Is Ana-Lucia going to kill Sawyer

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 24, 2006 12:28 pm

Had the thought of murder done nothing more than crossed Ana Lucia's mind, I wouldn't be making a point about the issue. In fact, I thought I was emphasising the fact that I was bothered by the thought's having done much more than crossing her mind. I quote from myself: 'You were suggesting that Ana did nothing more severe or condemnable than considering murder and then changing her mind. I submit that she did significantly more than that - she contemplated murder, attempted to carry it out, changed her mind momentarily then acted in a way designed to bring that murder about.'

I simply maintain that it is patently incorrect to knowlingly provide the means to murder, even if the murderer turns out to be lying. If someone came to me and said 'Can I borrow your kitchen knife? I want to kill Arthur and I've no knife of my own, so this is the only way I can do it. Can you also give me directions to his house, and a spare front door key if you have one? Otherwise I shan't be able to get in and kill him' - would I seriously be anything other than entirely wrong to give that person the knife and key and say 'go for it'? However much I hate Arthur? I just don't know how else I can phrase it. She did the right thing only up to the point before she gave Michael the gun. Then, regardless of what she meant by 'I couldn't even kill him' (I interpret it to mean she felt she ought to have been capable of revenge murder, but there you go) she completely trampled any good intentions she might have had. If good intentions - or even nothing more than a lack of bad intentions - are backed up by malicious deeds, they're worth nothing.

Also, the point about 'letting the murderer go free' surely doesn't relate to anything I've said: you know how I feel about what Michael did.

See..were they in the real world, your stance would carry a lot of weight with me..however we must bear in mind the context with regards to this situation. Theyre not in the civilised world - theyre in the wild. I know ive said it before..but i'll say it again..the wild is different from the civilised world, different rules apply in that there are no rules, no laws. Any hope of retaining civil laws were extinguished [in this instance] the moment HG put his grubby mitts around Ana-Lu's lil' neck! Therefore why should she be expected to withold the gun from Mike? YES..in the real world she shouldnt have given Mike the gun..and morally she shouldnt have given Mike the gun..but since when did morals count for anything on this island? Ive seen Ana do countless brave, selfless, moral things on this island and yet she received no praise for it except from the likes of myself and Nickeshi and a few other Ana fans...therefore this tells me that the bulk of the fans [ultimately] dont care about morals and ethics when it comes to lost and supporting their characters..so why should we expect Ana to always be the moral compass..WHY? She recieves no credit for it when she does something good, so tell me Murg..why shouldnt she have given Mike the gun..?

There, ive said it. For me giving Mike the gun doesnt in anyway take away from what i see as her redemption.

Back in the civilised world she commited [what some might call]a savage crime by killing Jason [even though it could be argued he had it coming, imo].and now in the uncivilised world she finally managed to erradicate that side of her. How ironic

As for your analogy, as funny as it was ..once again i fear you have left context out of the situation. It's not as simple as you depicted..you have seemingly forgotten that they are not in the 'real world'..your mention of 'houses' and 'door keys' immediately tell me that you are basing your argument in a real world context. Thats all fine and good and in some ways it does still apply..however, bear in mind that in the absence of civil laws, order and punishment, there is no protection, no justice..therefore people like Ana-Lu have to take matters into thier own hands. And if the worst she has done is to give a grown man a gun..well..i can live with that.

[Murgatroyd]

Well, you've essentially said what I wanted to hear anyway: Ana acted ammorally in giving Michael the gun. And I never expected her to act as a moral compass. I know she's incapable of it... my argument states that I would never hold that character up as a set of moral guidelines (I wouldn't say many of the characters fit that description anyway: Claire, Sun, Jin and Libby are decent guidelines, but very few of the others are).

To answer this:

so tell me Murg..why shouldnt she have given Mike the gun..?

Because it was wrong. There's no concrete reason to do with fixed laws or anything, but because it's wrong to enable people to kill other people. You've said yourself that she acted ammorally. If she wants to act ammorally, there's no law to stop her, but she gets the label, the due hatred and disrespect and the comeuppance, whatever it may be. And why should I feel compelled to respect an action I consider universally abhorrent when I don't respect Locke's decision to give Sayid torturing-access to Henry?

(One point of an analogy, by the way, is that it's different from the actual situation. I didn't, shock-horror, 'forget' that Lost is set on a desert island and I could've just changed houses back into cells and keys back into combinations, but then I would've been repeating what happened, and that didn't seem to be getting me anywhere.)

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 24, 2006 01:36 pm

Well, you've essentially said what I wanted to hear anyway: Ana acted ammorally in giving Michael the gun. And I never expected her to act as a moral compass. I know she's incapable of it... my argument states that I would never hold that character up as a set of moral guidelines (I wouldn't say many of the characters fit that description anyway: Claire, Sun, Jin and Libby are decent guidelines, but very few of the others are).

To answer this:

Because it was wrong. There's no concrete reason to do with fixed laws or anything, but because it's wrong to enable people to kill other people. You've said yourself that she acted ammorally. If she wants to act ammorally, there's no law to stop her, but she gets the label, the due hatred and disrespect and the comeuppance, whatever it may be. And why should I feel compelled to respect an action I consider universally abhorrent when I don't respect Locke's decision to give Sayid torturing-access to Henry?

(One point of an analogy, by the way, is that it's different from the actual situation. I didn't, shock-horror, 'forget' that Lost is set on a desert island and I could've just changed houses back into cells and keys back into combinations, but then I would've been repeating what happened, and that didn't seem to be getting me anywhere.)

But ive always conceded that she acted immoral in handing the man the gun..ive never ran away from that fact. My view is that despite her acting immoral in that instance, it's still absolutely nothing when compared to some of the things that other characters on the island have done. It still doesnt impact on the fact that she is still the moral compass of the island [IMO], because remember.."it's all relative"..she can only be compared against her fellow losties..thus it's 'relative'. When we compare her to things that Sawyer, Sayid, Jack, Charlie etc have done then it can be argued that she is the moral beacon out of that lot. Btw, i certainly wouldnt class Claire as being the moral compass ..she being the woman who tried on numerous occasions to kill baby Aaron [remember her starving Aaron of oxygen in DNH!?]..erm..no thanks..not a moral beacon for me.

Yes, it was wrong for her to hand Mike the gun, Murg - but thats no big revelation on this island. Immoral acts happen every other minute on lost these days..so why should she bear the brunt of the critism for one little act..one little mistake..one little gun? It's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong..but so are alot of things, lol! I think we need to remember where they are and what just happened to Ana! She was almost murdered by HG and Mike emplored her to hand him the gun..she felt obliged to because she knows all to well the pain of losing a child..so who was she to stop Mike? Yes, there may have been a tinge of wanting HG to suffer in her handing him the gun..but is this really the worst thing ever? We all feel rage..we all have brief moments when our thoughts are impure..and Ana-Lu is no different. She's been through hell and back..so lets now let her go to heaven in peace. Let's not tarnish her name or her image.

I dont expect you to respect Ana's action..i just hope that you would respect the context of the situation she was in.

I understand your analogy and understand why you used houses and door keys in your description..but my point still stands that 'context' was [IMO] ignored..or at least bypassed. Because you have ommited the fact that HG had just tried to murder Ana and the fact that Mike had pressurised Ana for the gun under a false pretence etc. Context should always apply in situations like this..indeed, this is why a court of law always looks for the context in any case. Without context there is no law really.

[Murgatroyd]

But ive always conceded that she acted immoral in handing the man the gun..ive never ran away from that fact.

Oh. Sorry to have misread you. Just so you know why I was arguing on the basis that I thought you believed Ana's behaviour to be righteous, I've dug up a few quotes:

'she made the right choice' (Today at 11:18 am)

'Ana took the gun for legitimate reasons' (September 14, 2006 01:34 pm)

'So she gave him the gun...so what!??' and 'Mike is an adult dont forget..who is she to tell him what he can and cant do…' (implying that she had no right not to give him the gun) (September 14, 2006 02:45 pm)

'Yes Ana took the gun..so what? she didnt use it..THAT is the crux of the whole thing..she didnt use it..it doesnt matter who she gave it to! If i gave you a knife would it be my fault if you then went and stabbed someone?..no it wouldnt! lol!' (September 14, 2006 03:02 pm)

I thought these quotes and many more like them suggested that you felt Ana was right to do what she did. And also the stuff about Ana having changed her mind – I argue that her handing the gun to Michael showed that she changed it right back again. I've never denied that loads of hideous actions take place on the island. I'm just saying that this is one of them. But there you go. I've been arguing from a false premise.

Btw, i certainly wouldnt class Claire as being the moral compass* ..she being the woman who tried on numerous occasions to kill baby Aaron [remember her starving Aaron of oxygen in DNH!?]..erm..no thanks..not a moral beacon for me.

Gah? You mean because she held her breath while in labour? And when else? What numerous occasions? I don't speak from personal experience, but loads of women do that (I've seen depictions of it in fiction and reports of it in non-fiction) even when they're giving birth in clean modern hospitals or comfortable homes because it's a terrifying experience even when you haven't been kidnapped and injected and the baby's going to be born on a really dangerous island. And they'd just rather it wasn't happening. There is, I'm positive, no intent to 'kill the baby', but there's a belief that they can delay the birth by doing it. Really, try claiming that women who hold their breath during labour are attempted murderers in front of a bunch of pregnant women and mothers. And get someone to come along and take photos. And wear protective armour.

I understand your analogy and understand why you used houses and door keys in your description..but my point still stands that 'context' was [IMO] ignored..or at least bypassed. Because you have ommited the fact that HG had just tried to murder Ana and the fact that Mike had pressurised Ana for the gun under a false pretence etc. Context should always apply in situations like this..indeed, this is why a court of law always looks for the context in any case. Without context there is no law really.

Pretend I'm a police officer. Arthur tried to kill me and is now tied up in a cell. Jim comes along. He also has a grudge against Arthur. Again, he asks (because Michael didn't actually force her) me for my weapon and for access to the cell because he wants to kill Arthur. I give him what he wants, knowing why he wants it, and it turns out he was lying.

It's still wrong. Better?

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 24, 2006 02:27 pm

Originally Posted by KoRevo

But ive always conceded that she acted immoral in handing the man the gun..ive never ran away from that fact.

Originally Posted by Murgaroyd

Oh. Sorry to have misread you. Just so you know why I was arguing on the basis that I thought you believed Ana's behaviour to be righteous, I've dug up a few quotes:

'she made the right choice' (Today at 11:18 am)

Yeah, i mean that she made the right choice in not killing Henry..not necessarily in giving Mike the gun..

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

'Ana took the gun for legitimate reasons' (September 14, 2006 01:34 pm)

'So she gave him the gun...so what!??' and 'Mike is an adult dont forget..who is she to tell him what he can and cant do…' (implying that she had no right not to give him the gun) (September 14, 2006 02:45 pm)

'Yes Ana took the gun..so what? she didnt use it..THAT is the crux of the whole thing..she didnt use it..it doesnt matter who she gave it to! If i gave you a knife would it be my fault if you then went and stabbed someone?..no it wouldnt! lol!' (September 14, 2006 03:02 pm)

I thought these quotes and many more like them suggested that you felt Ana was right to do what she did.

No, i dont believe ive ever said that Ana was 'right' to hand Michael the gun. What my view was and still is, is that she was right not to kill Henry and that [in my view] she shouldnt be blamed for giving Mike the gun because 1.He pressurised her for it from her under false pretences, 2. HG had just tried to kill her and so she wasnt thinking straight, 3. Mike didnt even use it to kill HG, so she should be getting the sympathy if anything, in my view..and other reasons..

But, yes..i am more than happy to acknowledge that essentially she was wrong to give Mike the gun. I didnt think this was unclear. But just to clarify, she was wrong to give the man the gun but at the same time i dont think this action taints her character..because the context of the situation recedes her of any blame imo.

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

And also the stuff about Ana having changed her mind – I argue that her handing the gun to Michael showed that she changed it right back again. I've never denied that loads of hideous actions take place on the island. I'm just saying that this is one of them. But there you go. I've been arguing from a false premise.

Ok, i see where youre coming from. I can se why you would class this as a hideous act..but were still going to have to differ here. Personally i do not think giving michael the gun constitues as a hideous act, when compared to the other hideous island actions i can think of. I agree that morally it was wrong..though i just think her action pales in comparison to other deeds that have been committed and seeminlgy gone unpunished and uncritised by the fans. Thats what gets me.

Originally Posted by KoRevo

Btw, i certainly wouldnt class Claire as being the moral compass* ..she being the woman who tried on numerous occasions to kill baby Aaron [remember her starving Aaron of oxygen in DNH!?]..erm..no thanks..not a moral beacon for me.

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

Gah? You mean because she held her breath while in labour? And when else? What numerous occasions? I don't speak from personal experience, but loads of women do that (I've seen depictions of it in fiction and reports of it in non-fiction) even when they're giving birth in clean modern hospitals or comfortable homes because it's a terrifying experience even when you haven't been kidnapped and injected and the baby's going to be born on a really dangerous island. And they'd just rather it wasn't happening. There is, I'm positive, no intent to 'kill the baby', but there's a belief that they can delay the birth by doing it.

She tried to kill Aaron. Dont you remember Kates alarm when Claire suddenly held her breath in DNH!? Claire starved Aaron of oxygen and when you remember that she didnt even want the baby and tried to get rid of him on so many occassions, it doesnt look good does it. I have no problem with her feeling scared about having Aaron and even wanting to give him up for adoption - because thats her choice and it is an understandbale one. However, when it comes to holding your breath..not to reduce the pain etc..but to kill/harm the baby [because ultiamtely thats what she was doing]..well..do i need to say anymore

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

Really, try claiming that women who hold their breath during labour are attempted murderers in front of a bunch of pregnant women and mothers. And get someone to come along and take photos. And wear protective armour.

Teehee ..but seriously, im not claiming that all women who hold their breath are attempted murderers. You cannot generalise my comments like that..since my comments were specifically directed at Claire and not pregnant women in general. Im going by what i saw and know about Claire. Inm my view she was bang out of order to hild her breath..she wasnt doing it for good reasons or because she wanted to ease the pain of the contractions or whatever..she was doing it because she didnt want Aaron and she wanted to..well..

Originally Posted by KoRevo

I understand your analogy and understand why you used houses and door keys in your description..but my point still stands that 'context' was [IMO] ignored..or at least bypassed. Because you have ommited the fact that HG had just tried to murder Ana and the fact that Mike had pressurised Ana for the gun under a false pretence etc. Context should always apply in situations like this..indeed, this is why a court of law always looks for the context in any case. Without context there is no law really.

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

Pretend I'm a police officer. Arthur tried to kill me and is now tied up in a cell. Jim comes along. He also has a grudge against Arthur. Again, he asks (because Michael didn't actually force her) me for my weapon and for access to the cell because he wants to kill Arthur. I give him what he wants, knowing why he wants it, and it turns out he was lying.

It's still wrong. Better?

Yes it's wrong..but you have still left out the entire context of their situation, Murg! I get what youre saying, honestly i do..but you have ommitted the fact that they have crashed on a strange island, been terrorised by Others, Ana was almost killed by HG etc etc..all those things and loads more give the situation a unique 'context'. It's not as simple as your 'Arthur' and 'Jim' analogy. Theyre in the wild and so you have to apply judgement as such..

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 24, 2006 02:33 pm

She tried to kill Aaron. Dont you remember Kates alarm when Claire suddenly held her breath in DNH!? Claire starved Aaron of oxygen and when you remember that she didnt even want the baby and tried to get rid of him on so many occassions, it doesnt look good does it. I have no problem with her feeling scared about having Aaron and even wanting to give him up for adoption - because thats her choice and it is an understandbale one. However, when it comes to holding your breath..not to reduce the pain etc..but to kill/harm the baby [because ultiamtely thats what she was doing]..well..do i need to say anymore

..but seriously, im not claiming that all women who hold their breath are attempted murderers. You cannot generalise my comments like that..since my comments were specifically directed at Claire and not pregnant women in general. Im going by what i saw and know about Claire. Inm my view she was bang out of order to hild her breath..she wasnt doing it for good reasons or because she wanted to ease the pain of the contractions or whatever..she was doing it because she didnt want Aaron and she wanted to..well..

I don't think there's anything like enough evidence to say for sure that Claire held her breath because she wanted to suffocate her baby. All she says is 'It's not going to want me... It knows I don't want it -- that I was going to give it away. Babies know that stuff.' Kate's interpretation is that she wants to prevent the birth from going ahead - to remain pregnant, not to bring a possibly messed-about with baby onto that island at that time. 'You can't stop this -- this is happening. Your baby is coming and I need your help.' I agree with that assessment.

Re. the other stuff - yes, of course the extreme situation is going to affect their mental clarity and the relative morality of everybody's decision making and it does need to be taken into consideration when judging the characters (though not when discussing the decontextualised actions - we can say that Ana's behaviour is more excusable in extremis, but not that it's any less wrong), but I still hope that Lost's message is not 'forget being decent to people, you're in the wild now'. It's shown time and time again that nothing but murder and mayhem comes from that sort of philosophy. They may be in the wild, and a very terrifying version of the wild at that, but they're still in a society, and I think that means they owe a duty of care and decency to one another. Unless they want total anarchy... and if that's what Ana Lucia wanted when she decided revenge killing was an okay thing to do in the wild, that's absolutely what she got, and she really didn't benefit from it.

[Mantis Zero]

Just a thought to add something to this whole context thing - Ana firmly believed revenge killing was an acceptable thing to do BEFORE the crash. That is all.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Mantis Zero,September 24, 2006 03:56 pm

Just a thought to add something to this whole context thing - Ana firmly believed revenge killing was an acceptable thing to do BEFORE the crash. That is all.

That is a fair point. Again, she was acting in extremis - the provokation was immense - but with, in my opinion, a certain degree of cold judgement that suggested a long-standing propensity for that sort of thinking. And she didn't seem to learn from it, judging by what happened in Two for the Road.

[E Pluribus Unum]

I've said my worth on this [and I'm glad to see KoR finally seeing Ana's actions as immoral (although I don't agree with the 'because they're in the wild, it's ok' - argument )]

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the reason people are arguing AGAINST this situation so strongly is because you [KoR] are arguing FOR it so strongly.

The reason Mikes [arguably worse] situation isn't argued is because everyone knows that what he did was wrong, even [although for some reason you seem to think otherwise, KoR] Mantis - who has said many times what Mike did was wrong.

Anyway, I thought I'd say something - as you keep bringing up the whole 'What Ana did was nothing compared to what others have done' - well that would be like bringing up every old case when you're trying to 'solve' every new one...

Judgement has been paseed on them

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 24, 2006 04:50 pm

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 24, 2006 02:33 pm

She tried to kill Aaron. Dont you remember Kates alarm when Claire suddenly held her breath in DNH!? Claire starved Aaron of oxygen and when you remember that she didnt even want the baby and tried to get rid of him on so many occassions, it doesnt look good does it. I have no problem with her feeling scared about having Aaron and even wanting to give him up for adoption - because thats her choice and it is an understandbale one. However, when it comes to holding your breath..not to reduce the pain etc..but to kill/harm the baby [because ultiamtely thats what she was doing]..well..do i need to say anymore

..but seriously, im not claiming that all women who hold their breath are attempted murderers. You cannot generalise my comments like that..since my comments were specifically directed at Claire and not pregnant women in general. Im going by what i saw and know about Claire. Inm my view she was bang out of order to hild her breath..she wasnt doing it for good reasons or because she wanted to ease the pain of the contractions or whatever..she was doing it because she didnt want Aaron and she wanted to..well..

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

I don't think there's anything like enough evidence to say for sure that Claire held her breath because she wanted to suffocate her baby. All she says is 'It's not going to want me... It knows I don't want it -- that I was going to give it away. Babies know that stuff.' Kate's interpretation is that she wants to prevent the birth from going ahead - to remain pregnant, not to bring a possibly messed-about with baby onto that island at that time. 'You can't stop this -- this is happening. Your baby is coming and I need your help.' I agree with that assessment.

Evidence you say? She was holding her breath i say!! Denying an unborn child much needed oxygen..that surely is evidence enough..particularly when you remember that she tried on numorous occasions to get rid of the little man. Im not going off Kates interpretation since Kate is even less sound than Claire - im going off what i saw in that scene..and that was Claire starving her poor child oxygen.

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

Re. the other stuff - yes, of course the extreme situation is going to affect their mental clarity and the relative morality of everybody's decision making and it does need to be taken into consideration when judging the characters (though not when discussing the decontextualised actions - we can say that Ana's behaviour is more excusable in extremis,

Music to my ears ..thankyou Murg!

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

but I still hope that Lost's message is not 'forget being decent to people, you're in the wild now'. It's shown time and time again that nothing but murder and mayhem comes from that sort of philosophy.

I agree..and i dont think that is the message anyway..rather i think the impact of such aspects of lost allow us to look at such situations and take our own messages from it. I dont think Lost rams home 'messages' in that way. I think that we all know that wrong is wrong no matter what the climate..however we all know that there exists different degree's of intent and evil etc..and therefore i think what we should always bear in mind is the context. Now since theyre all on the island we should be able to compare crimes. For me Ana's [so-called] crimes are nothing compared to others on the island..and this is what im getting at. Im not saying we should just ignore what she did in handing over the gun to Mike. But doesnt it say something to you when Ana can receive more critism for this act than Michael has for actually murdering 2 people in cold blood and for no reason? Doesnt it say something to you when Sawyer and Sayid escape critism for their vile and concious acts when Ana gets slammed and berated for merely giving an adult man a gun?

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

They may be in the wild, and a very terrifying version of the wild at that, but they're still in a society, and I think that means they owe a duty of care and decency to one another.

That may be the case..but surely that applies to ALL of them and not just Ana-Lu!? For me Ana is the least immoral person in 'Camp Lostie'..when you consider what a prominent character she was, she did an awful lot of good over bad.

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

Unless they want total anarchy... and if that's what Ana Lucia wanted when she decided revenge killing was an okay thing to do in the wild, that's absolutely what she got, and she really didn't benefit from it.

Murg, she changed her mind. She didnt decide that revenge killing wa sokay because she didnt kill HG did she. Last time i saw the man he was staring nervously at Mike, post Ana's death..or perhaps that was a vision and really Ana popped 4 caps in his carcus?

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Mantis Zero,September 24, 2006 04:56 pm

Just a thought to add something to this whole context thing - Ana firmly believed revenge killing was an acceptable thing to do BEFORE the crash. That is all.

Yes, but isnt this the whole poin