I was watching Dr. Who last night (the new series, season one) and there was a an alien, disguised as a human who had killed many people and planned on killing everyone in the entire world with a super-plan that was about to commence in several days. The Entire World! Ok. Now, the Doctor captured her and was going to take her to her homeworld for justice (she’s a criminal for her own species too). While they are preparing to go, she tells them that her homeworld has the death penalty and they are essentially taking part in her execution by taking her to her executors. She presents the question – “you’re now no better than me!” The Doctor (supposedly one of the most brilliant beings in the universe) is stopped in his argument. He still plans on taking her, but this causes a lot of moral debate between all of the Doctor’s companions.
This seems common in a lot of films. The hero, about to kill the villain is confronted with this moral problem that he has become no better than the villain. This seems a little ridiculous (especially in the case of the Dr. Who episode where the alien had planned to kill the entire human race!).
Here is why it is silly. Surely no one contests against the idea that someone who plans and murders the death of his wife is more guilty than someone who is driving drunk and accidentally hits and kills this same woman. In other words, no one has a problem making a moral distinction between murder and manslaughter. One is intentional, the other is not.
When this murderous alien says to the Doctor “you’re the same as me,” why do people not scoff? Clearly the Doctor would not be taking her to her death had she not murdered anyone and planned to murder billions more! After comprehending the distinction between murder and manslaughter, why do people fail to see a distinction between execution and the murder of innocents?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think most people really do see the difference between execution and murder. I mean we still have capitol punishment in our society. I don't think many complained that Saddam was executed. Or any other murderers for that example.
"Here is why it is silly. Surely no one contests against the idea that someone who plans and murders the death of his wife is more guilty than someone who is driving drunk and accidentally hits and kills this same woman. In other words, no one has a problem making a moral distinction between murder and manslaughter. One is intentional, the other is not."
Thinking about this, and it could be my own biases with regard to alcohol, but if you get into your car drunk, then you are prepared to murder. It's like loading a gun and shooting it blindly in the dark. I mean, you don't KNOW if it will hit anyone, but does that not make it murder if you do?
Hand me the gun and I'll shoot the bitch.
All living creatures have the right to defend themselves. Its not about good or bad. If a Tiger met you in the jungle and killed you does that mean the Tiger is evil? What if you instead kill the Tiger, does that make you evil? or in Arthur's case; more evil? My point: Its not about murder. Its about the right to defend and remove a threat.
I don't normally kill spiders but if a black widow was climbing up my leg no one would be upset if I ground it up into little pieces and put them into a certain nephew's favorite food the next day. In fact, no one has said anything about it to this day.
Post a Comment