Who's the most selfish out of...

[b-r-a-d]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

More selfish than Sawyer killing a living thing just because he wanted to demonstrate that he could?Â*Â*I hate that Sawyer killed that Frog, thats why i dont like him anymore, but a dead frog is better than a dead baby/person! More selfish than Jack performing an operation only when he felt like it, instead of saving Ben's life and risking the lives of Kate and Sawyer?Ben had just kidnapped him, why should he have done the surgery! I wouldnt of! More selfish than Sun trying to poision Jin so that he couldn't go on the raft, but who ended up making Michael ill thereby jepodising the entire launch of the raft? Sun wasn't being selfish at all, she just wanted to keep her husband safe and not let him go whilst they are still fighting! There are lots of examples that are worse or equally as selfish as Locke's behaviour with the sub. No there are none, Locke blowing the sub was in my opinion the most selfish act ever on the island! Lol I fail to believe that about Aaron! Sun's skilled in natural medicines, so I bet she'd be able to give poor doomed Aaron a fighting chance if it came to it... And yeah she may have some knowledge in this area but she wouldnt be able to know for sure what would be wrong with him or any other Lostie!

[Lost Lewis]

From my eyes it'd have to be Locke who's more selfish out of the two. Since the early days of series 1 he's been doing what the island wants him to do - quite often for his own good. So Jack simply leaving the island was (obviously) very selfish of him but in the long run he's been less selfish and generally been looking out for others imo. Also, Locke did blow up the sub - now nobody's leaving the island in a hurry!
I love Locke as a character, but he's been a selfish ole' chap hasn't he

[Kiowa Warrior]

Originally Posted by b-r-a-d

I hate that Sawyer killed that Frog, thats why i dont like him anymore, but a dead frog is better than a dead baby/person!
But Locke has never killed anyone in cold blood like that...yes he was pretty ruthless with Mikhail and the old sonic fence, but he didn't do it just because he wanted to or could.

Ben had just kidnapped him, why should he have done the surgery! I wouldnt of!
Because he's a doctor and a human being, and any decent human would help another if they were able to, regardless of any other circumstances! You have no heart brad, no heart at all...

Sun wasn't being selfish at all, she just wanted to keep her husband safe and not let him go whilst they are still fighting!
But that is being selfish! I completely understand her motivations for doing what she did, but at the end of the day she was just thinking of herself.

No there are none, Locke blowing the sub was in my opinion the most selfish act ever on the island!
And in my opinion it wasn't!

And yeah she may have some knowledge in this area but she wouldnt be able to know for sure what would be wrong with him or any other Lostie!
And yet Sun knew exactly what plant to use to treat Shannon's asthma attack, didn't she?

[Kiowa Warrior]

Originally Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM

But it wasn't a completely selfish act, he gave himself some leverage with the op to make sure both Sawyer and Kate escaped, and he could go home. Now, granted the 'going home' thing was rather selfish, but then would any of us say no if we were given the choice to go home. Jack's only crime here is that he didn't ask for Kate et al to be allowed to go with them, and for some reason I doubt Ben "a man of his words, but only EXACTLY those words" Linus was going to change his mind.

But until he didn't care about the fates of Kate and Sawyer until near the end! I just think it's terrible that Jack could first of all refuse to help a dying man and then gamble with his life halfway through surgery...it doesn't matter who is the helper and who is being helped, I think that's a terrible attitude to have, even more so because Jack is a doctor and swore an oath to help anyone who would need it. Of course I wouldn't pass up an opportunity to go home, but I would try my hardest to make sure that my friends would get the same opportunity...Jack didn't even bother trying to include anyone else in his deal with Ben. And Ben may lie and manipulate and act less than pleasantly towards people, but I really do believe that he's a man of his word. If he makes a promise he will keep it, both because he's a decent man and because what sort of exmaple is he setting to his people if he goes back on it?

I don't think it's narrow minded, I think he had been voted leader and was making a tactical decision. Lets not forget what actually happens in the jungle; in my opinion, although Lockes 'lets all go off into the jungle' coment is a rather nice sentiment, I'd be more worried about Nikki and Paulo's ability to handle themselves against the Others/Smokey/French ladies, than keeping everyone happy because they're curious.

For example; do you think the Others allow for a free-for-all, when off on hikes - I may be wrong but most of the "field-agents" the Others employ seem to have military background, would be silly allowing civilians on a hike, no?

For some missions it's understandable that Jack would want Sayid and say Sawyer - people who have experience with guns and seem to be able to handle themselves in a fight, but we just don't know what people are capable of and how useful they can be if they are given a chance...way back in the Pilot Shannon didn't seem like the ideal choice to go on the transceiverer trek, but she was the only one who spoke French and so ws a great help.

But the structure of the Others is completely different - they all know their jobs and their purpose and what's to be expected of them...they have clearly defined rules and a clear hierarchy of authority, whereas the Losties have no such things. The Others have agreed to follow thier leaders, whereas with the Losties it's not so clear cut.

And re your last line: "what's the betting that Jack would have refused point blank for Nikki to come along, just because on the surface she doesn't seem like the best candidate for the job?"

If he thinks that she would be a liability then I would think so, yes. But is that a bad assumption to be made when you're handing out guns? I don't think it is...

But Locke wasn't handing out guns on the trip to the Pearl station though, so how would she have been a liability?

If it was a mission involving guns and a high degree of danger, then it would be more understandable if they had refused to let Nikki come along, because they wouldn't have had experience with her on such a mission before, and wouldn't want to risk having her instead of someone they know better.

[Murgatroyd]

I agree that Jack was wrong, as a doctor and as a human being, to hold a man's life to ransom even considering all that said man had done to him. But it's difficult - and bearing in mind I don't even like Jack - to see him lambasted for that without 'decent' Ben's taking anything like his share of the responsibility for Jack's having turned from an over-caring, barely-flawed hero-figure into a man capable of willingly risking the life of a patient. I also think that had Jack simply agreed with no conditions to perform the operation on Ben in spite of everything he and his people had suffered at Ben's hands, people would quite understandably have considered him something of a saint.

[Kiowa Warrior]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

I agree that Jack was wrong, as a doctor and as a human being, to hold a man's life to ransom even considering all that said man had done to him. But it's difficult - and bearing in mind I don't even like Jack - to see him lambasted for that without 'decent' Ben's taking anything like his share of the responsibility for Jack's having turned from an over-caring, barely-flawed hero-figure into a man capable of willingly risking the life of a patient. I also think that had Jack simply agreed with no conditions to perform the operation on Ben in spite of everything he and his people had suffered at Ben's hands, people would quite understandably have considered him something of a saint.

I agree that the actions of the Others have no doubt had an impact on how Jack and the other Losties have behaved, but I wouldn't say that Jack has been so affected and corrupted by the Others as people may think...this is the man that sanctioned torture before the Others were even on the scene remember, and who had a rather nasty problem of loosing his temper with people in his flashbacks and getting violent with them, like with his Dad and that poor girl he met in Thailand.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

But until he didn't care about the fates of Kate and Sawyer until near the end! I just think it's terrible that Jack could first of all refuse to help a dying man and then gamble with his life halfway through surgery...it doesn't matter who is the helper and who is being helped, I think that's a terrible attitude to have, even more so because Jack is a doctor and swore an oath to help anyone who would need it. Of course I wouldn't pass up an opportunity to go home, but I would try my hardest to make sure that my friends would get the same opportunity...Jack didn't even bother trying to include anyone else in his deal with Ben. And Ben may lie and manipulate and act less than pleasantly towards people, but I really do believe that he's a man of his word. If he makes a promise he will keep it, both because he's a decent man and because what sort of exmaple is he setting to his people if he goes back on it?

As much as I agree with your point of view about helping a dying man, I also have to point out that Jack didn't owe Ben anything. Jack saw a chink the Others' armour and used it to manoeuvre himself an angle; some leverage. It's not so much different to what Ben did to Mike/Walt to get Jack, Sawyer and Kate captured: both people (Jack and Ben) were stuck in horrible situations, and both did immoral things to manufacture a way out of it. If you can understand and even accept Ben's using of 3 people, to threaten and coerce them into doing things for them, then can't you understand Jacks position, and the actions he took to ensure Sawyer and, obviously more so, Kates freedom?

Like I say, Jack should have just 'done' the op. But then, in the same situation, after what Jack's been through (Charlie's hanging, Claire's kidnapping, etc) I can certainly understand why he'd have second thoughts...

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

For some missions it's understandable that Jack would want Sayid and say Sawyer - people who have experience with guns and seem to be able to handle themselves in a fight, but we just don't know what people are capable of and how useful they can be if they are given a chance...way back in the Pilot Shannon didn't seem like the ideal choice to go on the transceiverer trek, but she was the only one who spoke French and so ws a great help.

But the structure of the Others is completely different - they all know their jobs and their purpose and what's to be expected of them...they have clearly defined rules and a clear hierarchy of authority, whereas the Losties have no such things. The Others have agreed to follow thier leaders, whereas with the Losties it's not so clear cut.

First point, yeah that's fair enough. Though I will say that, how would you know which missions are dangerous? The Shannon example is a good one, but there was less of a 'hierarchy' then, and they weren't aware of much danger - loud noises from the jungle was about as bad as it had got by then..

Second point, I think that's even more of a reason for Jack to make cautious decisions. For the most, the Losties are running blind into the jungle and with danger around every corner I think it's only natural to consider those with gun experience or military background as primary candidates for a trek.

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

But Locke wasn't handing out guns on the trip to the Pearl station though, so how would she have been a liability?

If it was a mission involving guns and a high degree of danger, then it would be more understandable if they had refused to let Nikki come along, because they wouldn't have had experience with her on such a mission before, and wouldn't want to risk having her instead of someone they know better.

Like I said above, which missions are dangerous and which aren't? I think Jack put it best (season2?) when he said "Everyone wants me to lead until I make a decision somebody doesn't agree with". You can't win as leader, unless you're Ben and your followers are die-hard Ben fans, of course

[Murgatroyd]

Personally I think his temper tantrum in Thailand was retconned: it didn't seem much in line with his pre-island character to me. And I agree that his ability to get angry and the fact that he was briefly willing to sanction torture (though at least he went the right direction regarding torture, unlike Locke, who seemed very much in favour of it last season) indicates that with the correct degree of provocation he could be led to do something along the lines of holding a patient's life hostage. But not without extreme provocation. Does anyone sincerely believe that, had Ben come to the Losties from the beginning - pre terror campaign - and asked Jack to perform the surgery, Jack would've threatened to kill him in order to get something he wanted out of them? Because I very much don't.

[b-r-a-d]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

I agree that Jack was wrong, as a doctor and as a human being, to hold a man's life to ransom even considering all that said man had done to him.

Jack WAS NOT wrong! He was Kidnapped by them he should of at least got something out of it! If anyone of us was kidnapped by some random group of people that you know nothing about, except that they, kidnap children and murder other people you would not do anything for them unless you were just too scared of them! You would try and make a deal out of it!

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by b-r-a-d

Jack WAS NOT wrong! He was Kidnapped by them he should of at least got something out of it! If anyone of us was kidnapped by some random group of people that you know nothing about, except that they, kidnap children and murder other people you would not do anything for them unless you were just too scared of them! You would try and make a deal out of it!

I'm talking about it as a decontextualised decision - Jack undermined the hypocratic oath and threatened the life of a human being he'd pledged to take care of. I'm not saying that the Others weren't significantly more in the wrong for putting Jack in that position, and certainly not that Ben had in any sense earned the right to Jack's help (he most decidedly hadn't). I wouldn't actually say that Jack would have been anything other than within his rights to blatently refuse to help Ben in that context... but I think agreeing to help and then jeopardising Ben's life after he'd promised to do otherwise is rather a different animal. That said, I don't think Ben had much of a right to expect otherwise.

[b-r-a-d]

I still dont think Jack was wrong, i think he had every right to do what he did so that he could save another man from being killed! He saved Sawyers life by doing that, the others wernt going to let him kill Ben so they had to free Kate and Sawyer, i think Jack knew this would happen all along!

[haelle03]

I vote locke because i hate him more

[Murgatroyd]

I do get that he was doing it with a view to saving Sawyer's life, yes, and I appreciate very much that the blame for everything about that situation lies more with the Others and their antics than with anyone else... I just find it hard to say that to consent to an operation (which, as I say, Jack was not, in those circumstances, obliged to do and that Ben had not earned) and then to threaten the life of the patient once he's under the anaesthetic is *right*.