Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Paradroid:
It's the very similarity of their crimes (neatly juxtaposed with the fact that Jack is about the only castaway with whom she has any empathy) that seems to be the crux of the matter. Both have betrayed and abandoned the values of their profession. Jack's disdain for the Hippocratic Oath is legendary, and police officers (at least in most of what we would consider "civilised" nations) are on the whole expected...
1) ...not to arrest and incarcerate without evidence.
2) ...to feed their prisoners and treat them with common decency.
3) ...not, if an interview is going nowhere, to resort to slicing off body parts in order to get a statement.
If we are condemning Jack for having betrayed his professional values, it would be unjust to spare Ana the same fate.
Agreed (obviously). And looking at it from an artistic point of view, Korevo, surely the striking thing about the two torture scenes is the parallel. While writerly authority isn't the be all and end all, I do think we, as viewers, were primarily meant to note the strong similarities - that members of both groups who'd demonstrated a kindred spirit in a previous episode ended up committing acts of torture on innocent people, both in order to extract information that the victim did not have, both without any firm evidence to support their confidence in their own misplaced righteousness and both terminating in threats of mutilation. Both figures of authority in not dissimilar fields. You're entitled, it goes without saying, to find vast differences between these two acts that I simply don't believe exist and thus to condemn one of the perpetrators utterly while shifting a percentage of the blame from the other. But it continues to surprise me, for one. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Paradroid: quote: Agreed. I also believe that the level of the crime commited must also be taken into account.
It's the very similarity of their crimes (neatly juxtaposed with the fact that Jack is about the only castaway with whom she has any empathy) that seems to be the crux of the matter. Both have betrayed and abandoned the values of their profession. Jack's disdain for the Hippocratic Oath is legendary, and police officers (at least in most of what we would consider "civilised" nations) are on the whole expected... 1) ...not to arrest and incarcerate without evidence. 2) ...to feed their prisoners and treat them with common decency. 3) ...not, if an interview is going nowhere, to resort to slicing off body parts in order to get a statement. If we are condemning Jack for having betrayed his professional values, it would be unjust to spare Ana the same fate.
Im not sparing Ana though..I accept that she was wrong [on certain occasions]..but [it seems as if] you're treating 'torture' as a 'blanket' crime..as if every form of torture should carry the exact same punishment. That's impossible and even in a civilised state this is not how it works so how can Ana's torture of Nathen equate to the same punishment as Jack's more brutal torture of Sawyer. Not to mention the fact that Jack is a doctor..which makes it 'more' immoral for him to have done what he did than AL. Yes she a cop but torture is more of a breach of Jack's [doctor] ethics than AL's [Cop]. Furthermore if all torture was the same why then do courts arbitrate different punishment on the basis of the level of the crime/torture? I understand what you're saying and in a human moral sense any crime is wrong and bad is bad, full stop. But even in a 'civilised' world it just doesnt work like that..it cant. |
| |
|
|
To add a bit more: Yes, their crimes were 'similar'..but they were still very different. The context and the professional background of both parties MUST be taken into account..thats how a court of law would do it.
Therefore Jack was 'more' morally and ethically wrong, in light of the fact that he's a doctor of all professions, than Ana. imo.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Murgatroyd: quote: Originally posted by Paradroid:
It's the very similarity of their crimes (neatly juxtaposed with the fact that Jack is about the only castaway with whom she has any empathy) that seems to be the crux of the matter. Both have betrayed and abandoned the values of their profession. Jack's disdain for the Hippocratic Oath is legendary, and police officers (at least in most of what we would consider "civilised" nations) are on the whole expected...
1) ...not to arrest and incarcerate without evidence.
2) ...to feed their prisoners and treat them with common decency.
3) ...not, if an interview is going nowhere, to resort to slicing off body parts in order to get a statement.
If we are condemning Jack for having betrayed his professional values, it would be unjust to spare Ana the same fate.
Agreed (obviously). And looking at it from an artistic point of view, Korevo, surely the striking thing about the two torture scenes is the parallel. While writerly authority isn't the be all and end all, I do think we, as viewers, were primarily meant to note the strong similarities - that members of both groups who'd demonstrated a kindred spirit in a previous episode ended up committing acts of torture on innocent people, both in order to extract information that the victim did not have, both without any firm evidence to support their confidence in their own misplaced righteousness and both terminating in threats of mutilation.
Yes I can appreciate the parallel because it is a brilliant one that the writers have given us. However despite the striking similarities that this illustrates between Ana and Jack..as the old saying goes, "there are two sides to every story"..and it is these 2 versions of events that we must not only analyse for their simialrities but ALSO for their dissimilarities. We must take into the account the nature and brutality of the torture, the reason for the torture, the protfessioanl background of both characters etc. Once all this has been reviewed my conclusion is that Jack's crime was worse. Both were ethically 'wrong'..but Jack's was worse. quote: Both figures of authority in not dissimilar fields. You're entitled, it goes without saying, to find vast differences between these two acts that I simply don't believe exist and thus to condemn one of the perpetrators utterly while shifting a percentage of the blame from the other. But it continues to surprise me, for one.
But how can both acts be 'equally' condemed? And how can there not be any difference between the 2 acts..how? There is plenty of difference..it's clear for all to see surely. Remember, we have discussed 'civilisation' and it's importance..however you now appear to be going against this by suggesting that both crimes should be given equal condemnation or punishment..now surely one of the key functions of civilised standards is trial and justice..therefore each case should get looked at on it's own merits and be given an individual sentace/punishment which reflects the level of that particular crime? It is civilisation which has given us this..to go against it and say that both crimes should be given the same punishment simply because torture is 'wrong'..well..surely that is also wrong..surely? In fact surely what you are advocating here is not civilised standards..but one which are more in kin to being in the wild? It will be interesting to hear your response to this. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by KoR-evo: quote: Originally posted by Murgatroyd: quote: Originally posted by Paradroid:
It's the very similarity of their crimes (neatly juxtaposed with the fact that Jack is about the only castaway with whom she has any empathy) that seems to be the crux of the matter. Both have betrayed and abandoned the values of their profession. Jack's disdain for the Hippocratic Oath is legendary, and police officers (at least in most of what we would consider "civilised" nations) are on the whole expected...
1) ...not to arrest and incarcerate without evidence.
2) ...to feed their prisoners and treat them with common decency.
3) ...not, if an interview is going nowhere, to resort to slicing off body parts in order to get a statement.
If we are condemning Jack for having betrayed his professional values, it would be unjust to spare Ana the same fate.
Agreed (obviously). And looking at it from an artistic point of view, Korevo, surely the striking thing about the two torture scenes is the parallel. While writerly authority isn't the be all and end all, I do think we, as viewers, were primarily meant to note the strong similarities - that members of both groups who'd demonstrated a kindred spirit in a previous episode ended up committing acts of torture on innocent people, both in order to extract information that the victim did not have, both without any firm evidence to support their confidence in their own misplaced righteousness and both terminating in threats of mutilation.
Yes I can appreciate the parallel because it is a brilliant one that the writers have given us. However despite the striking similarities that this illustrates between Ana and Jack..as the old saying goes, "there are two sides to every story"..and it is these 2 versions of events that we must not only analyse for their simialrities but ALSO for their dissimilarities. We must take into the account the nature and brutality of the torture, the reason for the torture, the protfessioanl background of both characters etc. Once all this has been reviewed my conclusion is that Jack's crime was worse. Both were ethically 'wrong'..but Jack's was worse. quote: Both figures of authority in not dissimilar fields. You're entitled, it goes without saying, to find vast differences between these two acts that I simply don't believe exist and thus to condemn one of the perpetrators utterly while shifting a percentage of the blame from the other. But it continues to surprise me, for one.
But how can both acts be 'equally' condemed? And how can there not be any difference between the 2 acts..how? There is plenty of difference..it's clear for all to see surely. Remember, we have discussed 'civilisation' and it's importance..however you now appear to be going against this by suggesting that both crimes should be given equal condemnation or punishment..now surely one of the key functions of civilised standards is trial and justice..therefore each case should get looked at on it's own merits and be given an individual sentace/punishment which reflects the level of that particular crime? It is civilisation which has given us this..to go against it and say that both crimes should be given the same punishment simply because torture is 'wrong'..well..surely that is also wrong..surely? In fact surely what you are advocating here is not civilised standards..but one which are more in kin to being in the wild? It will be interesting to hear your response to this.
I'm not saying that the two crimes are necessarily deserving of equal punishments, though, and bearing in mind I'm no judge, I don't think there'd necessarily be as vast a difference as you think - I listed all the similar points above and I think it comes down to detail. I even think both of them were under the impression that they were torturing their victims for 'the greater good', and I think both of them were horribly, horribly wrong. What really pushes it more to one side than the other is that Jack's signed the hypocratic oath: but if you wanted to, you could find points to shove the argument back towards his side, such as the fact that he didn't touch his victim (not a defence in my view) or the fact that he did change his mind part way through and attempt to put a stop to it (somewhat closer to a valid defence, but I still hope he goes down for it). I don't want to argue for either of them though. As I've said...can't stand the pair of 'em. Anyway. All I'm saying is that the disparity in the levels of condemnation you dish out to magnificent Ana and hateful Jack seem to me to be significantly out of proportion to the differences in their two crimes...not that there is no difference at all. |
| |
|
|
quote: Therefore Jack was 'more' morally and ethically wrong...
But anyway...the above detail is just a subjective thing and I can live with that. The necessary expansion of that sentence is 'than Ana Lucia who is also morally and ethically wrong'. So essentially, I'm very glad we're both in agreement that Jack AND Ana Lucia are moral vacuums. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Murgatroyd: quote: Originally posted by KoR-evo: quote: Originally posted by Murgatroyd: quote: Originally posted by Paradroid:
It's the very similarity of their crimes (neatly juxtaposed with the fact that Jack is about the only castaway with whom she has any empathy) that seems to be the crux of the matter. Both have betrayed and abandoned the values of their profession. Jack's disdain for the Hippocratic Oath is legendary, and police officers (at least in most of what we would consider "civilised" nations) are on the whole expected...
1) ...not to arrest and incarcerate without evidence.
2) ...to feed their prisoners and treat them with common decency.
3) ...not, if an interview is going nowhere, to resort to slicing off body parts in order to get a statement.
If we are condemning Jack for having betrayed his professional values, it would be unjust to spare Ana the same fate.
Agreed (obviously). And looking at it from an artistic point of view, Korevo, surely the striking thing about the two torture scenes is the parallel. While writerly authority isn't the be all and end all, I do think we, as viewers, were primarily meant to note the strong similarities - that members of both groups who'd demonstrated a kindred spirit in a previous episode ended up committing acts of torture on innocent people, both in order to extract information that the victim did not have, both without any firm evidence to support their confidence in their own misplaced righteousness and both terminating in threats of mutilation.
Yes I can appreciate the parallel because it is a brilliant one that the writers have given us. However despite the striking similarities that this illustrates between Ana and Jack..as the old saying goes, "there are two sides to every story"..and it is these 2 versions of events that we must not only analyse for their simialrities but ALSO for their dissimilarities. We must take into the account the nature and brutality of the torture, the reason for the torture, the protfessioanl background of both characters etc. Once all this has been reviewed my conclusion is that Jack's crime was worse. Both were ethically 'wrong'..but Jack's was worse. quote: Both figures of authority in not dissimilar fields. You're entitled, it goes without saying, to find vast differences between these two acts that I simply don't believe exist and thus to condemn one of the perpetrators utterly while shifting a percentage of the blame from the other. But it continues to surprise me, for one.
But how can both acts be 'equally' condemed? And how can there not be any difference between the 2 acts..how? There is plenty of difference..it's clear for all to see surely. Remember, we have discussed 'civilisation' and it's importance..however you now appear to be going against this by suggesting that both crimes should be given equal condemnation or punishment..now surely one of the key functions of civilised standards is trial and justice..therefore each case should get looked at on it's own merits and be given an individual sentace/punishment which reflects the level of that particular crime? It is civilisation which has given us this..to go against it and say that both crimes should be given the same punishment simply because torture is 'wrong'..well..surely that is also wrong..surely? In fact surely what you are advocating here is not civilised standards..but one which are more in kin to being in the wild? It will be interesting to hear your response to this.
I'm not saying that the two crimes are necessarily deserving of equal punishments, though, and bearing in mind I'm no judge, I don't think there'd necessarily be as vast a difference as you think - I listed all the similar points above and I think it comes down to detail. I even think both of them were under the impression that they were torturing their victims for 'the greater good', and I think both of them were horribly, horribly wrong. What really pushes it more to one side than the other is that Jack's signed the hypocratic oath: but if you wanted to, you could find points to shove the argument back towards his side, such as the fact that he didn't touch his victim (not a defence in my view) or the fact that he did change his mind part way through and attempt to put a stop to it (somewhat closer to a valid defence, but I still hope he goes down for it). I don't want to argue for either of them though. As I've said...can't stand the pair of 'em.
I think you have just said the most key point of all..Jack signed the Oath..therefore Jack broke perhaps the most important medical code of them all. WHat Jack did would be less expected of someone in his position to do than say AL who is a cop. Her actions were more in line with a cop's role..she isolated and imprisoned the man..thats what cops do. Doctors arent supposed to allow a man to almost get tortured to death..it's just unethical and inhuman. quote: Anyway. All I'm saying is that the disparity in the levels of condemnation you dish out to magnificent Ana and hateful Jack seem to me to be significantly out of proportion to the differences in their two crimes...not that there is no difference at all.
I disagree..i take into account the 'fine details' but there's no getting away from the factt hat Jack broke his oath. There is a major disparity not only in that but also in the context and nature of both crimes. Jack's group wasnt under known attack at that time..unlike AL's who's group mostly consisted of women and a frial old man..now if you take this into consideration [and a judge would] then AL's action torwards Nathen would be far more understandable and treated with far more leniency in a court of law that Jack's. |
| |
|
|
EDIT: above thats meant to be 'frail old man'.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Murgatroyd: quote: Therefore Jack was 'more' morally and ethically wrong...
But anyway...the above detail is just a subjective thing and I can live with that. The necessary expansion of that sentence is 'than Ana Lucia who is also morally and ethically wrong'. So essentially, I'm very glad we're both in agreement that Jack AND Ana Lucia are moral vacuums.
Yes, they wer eboth morally wrong..but there are different 'degree's of croime and punishment. Maybe you dont like this and feel that all crimes such as torture should carry equal weight [and maybe morally they should?] but that simply wouldnt work in a civilised society..there is disparity when you consider the details in any crime and such disparity needs to be considered..it can be the difference between 5 years and life in jail [for example] and that is important..thats why people have lawyers to fight their cases etc. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Murgatroyd: quote: Therefore Jack was 'more' morally and ethically wrong...
But anyway...the above detail is just a subjective thing and I can live with that. The necessary expansion of that sentence is 'than Ana Lucia who is also morally and ethically wrong'. So essentially, I'm very glad we're both in agreement that Jack AND Ana Lucia are moral vacuums.
Yes, they were both morally wrong..but there are different 'degree's of crime and punishment. Maybe you dont like this and feel that all crimes such as torture should carry equal weight [and maybe morally they should?] but that simply wouldnt work in a civilised society..there is disparity when you consider the details in any crime and such disparity needs to be considered..it can be the difference between 5 years and life in jail [for example] and that is important..thats why people have lawyers to fight their cases etc. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by KoR-evo:
Yes, they were both morally wrong..but there are different 'degree's of crime and punishment. Maybe you dont like this and feel that all crimes such as torture should carry equal weight [and maybe morally they should?] but that simply wouldnt work in a civilised society..there is disparity when you consider the details in any crime and such disparity needs to be considered..it can be the difference between 5 years and life in jail [for example] and that is important..thats why people have lawyers to fight their cases etc.
No, I've already said what I think. I agree that different degrees of crime ought to carry different sentences and I don't agree that Jack's and Ana's crimes were fundamentally different. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Murgatroyd: quote: Originally posted by KoR-evo:
Yes, they were both morally wrong..but there are different 'degree's of crime and punishment. Maybe you dont like this and feel that all crimes such as torture should carry equal weight [and maybe morally they should?] but that simply wouldnt work in a civilised society..there is disparity when you consider the details in any crime and such disparity needs to be considered..it can be the difference between 5 years and life in jail [for example] and that is important..thats why people have lawyers to fight their cases etc.
No, I've already said what I think. I agree that different degrees of crime ought to carry different sentences and I don't agree that Jack's and Ana's crimes were fundamentally different.
Oh, ok..sorry for misunderstanding. I suppose it's a matter of opinion at the end of the day and because you used the phrase 'not fundamentally different'..i personally can accept that 'better' than your previous post because it does accept the possibilty of [all important] 'disparity' but suggests that in 'essence' they are the same. Thats fair i suppose. In 'essense' torture is torture, i can agree with that as long as the context is 'also' taken inot account. |
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
