We're the good guys

[lost-lover]

One thing that's been bugging me lately is the thing Henry said to Michael at the end of S2 "We're the good guys Michael". So was this just a typical way of avoiding the question and making them feel better about themselves and convince them they're doing the right thing, or are they really good guys. Have they really just kidnapped 3 people (4 if you count Hurley who they released) out of the goodness of their hearts to try and help them or something? Was it possible Henry was implying that Jack and co are the bad guys, possibly Jack Kate and Sawyer the worst culprits and must therefore be seperated from the group? Any thoughts?

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by lost-lover,October 29, 2006 08:30 pm

One thing that's been bugging me lately is the thing Henry said to Michael at the end of S2 "We're the good guys Michael". So was this just a typical way of avoiding the question and making them feel better about themselves and convince them they're doing the right thing, or are they really good guys. Have they really just kidnapped 3 people (4 if you count Hurley who they released) out of the goodness of their hearts to try and help them or something? Was it possible Henry was implying that Jack and co are the bad guys, possibly Jack Kate and Sawyer the worst culprits and must therefore be seperated from the group? Any thoughts?

My interpretation is that they genuinely think they're the good guys... but in the way most murderous dictators do....

[Nickeshi]

They can't really be good if they take all the people they have taken, henry tried to kill Ana, Ethan killed Charlie before Jack brought him back to life and Goodwin killed Nathan, They shot Sawyer and Blew up the raft. They must have another meaning for good or something.

[The Wizard]

Originally Posted by Nickeshi,October 29, 2006 09:46 pm

They can't really be good if they take all the people they have taken, henry tried to kill Ana, Ethan killed Charlie before Jack brought him back to life and Goodwin killed Nathan, They shot Sawyer and Blew up the raft. They must have another meaning for good or something.

that's a jolly good point!

[Kiowa Warrior]

Whether the Others are good or not, I think that the Others themselves genuinely believe that they are good people. Yes they have done some awful things like murdering and kidnapping, but they could be justifying those actions as a means to an end - as if all that pain and suffering they put some people through is a fair price to pay for saving the lives of countless others perhaps.

Possibly the Others have been taught - brainwashed you might say - into believing that they are good people and what they do is OK, even though the rest of the world would say otherwise. Or maybe they have come to the conclusion themselves that they are good people, when compared to other people/gropus they have encountered. If this is the case I don't think that it's the losties that are the main group they are comparing and judging themselves against: more like Hanso, Dharma or another organisation altogether perhaps.

[Jen]

i agree that they do think they are the good people... and in a way they are... i mean they took "Alex" from Danielle, probably because she wouldn't have had a good life etc and the others have obviously been tehre for a long time so they would know all the good places to find food and have a good shelter...

[Hordriss]

Originally Posted by lost-lover,October 29, 2006 08:30 pm

One thing that's been bugging me lately is the thing Henry said to Michael at the end of S2 "We're the good guys Michael". So was this just a typical way of avoiding the question and making them feel better about themselves and convince them they're doing the right thing, or are they really good guys. Have they really just kidnapped 3 people (4 if you count Hurley who they released) out of the goodness of their hearts to try and help them or something? Was it possible Henry was implying that Jack and co are the bad guys, possibly Jack Kate and Sawyer the worst culprits and must therefore be seperated from the group? Any thoughts?

Henry's statement to Michael looked and sounded very much like smug self-righteousness to me, and that's rarely a sign of virtue.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by lost-lover,October 29, 2006 09:30 pm

One thing that's been bugging me lately is the thing Henry said to Michael at the end of S2 "We're the good guys Michael". So was this just a typical way of avoiding the question and making them feel better about themselves and convince them they're doing the right thing, or are they really good guys. Have they really just kidnapped 3 people (4 if you count Hurley who they released) out of the goodness of their hearts to try and help them or something? Was it possible Henry was implying that Jack and co are the bad guys, possibly Jack Kate and Sawyer the worst culprits and must therefore be seperated from the group? Any thoughts?

I dont think Henry was implying that Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Hurley are 'bad'. Rather I think his "were the good guys" statement was borne out of the fact that they really do think they are the good people on the island (as Murg & Ki also said). Weve heard Goodwin, Ethan and Henry all make reference to them being 'good people'. And i think it's a state of mind. They obvioulsy believe that whatever they are doing is for the greater good.

Afterall, does taking people make them bad? It's certainly debatable, since throughout history man has done things in the name of 'good' that in the cold light of day cant really be considered 'good'. And im talking about right back throughout history here.. Many campaigns, crusades and wars were launced and bloodshed follwed..it's a natural (and disgusting) fact of war. And technically i feel that this is what's raging on the island - A War (though not in the traditional sense). It's just that we dont know the details yet. The others do. ...and so, for me, the only way to judge whether or not they truely are 'the good guys', is to see who and what the otherside is first and what their morals/conduct is like. I keep saying this but it's so true - "It's all relative" (John Locke 2.14)

Anyhoo..if i was to stick my neck out, i'd say that im inclined to believe Henry. Though i also doubt whether anyone on that island truely is 'good'. There's too much 'grey' for that to be the case, methinks..

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Nickeshi,October 29, 2006 09:46 pm

They can't really be good if they take all the people they have taken, henry tried to kill Ana, Ethan killed Charlie before Jack brought him back to life and Goodwin killed Nathan, They shot Sawyer and Blew up the raft. They must have another meaning for good or something.

Well 'good' is word which is relative. It has different meanings and different applications because most people like to think of themselves as 'good'. It makes the guilt a little easier to swallow I guess, if youre doing something in 'the name of good (or God)"..it almost gives people carte blanche to do whatever they want and yet still look themselves in the mirror.

However, when it comes to the others i do think they have been harshly stereo-typed by the lost population. I mean, yes theyve kidnapped people and yes theyve threatened people. However, we have no proof that Ethan strung Charlie up and we have no proof that they killed Scott.

So on the one hand we have people claiming to be 'good' and on the other hand we have manymof us accusing them of being something that they may not be. Suspicion is never the answer. I think this is one of the messages that the writers will eventually convey in this whole issue Afterall we dont know they whole truth yet. Who's to say that there is not a more ruthless and deadly faction on the island? If there is then this technically makes Henry's claim plausible..since they would then be the 'good guys'..or at least, the 'not so bad guys'..

There may be a valid reason for the actions of the others..until I personally have a bit more evidence, i will refrain from assuming that they are completely bad. Yes, theyre no angels..but theres something about them that makes me think theyre not complately 'bad'

And anyway, i personally think the whole concept or 'good' vs' 'bad' is redundent in todays society..as no-one is 100% good and so perhaps no-one is 100% bad? As humans it's in our nature to want to be good..though often wanting it is not enough..

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,October 30, 2006 03:18 pm

I dont think Henry was implying that Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Hurley are 'bad'. Rather I think his "were the good guys" statement was borne out of the fact that they really do think they are the good people on the island (as Murg & Ki also said). Weve heard Goodwin, Ethan and Henry all make reference to them being 'good people'. And i think it's a state of mind. They obvioulsy believe that whatever they are doing is for the greater good.

Afterall, does taking people make them bad? It's certainly debatable, since throughout history man has done things in the name of 'good' that in the cold light of day cant really be considered 'good'. And im talking about right back throughout history here.. Many campaigns, crusades and wars were launced and bloodshed follwed..it's a natural (and disgusting) fact of war. And technically i feel that this is what's raging on the island - A War (though not in the traditional sense). It's just that we dont know the details yet. The others do.  ...and so, for me, the only way to judge whether or not they truely are 'the good guys', is to see who and what the otherside is first and what their morals/conduct is like. I keep saying this but it's so true - "It's all relative" (John Locke 2.14)

Anyhoo..if i was to stick my neck out, i'd say that im inclined to believe Henry. Though i also doubt  whether anyone on that island  truely is 'good'. There's too much 'grey' for that to be the case, methinks..

On the question of believing Henry: I believe that he considers himself to be a good person and his people to be similarly worthy, but on the evidence presented thus far, I certainly don't believe it myself. Yeah, there could be convoluted excuses made for their behaviour but I can't really imagine a motivation so inherently decent that it makes kidnap, drugging, violence and murder okay.

I think it's an interesting point about their acting in the name of good in the sense that that's what they think they're doing... and I suppose they may even have some reason that superficially seems like an altruistic goal - it could come down, in their view, to a question of sacrifice with a view to saving more than are lost - but then we're up for a massive philosophical debate about consent and the greater good, and I still think the Others are going to well and truly lose it. Laying down your life to save ten people is truly good. Sacrificing an unwilling victim to save ten people is really rather less good. And killing Scott to scare Claire into returning is about as far from good as it's possible to get. So that particular bit of evidence suggests to me that, whatever altruistic purpose they might ultimately have in mind, they're more than capable of mindless violence for the sole reason that it makes their task a bit easier, and it aids their own survival. They seem to think their survival is important to the greater good. I'm far from convinced.

[Hordriss]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,October 31, 2006 08:13 am

On the question of believing Henry: I believe that he considers himself to be a good person and his people to be similarly worthy, but on the evidence presented thus far, I certainly don't believe it myself. Yeah, there could be convoluted excuses made for their behaviour but I can't really imagine a motivation so inherently decent that it makes kidnap, drugging, violence and murder okay.

I think it's an interesting point about their acting in the name of good in the sense that that's what they think they're doing... and I suppose they may even have some reason that superficially seems like an altruistic goal - it could come down, in their view, to a question of sacrifice with a view to saving more than are lost - but then we're up for a massive philosophical debate about consent and the greater good, and I still think the Others are going to well and truly lose it. Laying down your life to save ten people is truly good. Sacrificing an unwilling victim to save ten people is really rather less good. And killing Scott to scare Claire into returning is about as far from good as it's possible to get. So that particular bit of evidence suggests to me that, whatever altruistic purpose they might ultimately have in mind, they're more than capable of mindless violence for the sole reason that it makes their task a bit easier, and it aids their own survival. They seem to think their survival is important to the greater good. I'm far from convinced.

Given the scope of Dharma's research and all the blather we've had about "saving the world", it is possible that the Others believe that they are acting in the interests of all humanity. Then again, so did the 9/11 bombers... Fanaticism may not be as contemptible as pure depraved selfishness, but it is equally anti-social Since "Lost" is, to a large extent, an allegory of how societies endure or fail, and since Locke and Charlie have already caused considerable harm through fanatical actions, I very much doubt we are being encouraged to applaud the Others for their selfless acts of (to put it fairly) terrorism.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Hordriss,October 31, 2006 08:37 am

Given the scope of Dharma's research and all the blather we've had about "saving the world", it is possible that the Others believe that they are acting in the interests of all humanity. Then again, so did the 9/11 bombers... Fanaticism may not be as contemptible as pure depraved selfishness, but it is equally anti-social Since "Lost" is, to a large extent, an allegory of how societies endure or fail, and since Locke and Charlie have already caused considerable harm through fanatical actions, I very much doubt we are being encouraged to applaud the Others for their selfless acts of (to put it fairly) terrorism.

Yes, that's precisely my feeling. I think it highly unlikely, or at least highly undesirable, that the producers really want to exonerate a group of people that commits murder, kidnap and other vile deeds for what they consider a greater goal by making that greater goal in any sense worthy. If Henry thinks this is all necessary to prevent the world exploding, fine, but please let him turn out to be deluded. Sure the Others can think it worthy, but what we know about it is that it's been used as an excuse to murder, and that's hellish hard to redeem.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,October 31, 2006 11:13 am

Yes, that's precisely my feeling. I think it highly unlikely, or at least highly undesirable, that the producers really want to exonerate a group of people that commits murder, kidnap and other vile deeds for what they consider a greater goal by making that greater goal in any sense worthy. If Henry thinks this is all necessary to prevent the world exploding, fine, but please let him turn out to be deluded. Sure the Others can think it worthy, but what we know about it is that it's been used as an excuse to murder, and that's hellish hard to redeem.

But you see i dont quite think it's the same as 'fanatical' religion..

With those who act despicably in the 'name of God' (in their own deluded minds)..carry out acts of terror, that is totally inexcuseable..because for one thing this so-called 'greater good' of theirs cannot be proven...in other words, there is no evidence for it. Those people are just using (their) God's name as an excuse to justifiy their terrible actions..

However, I see the situation with the 'others' as different in that whatever is happening on this island can and will (in my view) be proven. Im confident that there will be evidence/proof in regards to their motivation/reason for taking people etc. Whilst the others do have shades of being a religious cult-like group, i think it's more than that. Dont forget these are/were army men and woman..practical people. Whilst they may have embraced Dharma's(?) philosophy i do believe that they are working towards something which is vital for all of mankind. And not in a religious fanatical sense which cannot be proved..but in the sense that science (which is tangible) will be used as a mechanism for showing the possible justification for what they have done.

Now dont forget..we have no proof that they murdered Scott. None whatsoever. So taking that out of the equation, all we really have is the fact that they took Claire and Walt (and later 'Team Jack'). Now there could be a whole host of reasons for that.

However, should i be wrong and Henry's group turn out to be nothing but a bunch of warped and deluded thugs, then yes..i will advocate what youve said above...but for now..in the absence of hard evidence, i refuse to label the others as deluded criminals. Afterall...hasnt society taught us the lessons of suspicion without proof?

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,October 31, 2006 04:46 pm

Now dont forget..we have no proof that they murdered Scott. None whatsoever. So taking that out of the equation, all we really have is the fact that they took Claire and Walt (and later 'Team Jack'). Now there could be a whole host of reasons for that.

To rebalance the question slightly, the above statement makes it sound as if two kidnaps is all they are definitely guilty of. Remember what they did in order to carry out those kidnaps and to keep hold of their captors: the raft was blown up with no expectation that the three men aboard it could survive; Charlie was hanged, again with no expectation that he could possibly survive. Scott was killed (I just don't countenence the idea that Ethan didn't kill Scott, so I'm afraid this one does count for me). Jack and Jin were assaulted. Michael was imprisoned. And Claire was, by all appearances, going to be murdered. I cannot imagine the mitigating circumstances that are going to wipe all those crimes and the ruthlessness behind them completely off the slate.