The other John Locke

[Murgatroyd]

Sometimes I accidentally find myself reading the Wikipedia entry on John Locke the philosopher because I forget to type 'John Locke (Lost)' into the search bar. That isn't important. I just wanted to pick up on a small reference in John Locke (Lost)'s Wikipedia entry that relates to John Locke (not Lost).

The real Locke believed that, in the state of nature, all men had equal rights to punish transgressors; to ensure fair judgment for all, governments were formed to better administer the laws. This philosophy is paralleled by the character of Locke, who embraces both nature and the need for organization among the survivors.

Obviously that's not a very detailed analysis or anything, but I just thought that was fairly interesting in the context of various debates about the sorts of moral and/or mob justice the Losties are obliged to follow in their very peculiar circumstances... not so much the Others because (in spite of the jolly old Wild debates), they're not 'in nature' in the same sense the Losties are: they have a well-organised, hierarchical and apparently long-established society in place. Philosopher-Locke's 'nature' implies a total lack of either rules or consideration for anything approaching a wider society. It's also vaguely relevant to the question of whether or not Locke was doing anything wrong when he smuggled the C4 away in his backpack and didn't tell anybody what he was up to... or, indeed, when he saw fit to respond to Mikhail's provocation by shoving him into the sonic field.

To me the 'in the state of nature' philosophy implies not only an acceptance of the lack of a functioning society but also dismisses any regard for the fact that your own interpretation of what justice is may make victims of other people. It's saying that if someone threatens to beat you up in your sleep, you're allowed to capture them and subdue them any way you see fit. If you're the only two people on the island, fair enough - that's just self-defence, though it could of course very easily turn into needless cruelty (if your subduing your professed attacker turns into unnecessary violence or torture or even murder), and that's surely something a right-thinking person, even one in the state of nature, has to take into account. But what if you're one of a group of people and your actions bring down retribution on your colleagues? What if your brand of justice gets out of control and you start inflicting it on anyone you're capable of inflicting it on without their being given so much as a fair trial simply because you're able to do so and there's no-one to stop you?

I kind of believe that acknowledging society is the only real means of at least offering the hope of fairness to those who aren't going to prosper under a survival of the fittest philosophy. If all people have equal rights to administer justice as they see fit, that means a powerful man can kill a small child or a little old lady or whatever if he's capable of it and sees it as a reasonable thing to do. Some form of societal agreement between individuals generally includes some kind of assurance that people who feel killing small children isn't a good thing to do (hopefully that's most people) will do their utmost to prevent that kind of thing from taking place.

I don't really know where I'm going with this - I'm wondering what other people will make of it - but I think it raises the question of to what degree, if any, Locke (Lost) is taking the needs of his society into question when he sees fit to dole out justice or what have you with the aid of his hidden C4. Sayid is not a person to whom he technically has to report, but his blowing up yet more structures is pretty much bound to have a phenomenal impact on the welfare of everyone connected to him. Say he is planning on destroying the village: he could kill Jack, first off, not to mention everyone else in the village, making his 'justice' less than just, but he's also going to bring down the wrath of any survivors. As Colleen said - Sun shoots her and they'll become the enemy (like my friends sneak onto my boat in the middle of the night and threaten to kidnap me, but still). So I don't basically think that going it alone is a decent thing to do in these circs. Opinions?

[*SP*]

I'm not sure that Locke is taking the needs of his newfound 'society' into account too mcuh, if I'm honest. It seems to me that Locke definately has an agenda...he appears to be following what he genuinely believes is his destiny. Whatever he learnt in the flame is one of his driving forces but this rather insular, or some may say secretive, behaviour is not a new trait of Lockes'. Look at his actions on discovering the hatch with Boone. I think Lockes' own needs are taking precedence over any consideration for the other survivors.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing...I don't know about anyone else but I honestly have to admit that if I was in a plane crash, even on a plain and ordinary deserted island let alone this wholly bizarre environment in which the survivors now find themselves, I think I would be primarily looking after number one. This flies in the face of the whole 'Live together, die alone' idealology but I think most people would naturally begin to display more Darwinesque principles of survival of the fittest. I know this attitude is entirely out of place in 'normal' civilised society where people are dependant on the stucture provided by laws and rules and boundaries. In this society, in which we live now, the promotion of equal rights is thrust upon us more and more than ever before...and with good reason. Protecting the weaker, more vunerable members of society is a commendable things to do, but it is a learned response and in my opinion contrary to our most primitive natural instincts. So, the stucture of civilised society has been taken from our survivors. Yes, it could be argued that they should bring the laws and morals with them but it's an inevitable transition, I believe, that natural instinct will take over in the end.

However, this is no ordinary place as we all know. In addition to the above reasons for adopting a 'every man for himself' attitude to aid survival, our survivors have a whole lot more to deal with. I don't blame John at all in acting in quite a singular manner. OK, he crashed with these people and has lived alongside them since. But really, how well does he know any of them? He's known them for what? 80 days? With all the incidents that John has witnessed I'm not at all surprised that he is wary about who he shares information. If he has a true calling to answer, a destiny to fulfil, then he is absolutely correct not to jeapordise it any further by giving Sayid more ammunition to further insult and ridicule him. The actions of one may affect many, but the consequences for one will naturally take priority for that individual.

I know I'm rambling, sorry, but while I agree that John Locke may not have the interests of his fellow survivors at the forefront of his mind, I don't think he has any obligation to do so.

[D-Roc]

Locke is an interesting case study..I and others could talk about him all day because he is so diverse - and it's that diversity..that 'history', which i think we need to incorporate when attemtpting to make sense of his actions and their wider implications.

Technically what Locke did with smuggling the C4 is neither wrong, nor right - fact of the matter is that he hasnt used it yet. One might assume that he has bad intentions for it's use, but equally one could assume that he is being 'practical' and thinking things through before gallavanting head-first into an unknown territory. Infact Lockes' planning was a feature of his Season 1 performance..often he would chastise Jack for not having a 'plan'..a strategy..and Locke would be a fool if he didnt take his own advise. So i think that by taking the C4 he is doing what he feels right - and right now that is all that matters.

Yes a society needs some form of organisation - but then this isnt any old society..some might argue that in the 'Wild' there are limits on how 'idealistic' you can really be Of course the Others have their systems of society which seem to work pretty well - it is not perfect, but i dont see a better alternative (realistically).

For me, ive always accepted the 'fact' (or idea) that in certain environments (like the LOST island) you have the right to make your own laws (within reason)..thats not to say that you can do whatever you want, but you must apply self laws which are for the greater good. Now Locke may have an agenda, infact we all know he does - this is now beyond personal..i get the feeling that all of the times he's been kicked in the teeth is now burning a hole in his heart and he's got this desire to get to his goal beyond all reason. But he is not a lawless man..he is human. If i were in Lockes shoes, i would probably be the same. Sometimes you need to get your hands dirty to survive..sometimes survival isnt about life or death - it's about gaining closure or peace of mind or in Lockes case, keeping his sanity and finding conformation that those signs he's been believing in werent false idols or whathave you.

Yes, i do believe that there are certain societal norms that people shoiuld adhere to - but equally it depends on the kind of society you live in. Since were mostly talking about Locke here, i see no wrong in his actions. Who is Sayid but a hypocrite? As for Mikhail..as Locke said..he didnt know he was gonna die.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by *SP*,March 19, 2007 04:12 pm

I'm not sure that Locke is taking the needs of his newfound 'society' into account too mcuh, if I'm honest.  It seems to me that Locke definately has an agenda...he appears to be following what he genuinely believes is his destiny.  Whatever he learnt in the flame is one of his driving forces but this rather insular, or some may say secretive, behaviour is not a new trait of Lockes'.  Look at his actions on discovering the hatch with Boone.  I think Lockes' own needs are taking precedence over any consideration for the other survivors. 

Oh yes - I agree wholeheartedly that Locke has never put the needs of those around him ahead of his personal 'need' for recognition and fulfilment, which is what's always made him an immensely needy and therefore sympathetic person and simultaneously an extraordinarily dangerous and untrustworthy one. You just never know when he's going to sacrifice you because he feels his destiny demands it.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing...I don't know about anyone else but I honestly have to admit that if I was in a plane crash, even on a plain and ordinary deserted island let alone this wholly bizarre environment in which the survivors now find themselves, I think I would be primarily looking after number one.  This flies in the face of the whole 'Live together, die alone' idealology but I think most people would naturally begin to display more Darwinesque principles of survival of the fittest.  I know this attitude is entirely out of place in 'normal' civilised society where people are dependant on the stucture provided by laws and rules and boundaries.  In this society, in which we live now, the promotion of equal rights is thrust upon us more and more than ever before...and with good reason.  Protecting the weaker, more vunerable members of society is a commendable things to do, but it is a learned response and in my opinion contrary to our most primitive natural instincts.  So, the stucture of civilised society has been taken from our survivors.  Yes, it could be argued that they should bring the laws and morals with them but it's an inevitable transition, I believe, that natural instinct will take over in the end.

However, this is no ordinary place as we all know.  In addition to the above reasons for adopting a 'every man for himself' attitude to aid survival, our survivors have a whole lot more to deal with.  I don't blame John at all in acting in quite a singular manner.  OK, he crashed with these people and has lived alongside them since.  But really, how well does he know any of them?  He's known them for what? 80 days?  With all the incidents that John has witnessed I'm not at all surprised that he is wary about who he shares information.  If he has a true calling to answer, a destiny to fulfil, then he is absolutely correct not to jeapordise it any further by giving Sayid more ammunition to further insult and ridicule him.  The actions of one may affect many, but the consequences for one will naturally take priority for that individual. 

I agree that it's not unnatural and that in some cases you can't even hold the perpetrators of what would generally be considered appalling acts to proper account in the way you would on more familiar turf... the Losties are not official sheriffs, but they can't really be criticised for locking up people who've proved themselves to pose a threat (I think torturing those people is another issue entirely, but let's put that aside for a moment) because they have a right to protect themselves and, if not an obligation to protect those weaker than and dependent on them, at least it can probably agreed that providing such protection would be the decent thing to do. But I am actually contemplating to what extent Locke (and the rest of them really) can be held commendable or damnable on the strength of his current behaviour, not just on whether his behaviour is technically reasonable.

I'd also still suggest that they're not sufficiently out of society to completely put the needs of those around them to one side... they're still in company and their actions affect those around them. And most of them - Sawyer mostly though not always excluded - have retained a sufficient degree of compassion and empathy to very much take the needs of their fellows into consideration. Everyone helps to care for Aaron... Hurley worked to lift Charlie's depression... people agreed to press the button in shifts because Locke wanted them to... Jin catches fish for his friends... Jack sacrificed his current best hope of freedom in order that his companions might be safe. Jack, indeed, has taken an oath to protect other people... does that become redundant because he's in a state of nature or does it prevail because his duties to fellow beings cannot be fundamentally altered by his surroundings?

So the sticking point is that we do have other models against whom to compare Locke: in the case of his pushing Mikhail into the sonic field, he was opposed by both Sayid and Kate (not that either of them haven't been equally cavalier in other circumstances, but for simplicity's sake I'm isolating this incident), neither of whom thought it reasonable or necessary to put their captive's life at such risk and both of whom I have to say were demonstrating more moralistic thinking than Locke was at that stage. So realistic it might be - it might even be outside our normal critical scope, that's how alien their situation is - but Locke doesn't come out of it looking terribly decent, 'specially not when those two of all people could quite legitimately claim the moral highground.

So none of them are necessarily obliged to look out for anyone other than number 1, but many of them do so nonetheless. Sadly, I think Locke - at present anyway - is proving a notable exception.

[Murgatroyd]

Locke is an interesting case study..I and others could talk about him all day because he is so diverse - and it's that diversity..that 'history', which i think we need to incorporate when attemtpting to make sense of his actions and their wider implications.

Technically what Locke did with smuggling the C4 is neither wrong, nor right - fact of the matter is that he hasnt used it yet. One might assume that he has bad intentions for it's use, but equally one could assume that he is being 'practical' and thinking things through before gallavanting head-first into an unknown territory. Infact Lockes' planning was a feature of his Season 1 performance..often he would chastise Jack for not having a 'plan'..a strategy..and Locke would be a fool if he didnt take his own advise. So i think that by taking the C4 he is doing what he feels right - and right now that is all that matters.

Yes, you're right... we can't really judge him on this until we know precisely what he's up to and perhaps he's got it because it's a weapon and he feels the need to be armed. Then again, his having lied and deliberately concealed it coupled with his bizarre behaviour re. Mikhail doesn't exactly bode well for his intentions. Nor does his past behaviour... I think it's pretty much canonically established that Locke's destiny-seeking takes precedence in his mind over the safety of those around him. Though I acknowledge that life's quite royally screwing him up is what's brought him to that sort of casual and hitherto quite unconscious callous disregard for others.

Yes a society needs some form of organisation - but then this isnt any old society..some might argue that in the 'Wild' there are limits on how 'idealistic' you can really be   Of course the Others have their systems of society which seem to work pretty well - it is not perfect, but i dont see a better alternative (realistically).

For me, ive always accepted the 'fact' (or idea) that in certain environments (like the LOST island) you have the right to make your own laws (within reason)..thats not to say that you can do whatever you want, but you must apply self laws which are for the greater good. Now Locke may have an agenda, infact we all know he does - this is now beyond personal..i get the feeling that all of the times he's been kicked in the teeth is now burning a hole in his heart and he's got this desire to get to his goal beyond all reason. But he is not a lawless man..he is human. If i were in Lockes shoes, i would probably be the same. Sometimes you need to get your hands dirty to survive..sometimes survival isnt about life or death - it's about gaining closure or peace of mind or in Lockes case, keeping his sanity and finding conformation that those signs he's been believing in werent false idols or whathave you.

You do have the right to some extent to 'make your own laws', I suppose - that is, there's no-one there to stop you and the laws that functioned in your previous society are not necessarily practical or applicable - or consensually agreed upon - in this new society. But if there are 45 people stuck together on the island, that's 45 people making their own laws as they see fit, and that's kind of where working things out together really needs to come into it if you want any sort of functioning lifestyle - either that or you accept it's just every man for himself and survival of the fittest, which means, for example, that Claire and Aaron, who can't get enough food for themselves under their own steam, will perish unless somebody's willing to set aside their own needs and help provide for them. So to accept total self-legislation is not only to accept Locke's killing Mikhail, the Others' kidnapping Jack and co and Sayid's torturing Sawyer and Ben (that's his version of the law)... it's also to accept Claire and Aaron's probably starving to death. Thus I think there are certain human facets and responsibilities that ought - you might say ideally, I don't know - to override the state of nature in decent people at least, and to prevent those things from happening.

As for Locke's keeping his sanity, I can't applaud his commitment to doing that at the sake of those around him, and I thought Boone's death had convinced him of that. His vision should be driving him to help people hurt by his behaviour and to atone for past deeds, and I thought with his initial commitment to Jack's rescue that's precisely what he was doing. Seemingly his motivation has significantly altered since the start of the season, and I don't really think we've been given a convincing reason as to why that should be the case.

Yes, i do believe that there are certain societal norms that people shoiuld adhere to - but equally it depends on the kind of society you live in. Since were mostly talking about Locke here, i see no wrong in his actions. Who is Sayid but a hypocrite?

If Locke's allowed to kill people because that's what he's decided is reasonable, how is that to be squared with a condemnation of Sayid's decision to torture people or Jack's decision to hold Ben's life to ransom?

As for Mikhail..as Locke said..he didnt know he was gonna die.

Sadly, that's irrelevant. Long before they got to the sonic field, Locke was quite sincerely expressing his opinion that Mikhail should be executed. He then shoved him into a device that he must've at least suspected of being dangerous in some sense, otherwise he would've walked into it himself. And once Mikhail was dead, Locke expressed no sincere remorse whatsoever. I acknowledge that Mikhail was equally callous if not moreso, and had they accepted his word, Sayid and his companions would now be dead, but Locke's mind was set before any of that stuff even came into play.