|
"Ruthlessness in and of itself isn't evil."--
Murder is not of itself evil either, Tat. Or psychological warfare. Or traumatising one's children by treating them like dirt. I mean, one might do it for their own sake, right? If I kill someone who threatens someone innocent next to me, it's not evil, isn't it? Of course the act itself is evil. It's necessary. He forces me to do so.
But if I could possibly stop him in some other way... and it's clear that I can, if I kill him, it's not good either. I just igored the hard way (beat him up) and used a knife to make sure he's out of the way. So I might go to jail if it can be proven that I could have not killed him and still stop his attempted crime. It really makes a lot of sense.
You know these things, more or less we all do. But ruthlessness is at least an indifferent/neutral, and it can be a "bad" thing. It has a negative linguistic undertone, in the same way Devotion has a positive one even if it is devotion to something "dark" or "bad". Devotion to a cause does not include the willingness to destroy others or not weigh your actions so as to not harm others. Ruthlessness is not a virtue. It means to willingly not care about the consequences of your actions on others, and yes, even to enjoy it in some cases (when it also means cruel). So sayeth Dictionary for cruel and ruthless. So sayeth your written language.
Isn't murder uncalled for in our days, except in selfdefense? Isn't lighthies murdering lighties in SKs almost always uncalled for in SKs (unless the targets have become truly corrupt)? Really, can't a supposed Hammer member go around what difficulties arise in a given task, or try to find another way, or anyway, confront the issue without violence against his fellow "lighties" even if the goal is important? And it violence -must- be had, then why -kill- when you can just incapacitate?
That's the whole point in so many legends, myths, works of literature. The fact that fundamentally good people (not goody two shoes people) who fight with a passion take the harder path. They don't just wade through those who don't think like they do, when they also mean 'good'. They don't take the easy way of smashing everyone with a mace, or a dagger on the back. They even willingly make their task harder to prove a point. That they are strong, devoted and ultimately worthwhile persons.
Adder, enjoying the act was an explanation of evil. Not lamenting it was the explanation of good's absence which might lead to enjoying a violent ''habit'.
If ruthlessness is really OK in scrupulous characters to such ridiculous extremes, let's get the scrupulous characters to be EXACTLY like abberrant ones. I mean, that's where this whole thing leads. They can do ANYTHING, as long as it's for what they might think is the greater good. This is a rather usual case of abberant behavior, without the honor part. If you throw in honor, you have aberrant who cares about his Empire growing big and fat so that Pyrathia can have a single, powerful master.
Trust in the philosophers of mankind, people. Trust in yourselves. How many times did you become ruthless in your own lives with no other choices available? REALLY no other choice? If you became stern and unyielding, did you not try to control yourselves so as not to become ruthless? One thing is to become an uncaring brute, and another to consciously allow yourself to become fierce to a certain -degree- necessary to attain a worthwhile (not for yourself but for others) goal.
Being ruthless, even SOMETIMES, and having respect for liberty, life and whatever the help file is a Paradox. You can't be ruthless sometimes by the way, and be a kind, respectful person the other. You are either capable of being ruthless, or you are not. Being ruthless means stomping on the liberties of others to acheve some goal, either for your benefit, or for the benefit of someone you care about, but not giving a damn about other "good" people. Simple as that. I don't know why so many people here are practically fixated on the idea that becoming callous and cruel for the greater good is fundamentally "good" and a thing to applaud. This specifically describes the Noble Villain. It's a very classical archetype model in theatrical sciences and literature. Read it up.
I believe that helpfile needs to decide what it's finally gonna be.
// Jack \\
From the few (around 10) episodes of 24 I've seen Jack is not Scrupulous or generally a Lightie. He's unprincipled (not an anarchist since he believes in some order and strives to maintain it). He's gone to some lengths to do what he believes to be good, protect his family, even if it means breaking protocoll. He believes in personal love and caring for some things (family, government, personal ideals) but obviously has no actual respect for life itself or liberty, and I quote from Wiki: "Jack Bauer has characteristics marking him as a "flawed hero". / "His philosophy was perhaps best expressed after he shot and killed a witness in front of George Mason, then-CTU Special Agent in Charge."
You have to see past his actions and understand his motivations, which aren't really all that humanitarian but a matter of structured ideology. He does good things, but he does it for particular groups, and without caring about the bad things that happen to others on the way.
"He is a key member of CTU who has prevented major terrorist attacks on the United States, saving both civilians and government leaders. He has done so at great personal expense, as those he has thwarted have come after him and his loved ones many times."
Many noteworthy, heroic acts. His motivation, unfortunately, is not entirely pure and stems from his dedication to what he has sworn to support (his government, his people, his family), and not human life in general.
"Jack Bauer is rarely seen showing remorse for such actions until after the crisis has passed. This is largely due to his emotional suppression necessary to complete the task at hand. He has on occasion revealed his more vulnerable side, including a notable scene at the end of Season 3 when he breaks down crying after the traumatic events of the day."
"Following the death of his wife at the end of Season 1, he seemed to live a life that had little personal purpose. To Jack Bauer, there is no separation of his personal life and his duty. As he said to Chase Edmunds, his partner during Season 3: "You cannot do this job and have a normal life at the same time."[7]."
Grey characters act like this. They have a heart, but not a heart soft for the whole world. They care about specific things, if any. They are not really monsters per se, nor seem to enjoy what must be done, to get the job done. They have vulnurable sides... in contrast with evil dudes, who have murdered those sides for good some time ago. Jack is surely ruthless. He's also caring. He's both good and bad. He's grey.
Elric is also an example of a flawed or tragic hero, according to Greek tragedies. No writer of Greek Tragedies claimed his heroes are compltely Kind, caring, Good people. Lighties, in other words. They make not a few but many, many mistakes, and them -might- regret them. Or they just act selfishly and/or cruelly.
Some are much better than that (lighties), others are much worse (darkies). These are the extremes that fantasy allows so as to make a dramatic, epic story with truly good, pure heroes and truly depraved, sadistic villains and the conflict between those two opposites possible. You can play your Grey as a Hero or a villain, but he'll always be "flawed" if one compares him to the real Lighties or the real Darkies (not as virtuous, not as depraved)
"The only thing that bothers me about the Jack Bauer = scrupulous comparison is that it doesn't meet the root word definition:
scru·ple = An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action
Does Jack Bauer ever feel hindered by his conscience?"
Excellent observation. Yes. Sometimes he is. He has learned how to fight it effectively, how to keep it in check and ignore it, he's grown used to not even knowing he has a conscience. But sometimes, it comes back, and that is the time when he might break. It's not enough to make him a lightie because it's not enough, or often enough to influence his actions unless he can't take any more pressure and allows it to. A thing that happens rarely, if ever. His conscience is hidden in a basement, gagged and tied up. He listens to it sometimes, if its screams loud enoug.h After all he hasn't killed it or got involved with another chick called "conscious depravity". He also tells his conscience that all the evil he does is for her own good. It's enough to keep him occupied. He believes he sacrifices his own purity for the good of others. The truth of this, the value of this, is largely subjective. A grey character -might- do much good while doing quite a bit of evil, or the other way around. But a white character should try never to do any evil whatsoever, while doing the most good possible.
To be lightie, is to have a conscience and listen to it, most of the time. To be grey is to sometimes listen to it, or have a particularly stingy conscience, or to have learned to ignore it for the "greater good" (which ranges from anything from your personal gain to the welfare of a nation, a group, another person, a specific ideal). To be dark is to have none, or to have some constructed something else in its place, a code forged in whatever way you think it's best to behave, no matter what "humanity" or your own impulses not to harm others without ample reason might dictate.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
