Juliet

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,December 29, 2006 11:56 am

Ben? Whats he done wrong?

The poor bloke gets so much slack and yet he hasnt really done anything except capture a few criminals :P

By that definition;

Juliet only want's to kill a criminal (kidnapping still being against the law-n-all)

[Kiowa Warrior]

Juliet is a good chracter, but at the moment I just don't really trust her especially if she's telling the truth about wanting to do away with Ben...I'm guessing that (like the rest of the Others) she's known him for quite a while, and so if she can plot to do away with him then what's to say she won't turn on someone she's known for a far shorter time?

What if you're trying to convince someone to kill, say Hitler? Is it right then - by the notion of many of Ben's 'supporters' - if there is a greater good involved, and killing Ben will save hundreds, maybe thousands - it would then be ok?

I'd say that no it's not right, because even if it seemed that killing Ben would save many people such a conclusion is never absolute, because many other factors could change the outcome of these people and so a person may end up being murdered for nothing. And even if someone had managed to kill Hitler, I dare say that someone else would have just replaced him or carried on with his work, especially in the early/middle years of his regin, so (imo) it's unlikley that killing him would automatically guarantee the safety of everyone.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior,December 29, 2006 03:42 pm

Juliet is a good chracter, but at the moment I just don't really trust her especially if she's telling the truth about wanting to do away with Ben...I'm guessing that (like the rest of the Others) she's known him for quite a while, and so if she can plot to do away with him then what's to say she won't turn on someone she's known for a far shorter time?

I'd say that no it's not right, because even if it seemed that killing Ben would save many people such a conclusion is never absolute, because many other factors could change the outcome of these people and so a person may end up being murdered for nothing. And even if someone had managed to kill Hitler, I dare say that someone else would have just replaced him or carried on with his work, especially in the early/middle years of his regin, so (imo) it's unlikley that killing him would automatically guarantee the safety of everyone.

I see your point, but from Juliet’s 'view-point' it would seem that if Ben was killed, then there would be a change (whether for the better or not is still debatable) but having said that if (hypothetically), Ben's reign was for evil and he was running experiments on people and children and Juliet want's a change, because she (rightly) thinks this is wrong and immoral, could you justify his killing then?

I know it's a difficult question, and certainly one I wouldn't want to answer. I'm just trying to provide another point of view, Juliet’s - perhaps? That maybe she is the good one, and not Ben.

Though both actions, for me, deem both 'not good'. But that's just my opinion (Still great characters though!)

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior,December 29, 2006 03:42 pm

I'd say that no it's not right, because even if it seemed that killing Ben would save many people such a conclusion is never absolute, because many other factors could change the outcome of these people and so a person may end up being murdered for nothing. And even if someone had managed to kill Hitler, I dare say that someone else would have just replaced him or carried on with his work, especially in the early/middle years of his regin, so (imo) it's unlikley that killing him would automatically guarantee the safety of everyone.

Have you read Stephen Fry's 'Making History'? It considers precisely this question. Very interesting read.

[Kiowa Warrior]

I see your point, but from Juliet’s 'view-point' it would seem that if Ben was killed, then there would be a change (whether for the better or not is still debatable) but having said that if (hypothetically), Ben's reign was for evil and he was running experiments on people and children and Juliet want's a change, because she (rightly) thinks this is wrong and immoral, could you justify his killing then?

Yes, from Juliet's point of view (assuming she's telling the truth), a Ben-less group would be preferable for her. But like you said, we don't know if such a thing would be 'better'...for all we know Juliet craves the leadership role for herself, and things will be worse under her.

If Ben's rein was evil in such a way and Juliet (understandably) has a problem with it, then I would still have to say that killing Ben is not the way to go...why not just lock him up, or ship him of of the island if possible? If she killed Ben (or arranged for someone else to kill him), then it's a fair bet to make that their would be firm pro-Ben supporters in the camp, who may turn (or at least try) to turn against Juliet, or even continue Ben's work where he left off. If such a thing did happen, should Juliet then arrange to kill yet more people off? And to continue with such a hypothetical scenario I would hazard that, based on what we've seen of Ben's character so far, he wouldn't be experimenting on people and children just for the fun of it. What if he was experimenting on them to produce a cure for an illness or something that would benefit thousands of people...should such work be stopped, and should he be killed for doing it?

I know it's a difficult question, and certainly one I wouldn't want to answer. I'm just trying to provide another point of view, Juliet’s - perhaps? That maybe she is the good one, and not Ben.

Yes it's a very tricky question to answer, because it really isn't as clear cut as it appears on the surface...but it's always good to have another point of view to look at things from! I dare say such a question could be debated forever! From Juliet's POV she probably does consider herself 'good' when compared to Ben I reckon...but maybe not to a large extent though.

Though both actions, for me, deem both 'not good'. But that's just my opinion  (Still great characters though!) 

Yes from what we've sen Ben's and Juliet's actions are far from perfect, but I jus fail to believe that they don't have good reasons (that we have yet to see) to explain why they are doing what they're doing. But yes, they are great characters! Especially Ben

[Kiowa Warrior]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,December 29, 2006 03:52 pm

Have you read Stephen Fry's 'Making History'? It considers precisely this question. Very interesting read.

No I've never actually heard of that book before, but it does sound very interesting so I think I'll have to give it a go. Thanks for the reccomendation!

Did he actually come up with an answer to the question?

[E Pluribus Unum]

It's interesting the whole 'Killing Ben thing' - I mean, what's her motive? Why does she want Ben killed, he's dying! He'll probably be dead within the month due to his cancer! So there must be something more sinister behind it all

[Kitiara]

Originally Posted by KoR-evo,December 29, 2006 10:56 am

Ben? Whats he done wrong?

The poor bloke gets so much slack and yet he hasnt really done anything except capture a few criminals :P

What's he done wrong? Well attacking the tailees, kidnapping the children, trying to hurt Claire and hanging Charlie. That's what.
OK so he maybe wasn't personally involved but as leader of the Others he is morally responsible. He did send Goodwin and Ethan out when the plane crashed. If he didn't tell them to kidnap and hang Charlie then who did?

You surely can't say the Others are good!!!! If you do then what is your definition of bad? Do you condone the beatings that Sawyer gets? What they did to Kate that she doesn't talk about? The kidnapping of children? He is their leader, gives them orders. He is morally responsible.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior,December 29, 2006 04:29 pm

Have you read Stephen Fry's 'Making History'? It considers precisely this question. Very interesting read.

No I've never actually heard of that book before, but it does sound very interesting so I think I'll have to give it a go. Thanks for the reccomendation!

Did he actually come up with an answer to the question? [/quote]
He does come to his own conclusion about what would've happened, but I can't reveal any more about that bit without spoiling it for you. It's actually a novel that examines the repercussions of someone's not actually killing Hitler but preventing his birth. Definitely worth looking it out, I think.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM,December 29, 2006 04:39 pm

It's interesting the whole 'Killing Ben thing' - I mean, what's her motive? Why does she want Ben killed, he's dying! He'll probably be dead within the month due to his cancer! So there must be something more sinister behind it all

Yes, precisely... though perhaps she's scared that Jack's going to succeed and she doesn't want to take that chance. Or perhaps it's a test for Jack.

[Audio Pineapple]

Originally Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM,December 27, 2006 01:14 pm

What if you're trying to convince someone to kill, say Hitler? Is it right then - by the notion of many of Ben's 'supporters' - if there is a greater good involved, and killing Ben will save hundreds, maybe thousands - it would then be ok?

That's why Ben and Juliet are so similar, the only difference is that we don't know who's actually batting for the 'good guys' - if anyone actually is!

In essence, Juliet is doing the same thing as Ben. Influencing Jack into doing something that he has no reason to do -

Ben: Perform a life saving surgery on someone who has attacked and kidnapped him
Juliet: Execute Ben (nobody want's to kill an unarmed man - usually)

Both are 'not very nice people' - I suppose it comes down to who is the least not nice or which is actually doing the good thing...

All the Ben fans will say "BEN" and all the anti-Ben fans will say "JULIET" - neither have enough evidence to say 100% who is actually the good guy

I can see what you're saying but if Jack was being told to kill Hitler he would have proof that it was for the greater good. With attacking Ben it is basically just "Juliet says he is evil so he must be evil."

I agree that they are quite similar - both are largely self-absorbed and looking out for number one, neither have any problems with bending Jack to their will.

Although surely someone saying "please help me" is less of a crime than saying "please kill him." You can't forget that Juliet kidnapped Jack as well. She has never once said (in his presence or away from it) "we shouldn't have taken him."

[Audio Pineapple]

Originally Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM,December 29, 2006 04:39 pm

It's interesting the whole 'Killing Ben thing' - I mean, what's her motive? Why does she want Ben killed, he's dying! He'll probably be dead within the month due to his cancer! So there must be something more sinister behind it all

But if Ben had broken Jack down and rebuilt him successfully then Jack would have saved him and Ben wouldn't die. Juliet needed to intervene to make sure that he does die.

[Audio Pineapple]

Originally Posted by Kitiara,December 29, 2006 05:20 pm

What's he done wrong? Well attacking the tailees, kidnapping the children, trying to hurt Claire and hanging Charlie. That's what.
OK so he maybe wasn't personally involved but as leader of the Others he is morally responsible. He did send Goodwin and Ethan out when the plane crashed. If he didn't tell them to kidnap and hang Charlie then who did?

You surely can't say the Others are good!!!! If you do then what is your definition of bad? Do you condone the beatings that Sawyer gets? What they did to Kate that she doesn't talk about? The kidnapping of children? He is their leader, gives them orders. He is morall