice, so he didn't get fired.

If they'd had to shoot someone? I'd still say no, they wouldn't bother to treat them. Mal, Jayne, and Zoe gave the customers of the bank plenty of warning what would happen if anyone intervened. But they would have probably only shot to incapacitate, wound, or intimidate, not to kill.