Proof that the Others arent that bad afterall!

[D-Roc]

Im an advocate of the 'Others' not being as bad as they've perhaps been made out to be and I think ive got some(more) evidence to support this claim

Alex. ..Now, remember the whole 'Tabular Rasa' aspect of 'Lost'..which basically supports the viewpoint that the human mind, particularly those of children, are influenced from the impressions received from their surrounding environment. Now, I think im right in saying that most of us deem Alex to be 'good'? But then if this is the case she must have received this good nature from those around her - the 'Others', since presumably they are all she has known and it is they who have surely influenced that 'goodness'. She was (supposedly) taken from her mother at such a young age that she could only have acquired this apparent 'good nature' from those who fostered her - The Others. Which must surely give credence to the idea that, despite their cynics, they can't be that bad..rather they perhaps ARE "the good guys"...!

[Murgatroyd]

I agree that Alex's apparently inherent goodness does appear something of an anomoly. The easy assumption is that it's somehow a genetic gift from Rousseau: something ingrained and untaught that enables her to maintain her ethics in spite of having nothing in the way of positive role models - but that's frankly pretty unlikely, and it doesn't really suit the ethos of the show thus far.

But neither can we really state that she's learned her behaviour from the Others as we've seen them thus far because it's, at times, completely at odds with her companions: they want her to bring out a victim, she refuses; they want to kill Claire in order to kidnap her baby (whether or not you believe that they genuinely wanted to do this, Alex certainly seemed to believe it), she helps Claire to escape. She does whack people over the head when ordered to, but she apologises, which is more than anyone else has done. I can't see that her role model came from any of the Others we've already seen. If we're to believe something other than 'she's inherently good because she's not an Other by birth' or whatever, and I'd rather not, I think we have to assume there's a force at work we've not yet met, and who is at least in as much opposition to Mr Friendly et al as Alex is.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,November 06, 2006 06:41 pm

I agree that Alex's apparently inherent goodness does appear something of an anomoly. The easy assumption is that it's somehow a genetic gift from Rousseau: something ingrained and untaught that enables her to maintain her ethics in spite of having nothing in the way of positive role models - but that's frankly pretty unlikely, and it doesn't really suit the ethos of the show thus far.

But neither can we really state that she's learned her behaviour from the Others as we've seen them thus far because it's, at times, completely at odds with her companions: they want her to bring out a victim, she refuses; they want to kill Claire in order to kidnap her baby (whether or not you believe that they genuinely wanted to do this, Alex certainly seemed to believe it), she helps Claire to escape. She does whack people over the head when ordered to, but she apologises, which is more than anyone else has done. I can't see that her role model came from any of the Others we've already seen. If we're to believe something other than 'she's inherently good because she's not an Other by birth' or whatever, and I'd rather not, I think we have to assume there's a force at work we've not yet met, and who is at least in as much opposition to Mr Friendly et al as Alex is.

I agree, that is pretty unlikely. I dont think genetics has quite evolved to that extent! Though you may just have stumbled upon a future 'LOST' plot-line, Murg

Also, IS Rousseua that good a person? She did (apparently) kill her people, torture Sayid, fire an arrow through Fenry's shoulder (though that couldve been a ploy), kidnap baby Aaron and try to barter him etc..

Regarding the second paragraph..I agree that Alex' goodness may have been influenced by another force/person who weve not yet met..though wouldnt they also be an 'Other'??

If so this further forces home my suggestion that the Others are not completely bad and that they are perhaps doing these hayness things because they themselves are in a desperate situation. The fact that Alex has been influenced in a positive way by at least 'some' of the 'Others' suggests to me that it's wrong to label a group 'bad' just because of a few loose cannons (ie Zeke ).

Another point i'd like to raise is that weve only really seen Alex oppose to Zeke's requests/behaviour - which suggests that she may not like Zeke's way of doing things but that she see's her people's overall ethos as necessary. Afterall..she did understand why Zeke fired at 'Team Jack' - "theyre just delivering a warning" (or something like that)

[Murgatroyd]

I agree, that is pretty unlikely. I dont think genetics has quite evolved to that extent! Though you may just have stumbled upon a future 'LOST' plot-line, Murg

What? To the extent that parents pass on genetic traits to their children? That's kind of precisely what genetics is... but what I'm saying is that I don't feel it likely that it extends to a sense of morality to the extent that a child raised by bad people could so easily cast off their influence. Then again, it's nice to think that the idea that it's okay to kill and discard a mother in order to steal her baby can seem inherently wrong even to someone who's never been taught that it's wrong.

Also, IS Rousseua that good a person? * She did (apparently) kill her people, torture Sayid, fire an arrow through Fenry's shoulder (though that couldve been a ploy), kidnap baby Aaron and try to barter him etc..

Yes, very true. In Rousseau's defence, she ought to be under extraordinarily close medical supervision, and she apparently thought she was euthanasing people for whom there was no hope in order to prevent the spread of a disease. Possibly the Others think that too... let's hope they, like Rousseau, can call on the defence of insanity.

Regarding the second paragraph..I agree that Alex' goodness may have been influenced by another force/person who weve not yet met..though wouldnt they also be an 'Other'??

Yes, presumably so. What is an Other anyway? Just someone the Losties haven't. What I'm saying is that I can't see who Alex's tutor can be anyone we've met thus far (Tom, Henry, etc), because those people don't appear to have the moral capacity to teach her what she seems to know.

If so this further forces home my suggestion that the Others are not completely bad and that they are perhaps doing these hayness things because they themselves are in a desperate situation. The fact that Alex has been influenced in a positive way by at least 'some' of the 'Others' suggests to me that it's wrong to label a group 'bad' just because of a few loose cannons (ie Zeke ).

I'm not labelling Alex bad, and she's an Other. Doesn't mean that Henry, Tom and that ilk are in any sense good people.

[Toby]

Good and bad are bad cliches! They are beyound that, and dont seem to care which they are percieved to be, as long as they get what they want. Ethan didnt get what he wanted, so turned evil (he was so nice in claire flashbacks!).

[Hordriss]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,November 06, 2006 07:10 pm

What? To the extent that parents pass on genetic traits to their children? That's kind of precisely what genetics is... but what I'm saying is that I don't feel it likely that it extends to a sense of morality to the extent that a child raised by bad people could so easily cast off their influence. Then again, it's nice to think that the idea that it's okay to kill and discard a mother in order to steal her baby can seem inherently wrong even to someone who's never been taught that it's wrong.

Perhaps that incident with Claire was the first time Alex had ever seen the "greater good" ethos of her companions in action, and was at least able to see the amount of deception and suffering involved. Assuming that she has been raised with the moral maxims of Goodwin, Henry etc. ringing in her ears (that all-too confident assumption that they are the "good guys&quot, then the obvious contradiction between ideals and actions might have played some part in her "de-programming". It suggests, at any rate, that the "Others" are perhaps not so good at indoctrination as they might believe.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Hordriss,November 07, 2006 02:33 am

Perhaps that incident with Claire was the first time Alex had ever seen the "greater good" ethos of her companions in action, and was at least able to see the amount of deception and suffering involved. Assuming that she has been raised with the moral maxims of Goodwin, Henry etc. ringing in her ears (that all-too confident assumption that they are the "good guys&quot, then the obvious contradiction between ideals and actions might have played some part in her "de-programming". It suggests, at any rate, that the "Others" are perhaps not so good at indoctrination as they might believe.

Yes, I can go along with that. There's also, of course, a kind of reverse hypothesis for this question: the possibility that her having been an Other for less time than, presumably, the likes of Tom and Henry, means she's been exposed for less time to whatever force is making them what they are (in my view, well dodgy people who claim to be good) - yes, she's been immersed in their culture for relatively longer than any of them, eg. her whole life, but she could've missed out on some indoctrinating force that acted on them prior to her being kidnapped.

Or perhaps she's just young enough not yet to be wholly corrupted.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,November 06, 2006 08:10 pm

What? To the extent that parents pass on genetic traits to their children? That's kind of precisely what genetics is... but what I'm saying is that I don't feel it likely that it extends to a sense of morality to the extent that a child raised by bad people could so easily cast off their influence. Then again, it's nice to think that the idea that it's okay to kill and discard a mother in order to steal her baby can seem inherently wrong even to someone who's never been taught that it's wrong.

No sorry Murg - im specifically talking about the unlikely concept of Alex' 'goodness' being passed down from her mothers (so-called) 'good' traits. I dont believe that possibility exists? I mean, just because a mother is 'good'..there is no-way that this 'goodness' is genetically passed down through her genes to her daughter. Least not in any science ive heard of - expect maybe some form of 'pseudo-science', which includes things like producing optimuim races (there is a term for it but it elludes me at present )

I just think that the most logical assumption to be made of this is that Alex's 'decent nature' (we dont really know if she is good do we..and afterall..what is 'good'?) is influenced by the Others. People are often products of their environment and the fact that she has displayed her fair share of decency lends me to believe that the Others themselves are more than decent fellows. Afterall, she was taken when she was a baby..the only way that she could have developed into the decent person that she is, is by the influence of those around her..afterall children need directing..they need to be taught right from wrong..good from bad. So if you ask me, the Others must be doing something right! If they were truley bad and immoral than Alex would be a product of that and she certainly wouldne be apologising for clubbing Mike over the head or tending a pregnant stranger.

[Laura~J]

*nodding fully in agreement with Roco*

There must be some good people in and amongst the others in order for Alex to turn out how she has. Morals aren't genetic - we learn good and bad through socialisation, through our upbringing. Alex has been disciplined as a child into knowing a difference between what's right/wrong, good/bad to some degree, and most likely as she's grown older shes developed her own opinions as to what is right/wrong.

[Murgatroyd]

Technically I agree entirely with the idea that she must've been influenced by some force within that group that was acting with a sense of morality. I just worry that the producers are directing us to conclude that it's her relationship to Rousseau that's made her what she is: I agree that this would be nothing more than fiction. I just don't feel that this force for good necessarily implies that Henry's statement 'We're the good guys' has any extra validity. So there's someone good amongst you or some elements of goodness, perhaps in intention alone, to be drawn out of your otherwise vile behaviour... doesn't mean that murder and kidnapping come any closer to justification.

[Cavegirl]

Alex has not only been exposed to the Others, though, has she? She's probably met/interacted with Walt, she's observed the Survivors and seen how desperate Michael is to have his child returned. This could have awakened compassion in her previously unenlightened personality. After all, IF she knows she was snatched as a baby (and it's a big IF) she may have longed to know her real parents and not wish anyone else to suffer being separated from their child. It's possible those experiences which are not a direct result of the Others' programming are influencing her now, particularly as she is at an impressionable age where people start to look at influences beyond their family and question the values they have been taught.

Furthermore, I don't imagine Zeke and Miss Clugh raised this child from babyhood. Someone clearly did, she has manners and a sense of appropriate conduct. Who really raised her? Who answered her questions during the endless "Why?" years, who rocked her to sleep when she cried? Some compassionate, humane dogsbody who couldn't bare to see a child neglected, I bet.

[Hordriss]

I mean, just because a mother is 'good'..there is no-way that this 'goodness' is genetically passed down through her genes to her daughter. Least not in any science ive heard of - expect maybe some form of 'pseudo-science', which includes things like producing optimuim races (there is a term for it but it elludes me at present  )

Possibly eugenics.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Laura~J,November 07, 2006 10:27 pm

*nodding fully in agreement with Roco*

There must be some good people in and amongst the others in order for Alex to turn out how she has. Morals aren't genetic - we learn good and bad through socialisation, through our upbringing. Alex has been disciplined as a child into knowing a difference between what's right/wrong, good/bad to some degree, and most likely as she's grown older shes developed her own opinions as to what is right/wrong.

I totally agree L~J..

As far as conventional science goes, morals arent genetically passed down - they need to be learned by a child. Children are highly influenced by those around them and so there must be at least some decent others in her group.

And anyway, apart from Zeke (AND those under his charge eg Ethan, Blondie, twins), i dont believe weve really seen the Others act that immorally. Certainly Fenry leads me to believe that the Others are just a buch of people trying to do the 'right thing'..they are not so different from the Losties (who, it could be argued have displayed far worse human traits)..it's just that we dont yet understand their motivations..hence we (unfairly) judge them.

I so cant wait to see what these others are all about. Im confident that they are not that bad..and Alex is testiment to that imo.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,November 07, 2006 10:36 pm

Technically I agree entirely with the idea that she must've been influenced by some force within that group that was acting with a sense of morality. I just worry that the producers are directing us to conclude that it's her relationship to Rousseau that's made her what she is: I agree that this would be nothing more than fiction. I just don't feel that this force for good necessarily implies that Henry's statement 'We're the good guys' has any extra validity. So there's someone good amongst you or some elements of goodness, perhaps in intention alone, to be drawn out of your otherwise vile behaviour... doesn't mean that murder and kidnapping come any closer to justification.

I disagree Murg..

I understand that you're suggesting what you feel the producers are trying to state..but i cant seem them going down such a avenue of fiction and implausibility.

I mean, they are clever people (the creators)..i just can't see them trying to get us to believe that Alex is primarily 'good' due to the fact that she is the child of Rousseua. I mean, the writers tend to treat us viewers with respect and dont often insult our intelligence..so why would they try to get us to believe that morals and goodness are genetic traits!? Not only is this an implausible and impossible (in the realm of proven science) but it's also a highly dangerous and toxic statement which can bleed into areas such as race, culture and religion etc. For example, some might deem the writers as stating that people of a certain background are genetically more 'good' than those from another background. Now i know these writers are brave..but foolish?

Whatsmore..who's to say that Rousseau is even 'good'..as i said elsewhere, she massacred her people, shot Fenry with and arrow and abducted a baby! Hardly 'good'.

PLease dont get me wrong, im not directing this towards you as im aware that you're stating what road you think the producers are going down. Im just very doubtful and/or hopeful that they dont go down such a route.

(IMO) The simple and logical answer to Alex' (apparent) 'goodness' is that the Others must be fairly decent themselves. Rousseua's gene's have nothing to do with it for the reasons stated above..

--

I do feel that Alex' 'decent nature' gives Fenry's "were the good guys" statement more validity. I mean, she is a product of them. She is one of them. She is another. SO if she's good, then it is surely logical to assume that the others claim to 'goodness' might not be so far fetched. Im not saying that the are definetely 'good', because personally i dont think anyone on this earth (except God and Jesus) is completely 'good'..im just saying that Fenry may have a point..and like i always say - "it's all relative"..if there exists a worse band of bandits than Fenry's lot, then technically Fenry's point rings true..because, well..they WOULD indeed be the "good guys". Not 'good' necessarily..but in a world of relatively..they would be (in such a situation), the 'good guys'..

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Hordriss,November 08, 2006 08:27 am