The Women of B5
Lisa Coulter
women of B5 and how they all had traditionally male "hero" arcs . This
especially seems to hold with Ivanova and Delenn.
I have often wondered why Delenn got so criticized for "keeping
secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
characters - even our great heroes - did this. In the magazine they
state maybe people are still having trouble dealing with women leading
in war. I am not so much in agreement with this as thinking that the
men ( and women) who criticized Delenn for these characteristics ( and I
am sorry, but I *never* saw a critique of Sinclair (a master manipulator
and liar) , G'Kar, *londo* ( even when in his hero part he was
incredibly manipulative - consider Vir) or Sheridan. But boy did she
get raked over the coals. Sorry folks. Politicians and leaders (even
and maybe *especially* the best) manipulate. I bet most of us do it in
our lives/ careers quite a bit. Maybe it is time to accept that a
female leader would have to do this as well, in addition to holding back
some info (hi, John, Jeff, we have to work together to beat the Shadows,
but thought you should know my vote caused the Earth - Minbari war....)
Then there was the thread that Delenn *acted* as those she loved
Sheridan to manipulate him - as John Stossel says "Give me a break!"
Deconstruction, SiL, and many others should have laid that to rest.
As far as Ivanova, I think she was a rather sad heroine - clearly so
wounded by her past relationships she never let herself get close
again....
Anyway, interesting article.
"Faith manages" - Delenn
"How can we see them face to face till we have faces" - C. S. Lewis
In the end, there is always the sunrise.....
Lisa Coulter
Shaz
"Lisa Coulter" <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message
news:38F22735...@stetson.edu...
> Interesting article in the new ( to the U. S. ) B5 magazine about the
> women of B5 and how they all had traditionally male "hero" arcs . This
> especially seems to hold with Ivanova and Delenn.
>
On behalf of two of those involved in that, thank you.
The rest of the piece written by Elaine and me will appear in a book on
Women in SF that will be published later this year by Rowman and
Littlefield. The book is called: Fantasy Girls: Navigating The New Universe
Of Science Fiction And Fantasy Television.
Shaz
Jms at B5
>secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
>characters - even our great heroes - did this.
Yup.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Scott Johnson
: I have often wondered why Delenn got so criticized for "keeping
: secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
: characters - even our great heroes - did this.
It seems to me that Delenn (and the Minbari in general, to give her a fair
shake) did this to a much greater extent than any other character or
race. I mean, the fact that Delenn didn't even tell Sheridan, who
certainly had a major need to know, about the building of the White Star
fleet is pretty indicative of the extent to which she held secrets.
--
Scott Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
(734) 763-5363
Finger for PGP public key.
Iain Reid
"Scott Johnson" <sco...@news.eecs.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:8d05lv$1fbo$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu...
> Lisa Coulter (lcou...@stetson.edu) wrote:
>(and the Minbari in general, to give her a fair shake)
Yeah, I think that is an important point - it was not Delenn the Woman that
was manipulative and secretive as much as it was Delenn the Minbari.
Minbari, as she said, "are told just what they need to know and no more".
Minbari culture is one of secrets and half-truths (maybe noone told them
that a half-truth is worse than a lie). We can see that Delenn's secretive
streak is reflected in practically all the Minbari characters - even Duhkat.
I would say it is a product of her culture rather than her gender.
Iain Reid
Steve Brinich
> It seems to me that Delenn (and the Minbari in general, to give her
> a fair shake) did this to a much greater extent than any other
> character or race. I mean, the fact that Delenn didn't even tell
> Sheridan, who certainly had a major need to know, about the building
> of the White Star fleet is pretty indicative of the extent to which
> she held secrets.
More often, perhaps. However, I can't think of an example where she
was quite so cynical about it as Londo in "And the Rock Cried Out..."
or Sheridan in "Rumors, Bargains, and Lies".
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Lisa Coulter
Scott Johnson wrote:
> Lisa Coulter (lcou...@stetson.edu) wrote:
> : I have often wondered why Delenn got so criticized for "keeping
> : secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
> : characters - even our great heroes - did this.
>
> It seems to me that Delenn (and the Minbari in general, to give her a fair
> shake) did this to a much greater extent than any other character or
> race. I mean, the fact that Delenn didn't even tell Sheridan, who
> certainly had a major need to know, about the building of the White Star
> fleet is pretty indicative of the extent to which she held secrets.
>
> --
> Scott Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
> Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
> (734) 763-5363
> Finger for PGP public key.
As I bleive the Great Maker himself said, she told him about them as soon as
she had them. Let's face it, it certainly was a "lift" for him, and it would
probably have been frustrating to know they were so close to being done and yet
not...
Yes the Minbari kept secrets - sorry, so did others, especially Londo and
Sinclair (interesting pair!)
Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
Shaz wrote:
Thanks! Looking forward to it.
Lisa Coulter
A. Safron
Lisa Coulter <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message
news:38F22735...@stetson.edu...
> Interesting article in the new ( to the U. S. ) B5 magazine about the
> women of B5 and how they all had traditionally male "hero" arcs . This
> especially seems to hold with Ivanova and Delenn.
>
> secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
> state maybe people are still having trouble dealing with women leading
> in war.
You mean like Joan of Arc?
1412?-1431
French military leader and heroine. Inspired and directed by religious
visions,
she organized the French resistance that forced the English to end their
siege
of Orléans (1429). The same year she led an army of 12,000 to Rheims and
had the dauphin crowned Charles VII. Captured and sold to the English by
the Burgundians (1430), she was later tried for heresy and sorcery and was
burned at the stake in Rouen. She was canonized in 1920.
-A. Safron
Lisa Coulter
"A. Safron" wrote:
Yes, I do know the history of Joan of Arc. Never heard her criticized for
some of the things Delenn was, though they strike me as very different...
I am sorry, in my opinion there was definitely a double standard on the net
about secrets, politickiing and manipulation. I *never* saw Sinclair, Londo,
G'kar or Sheridan get criticized for these - Delenn did. Granted the Minbari
are a secretive people anyway, but *all* the species on B5 are shown to be
this way. Sheridan, for example, was not exactly going out of his way to
reveal he was in a conspiracy against Earth ( for good reason) and remember
what Sinclair did to G'kar on "Midnight on the Firing Line" - funny, but also
somewhat mean and manipulative. As for the Centauri, from the purple files
onward they had *great* secrets.
So why did *she* get raked over the coals and no one else did?
Possibly her sex?
Lisa Coulter
Andrew M Swallow
>Possibly her sex?
>
>Lisa Coulter
>
Possibly. But was her offence keeping secrets from the viewers?
Sheridan kept his secrets from Earth, the viewers knew what was going on. Were
the viewers covering up their inability to predict the twists in the plot with
anger?
Andrew Swallow
Tom Holt
The message <20000413180607...@ng-cd1.news.cs.com>
from andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) contains these words:
Were
> the viewers covering up their inability to predict the twists in the plot with
> anger?
Anger?
I can predict the plot-twists in 'Voyager', no problem. That's why I
don't watch it any more.
Kevin W. Parker
(how she presents herself) and how she actually is. On the one hand, she
has the aura of a religious leader, and she says that Minbari never lie
and that a half-truth is worse than a lie (forgive me if I'm
misquoting--I'm doing this from memory). On the other hand, she is
sometimes manipulative and frequently not very forthcoming with the truth.
What is jarring is the contrast between these two. I think if she were
male it would come off just as badly if not worse.
Kevin
In article <38F22735...@stetson.edu>, Lisa Coulter
<lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote:
>> Interesting article in the new ( to the U. S. ) B5 magazine about the
>> women of B5 and how they all had traditionally male "hero" arcs . This
>> especially seems to hold with Ivanova and Delenn.
>>
>> I have often wondered why Delenn got so criticized for "keeping
>> secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
>> characters - even our great heroes - did this. In the magazine they
>> state maybe people are still having trouble dealing with women leading
>> in war. I am not so much in agreement with this as thinking that the
>> men ( and women) who criticized Delenn for these characteristics ( and I
>> am sorry, but I *never* saw a critique of Sinclair (a master manipulator
>> and liar) , G'Kar, *londo* ( even when in his hero part he was
>> incredibly manipulative - consider Vir) or Sheridan. But boy did she
>> get raked over the coals. Sorry folks. Politicians and leaders (even
>> and maybe *especially* the best) manipulate. I bet most of us do it in
>> our lives/ careers quite a bit. Maybe it is time to accept that a
>> female leader would have to do this as well, in addition to holding back
>> some info (hi, John, Jeff, we have to work together to beat the Shadows,
>> but thought you should know my vote caused the Earth - Minbari war....)
>> Then there was the thread that Delenn *acted* as those she loved
>> Sheridan to manipulate him - as John Stossel says "Give me a break!"
>> Deconstruction, SiL, and many others should have laid that to rest.
>> Lisa Coulter
--
"A thousand words are worth a picture, and they take less time to download."
Kevin W. Parker
Paul Harper
>The rest of the piece written by Elaine and me will appear in a book on
>Women in SF that will be published later this year by Rowman and
>Littlefield. The book is called: Fantasy Girls: Navigating The New Universe
>Of Science Fiction And Fantasy Television.
Way to go Shaz!
Anyone that writes and gets it published gets my respect (mind you,
you know you had that anyway, so I'm not sure it counts for anything!)
Well done.
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Paul Harper
wrote:
>I can predict the plot-twists in 'Voyager', no problem. That's why I
>don't watch it any more.
Hay!
When did they start putting them in?
Paul Harper
Swallow) wrote:
>Possibly. But was her offence keeping secrets from the viewers?
Maybe. But isn't that real life? (as opposed to "reel life"). Where's
the point in watching a show where we are told everything, or even
told the truth all the time? Disrespectful that is.
Deep Space Franchise anyone?
Lisa Coulter
"Kevin W. Parker" wrote:
> I think the issue with Delenn could be the contrast between her persona
> (how she presents herself) and how she actually is. On the one hand, she
> has the aura of a religious leader, and she says that Minbari never lie
> and that a half-truth is worse than a lie (forgive me if I'm
> misquoting--I'm doing this from memory). On the other hand, she is
> sometimes manipulative and frequently not very forthcoming with the truth.
> What is jarring is the contrast between these two. I think if she were
> male it would come off just as badly if not worse.
>
> Kevin
>
> In article <38F22735...@stetson.edu>, Lisa Coulter
> <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote:
In fact, Sinclair says that a half-truth is worse than a lie. Right as he is
telling a half-truth to Marcus in WWE. And of course, as Valen, he is
necessarily very secretive and manipulative. *And* a religious leader - doesn't
mean I don't admire him.
An interesting similarity to "Minbari do not lie" is in the Jordan books where
Aes Sedai don't lie - but the way they tell the truth is so convoluted that it
often might as well be a lie. Delenn does hold secrets. *All* responsible
leaders do. She presents herself as warm, caring, compassionate - and she is.
As far as being a religious leader, you are very naive if you think most of them
aren't very much politicians, with all that entails. And I speak as a
Christian. Being a leader, having secrets and manipulating (even Sheridan does
this to get the non-Alligned worlds to accept protection, remember?) doesn't
make you *bad*. Good leaders (good in all ways) sometimes *must* keep secrets,
lie and manipulate to get what is necessary done. For example, should Bush have
told the press *exactly* when he was going to attack Iraq in the Gulf War? If
one of them figured it out, shouldn't he have lied to protect American troops?
(Please ignore the choice of war - holds for any war).
Delenn hides her past - good reason, it is very painful and has moments of
heroism and tragedy/sin. Some of the greatest saints have been *awful* sinners
- Paul and Augustine come to mind.
the one time she feels she really should have spoken out, to Sheridan about
Anna, she goes to him and *deliberately* asks for pardon and gives him a choice.
She also says she wishes she had acted differently to Stephen.
No, she is *not* perfect. Neither is Valen, neither is the *Blessed Sheridan*.
But they are great, great heroes and about the best we've got.
Faith manages - Delenn
In the end, there is always the sunrise
Lisa Coulter
Kevin W. Parker
quite sure she was on our side? Whatever their faults, we were always
pretty confident that Sheridan and Sinclair were trying to do the right
thing.
Kevin
In article <20000413180607...@ng-cd1.news.cs.com>,
andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) wrote:
>> >So why did *she* get raked over the coals and no one else did?
>> >Possibly her sex?
>> >
>> >Lisa Coulter
>> >
>>
>> Possibly. But was her offence keeping secrets from the viewers?
>>
>> Sheridan kept his secrets from Earth, the viewers knew what was going
on. Were
>> the viewers covering up their inability to predict the twists in the
plot with
>> anger?
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
Tmhodge
>(how she presents herself) and how she actually is.
or maybe its a contrast between who she *is* and who the fans want to *believe*
she is...
Pål Are Nordal
> In fact, Sinclair says that a half-truth is worse than a lie.
That was Delenn to Draal, in Voice in the Wilderness, repeating what
he'd taught her.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Christian Smith
>On 13 Apr 2000 18:06:03 -0600, Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I can predict the plot-twists in 'Voyager', no problem. That's why I
>>don't watch it any more.
>
>Hay!
>
>When did they start putting them in?
>
What- plots?
:-)
Never happened in 6 years.
Christian
"Every new beginning is some other beginnings end..."
ICQ 45494039
(E_Mail: Remove "NOSPAM" from e-mail address when replying)
M.E.Tonkin
That a lie which is half a truth is ever
the blackest of lies,
That a lie which is all a lie may be met
and fought with outright,
But a lie which is part a truth is a
harder matter to fight."
from _The Grandmother_
by Alfred Lord Tennyson
Sinclair no doubt came across this Tennyson poem in the book
that contained his favorite _Ulysses_, so Sinclair read it
in a Tennyson poem and Valen taught it to the Minbari, which
is how Delenn learned it ;-)
MET
Lisa Coulter
> Lisa Coulter (lcou...@stetson.edu) wrote:
> : I have often wondered why Delenn got so criticized for "keeping
> : secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
> : characters - even our great heroes - did this.
>
> It seems to me that Delenn (and the Minbari in general, to give her a fair shake) did this
> to a much greater extent than any other character or race. I mean, the fact that Delenn
> didn't even tell Sheridan, who certainly had a major need to know, about the building of
> the White Star fleet is pretty indicative of the extent to which she held secrets.
>
Yes, she *did* keep that as a secret, didn't she? Gee, given the way he reacted
when she told him what a *horrible* thing to do - oh, excuse me, I guess I'm
thinking of "Z'ha'dum" not "The Rock Cried Out...". Tell you what, women, if
Sheridan's response is any indication, let's all agree to keep a few _more_
secrets!
(Or as my husband said, "What, can't she give him a birthday present?") :)
Fiath manages - Delenn
In the end, there is always the sunrise - Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
"Kevin W. Parker" wrote:
> Or was it that she was an alien and therefore we as viewers were never
> quite sure she was on our side? Whatever their faults, we were always
> pretty confident that Sheridan and Sinclair were trying to do the right
> thing.
>
> Kevin
>
> In article <20000413180607...@ng-cd1.news.cs.com>,
> andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) wrote:
>
> >> >So why did *she* get raked over the coals and no one else did?
> >> >Possibly her sex?
> >> >
> >> >Lisa Coulter
Except, I don't seem to recall G'kar for example, getting criticized for keeping
things back. Londo, well, was Londo. And as for Kosh - just think of what he
knew and didn't say.
Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
> Lisa Coulter wrote:
>
> > In fact, Sinclair says that a half-truth is worse than a lie.
>
> That was Delenn to Draal, in Voice in the Wilderness, repeating what
> he'd taught her.
>
> --
> Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
>
> Pål Are Nordal
> a_b...@bigfoot.com
This is kind of a stupid argument, but re-watch WWE Part 2 if you don't
believe me. Marcus says Sinclair is always saying this, and asks if he
is not doing it right now (since he doesn't want to admit, initially
that he is going back on B4) I will give you the benefit of the doubt
and assume Delenn says it too.
Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
Christian Smith wrote:
You mean you've stuck with it this long? Poor soul....
Lisa Coulter
brau...@pcocd2.intel.com
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> >I have often wondered why Delenn got so criticized for "keeping
> >secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
> >characters - even our great heroes - did this.
>
>
> jms
I was far more pissed off at Sheridan deciding to make deception and
manipulation the way to deal with the members of his alliance than
anything Delenn ever did. Delenn may have kept some secrets which were
stupid to keep (keeping Sheridan in the dark on Whitestars kept him
from making informed plans, for example), but Sheridan was trying to
build an alliance based on ethics and trust and immediately started
acting unethical himself to get the members to do what he wanted. It
could be argued that it was in character - Sheridan always liked to be
tricky and was never that smart a diplomat, but I was really pissed off
that Sheridan never suffered any consequences for his actions. The
other races should have quickly discovered that they were tricked, and
this should have tainted future relations.
Brian
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Iain Reid
<brau...@pcocd2.intel.com> wrote in message
news:8dipal$nun$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...<snip>
>
> I was far more pissed off at Sheridan deciding to make deception and
> manipulation the way to deal with the members of his alliance than
> anything Delenn ever did. Delenn may have kept some secrets which were
> stupid to keep (keeping Sheridan in the dark on Whitestars kept him
> from making informed plans, for example), but Sheridan was trying to
> build an alliance based on ethics and trust and immediately started
> acting unethical himself to get the members to do what he wanted. It
> could be argued that it was in character - Sheridan always liked to be
> tricky and was never that smart a diplomat, but I was really pissed off
> that Sheridan never suffered any consequences for his actions. The
> other races should have quickly discovered that they were tricked, and
> this should have tainted future relations.
>
> Brian
I wouldn't say there were no consequences - thre were both personal and
political ones. JMS made a point of showing that Sherridan was made
extremely uncomfortable with his new position, and that he was really
troubled about having to circumvent his own principles.
The political consequences were evident in the bombing of Centauri prime.
Because he was trying to keep everyone in the dark, he had no control over
the members of the alliance when they decided to attack CP. When his
deception was discovered, he no longer had the moral authority to keep them
from taking action that he would really not have wanted them to take...
Iain Reid
Shaz
<brau...@pcocd2.intel.com> wrote in message
news:8dipal$nun$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000411171408...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> > >secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
> > >characters - even our great heroes - did this.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > jms
>
> manipulation the way to deal with the members of his alliance than
> anything Delenn ever did. Delenn may have kept some secrets which were
> stupid to keep (keeping Sheridan in the dark on Whitestars kept him
> from making informed plans, for example), but Sheridan was trying to
> build an alliance based on ethics and trust and immediately started
> acting unethical himself to get the members to do what he wanted. It
> could be argued that it was in character - Sheridan always liked to be
> tricky and was never that smart a diplomat, but I was really pissed off
> that Sheridan never suffered any consequences for his actions. The
> other races should have quickly discovered that they were tricked, and
> this should have tainted future relations.
>
The things is, he TRIED being open and honest, and they behaved as though he
was double dealing them. I think, eventually, he got so frustrated at their
lack of faith in him, and their insistence that he always had to be up to
something that wasn't in their best interests, he decided to play them at
their own game. The difference was that he tricked them into doing something
for their own good (hence no comeback). It seems that being honest when
you're surrounded by people who assume you're dishonest gets you no where.
Even at his worst he never on purpose did anything with the specific primary
intention of hurting anyone. There was collateral damage (the shadow
enhanced teeps put aboard the EA ships) and he wasn't happy about that, but
if 30 saved thousands, he took the utilitarian route and sought the greatest
happiness for the greatest number.
Shaz
Mark Maher
If we are speaking of the events in "Rumors, Bargains and Lies",
then, yes, he manipulated the ambassadors of the Non-aligned
worlds into allowing the White Stars to patrol between their
borders. But he did so because there was a very real threat from
raiders, the Drakh, etc. There was no reason to figure out that
they had been tricked because in the grand scheme of things, the
non-aligned races did need the Anla'shok for protection of their
trade routes. If anything, they were the ones deceiving
themselves by not realizing it and asking for the help.
The events of season five, OTOH, take on a different light.
Unlike before, when the attacks were on anyone that could be
found out in the open, these attacks were carried out with
military precision. The problem was that they were also
occurring in what appeared to be a completely random fashion.
The only way to stop the attacks was to a.) figure out who was
doing it and b.) what was their objective.
While Delenn and Sheridan did manage to figure those two things
out about the Shadows earlier, they did not manage to figure out
either correctly this time until it was too late. They thought
they knew it was the Centauri when in fact it was the Drakh.
They didn't figure out why until the facts regarding empty
Centauri warships with their control devices surfaced, then it
made sense.
Telling the other member worlds of the Interstellar Alliance
everything up front would not have changed the outcome. All of
the evidence was staged to point to the Centauri. There would
still have been a confrontation and an escalation into war. The
Drazi were just as guilty of deceit on several occasions as
Sheridan. Had they come forward with their knowledge that the
Centauri ships they blasted were empty, John or Delenn might
have figured it out before the fateful attack on Centauri Prime.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Lisa Coulter
Shaz wrote:
> Shaz
I would argue that in Delenn's manipulativeness it was almost (if not always)
the same. She tricked people (or really for the most part) withheld information
for their own good or the greater good. Name a time that she was deliberately
secretive, etc,, when at least _she_ would not have reason to believe this.
Even Anna and Z'ha'dum, which she suffered greatly for, she did in a misguided?
attempt to protect Sheridan, not only someone she loved, but the leader of the
Alliance against the Shadows. As a contray example, what Sinclair does to G'kar
in _Midnight on the Firing Line_ is completely dishonest and is for _no one's_
good - just petty revenge.
Faith manages - Delenn
In the end, there is always the sunrise
Lisa Coulter
Andrew M Swallow
>misguided?
Did Delenn know? Anything happening underground on Z'ha'dum was invisible,
probably even to the Vorlons.
> As a contray example, what Sinclair does to G'kar
>in _Midnight on the Firing Line_ is completely dishonest and is for _no
>one's_
>good - just petty revenge.
I am not certain. G'Kar never again poisoned anyone or plotted Babylon 5's
destruction.
Andrew Swallow
Steve Brinich
>> As a contray example, what Sinclair does to G'kar
>> in _Midnight on the Firing Line_ is completely dishonest and is for
>> _no one's_ good - just petty revenge.
>
> I am not certain. G'Kar never again poisoned anyone or plotted
> Babylon 5's destruction.
That was _The Gathering_. Sinclair also gets G'Kar in _Midnight on
the Firing Line_, but that is also for a legitimate purpose (to scotch
Narn aggression in the Ragesh 3 incident and defuse a growing political
crisis resulting therefrom).
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Tom Holt
> Shaz wrote:
> > The things is, he TRIED being open and honest, and they behaved as though he
> > was double dealing them. I think, eventually, he got so frustrated at their
> > lack of faith in him, and their insistence that he always had to be up to
> > something that wasn't in their best interests, he decided to play them at
> > their own game.
Isn't this one of the themes of B5; that trying to do what you
believe is the right thing can make you do the exact opposite, and
that in trying to resist evil, we risk becoming what we oppose. Londo
and G'kar want the restoration of their people to their rightful
place, and end up being responsible for the devastation of their
worlds. Sheridan can only oppose Clark by staging a military coup and
overthrowing the government he's sworn to uphold. Delenn dissolves
the Gray Council so as to resist the Shadows and thereby causes the
Minbari civil war. Byron tries to save his followers from the Corps
without resorting to violence, but the outcome is a shoot-out and a
massacre, followed by Lyta's bloody vendetta against the Corps.
Sheridan's decline, from honest, loyal, straightforward soldier into
devious, manipulative politician ("They've made a politician out of
me!" he exclaims, or words to that effect) to a certain extent
mirrors the greater tragedy of Londo's corruption, rise and fall;
they both become emperor, in a sense, and their accession to power is
something they don't want, and it brings sorrow to both of them and
suffering to countless others.
The only way out that appears to be on offer is redemption through
love (Sheridan and Delenn, Garibaldi and Lise) This aspect never
really convinced me; I find it unconvincing in Goethe and Wagner,
even more so in B5. IMHO the concept is handled far better in Londo's
case; would Londo have been redeemed if Morden hadn't murdered Adira?
Of course, he's denied the the chance, and Adira's death seals his
fate. Meanwhile, unrequited love kills Marcus and leads Lennier to
disgrace and (presumably) death; all of which raises a suspicion in
my mind that the women in B5 are there to represent some
Romantic/medival notion of Woman as something to be loved, which love
leads either to redemption or damnation. Lofty stuff, though maybe we
should've grown out of that kind of thinking in the 1890's.
Shaz
"Tom Holt" <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200004200...@zetnet.co.uk...
> > Shaz wrote:
>
> > > The things is, he TRIED being open and honest, and they behaved as
though he
> > > was double dealing them. I think, eventually, he got so frustrated at
their
> > > lack of faith in him, and their insistence that he always had to be up
to
> > > something that wasn't in their best interests, he decided to play them
at
> > > their own game.
> Isn't this one of the themes of B5; that trying to do what you
> believe is the right thing can make you do the exact opposite, and
> that in trying to resist evil, we risk becoming what we oppose. Londo
> and G'kar want the restoration of their people to their rightful
> place, and end up being responsible for the devastation of their
> worlds. Sheridan can only oppose Clark by staging a military coup and
> overthrowing the government he's sworn to uphold. Delenn dissolves
> the Gray Council so as to resist the Shadows and thereby causes the
> Minbari civil war. Byron tries to save his followers from the Corps
> without resorting to violence, but the outcome is a shoot-out and a
> massacre, followed by Lyta's bloody vendetta against the Corps.
You're right. An awful lot of doing the wrong thing for the right reason or
vice versa. What was that line from Eliot? 'The last temptation is the
greatest treason, to do the right deed for the wrong reason'. Sheridan
chooses the hard path (and I think he utterly detests having to do it) for
the right reason. His actions are seen as wrong, but they are done out of an
honest desire to do the right thing overall. When he allows sentimentality
to get the better of him (giving the teeps a home on B5 in return for the
sacrifice of the kid) he pays the price a thousand times over. He's an
idealist and something of a dreamer, I think. Mind you, so's Delenn, but
she's got a practical side learned over years of dealing with the Grey
Council. He gives her the dreams, and she gives him the means. Not quite
that simple, of course, but I really think there's a strong element of that.
>
> Sheridan's decline, from honest, loyal, straightforward soldier into
> devious, manipulative politician ("They've made a politician out of
> me!" he exclaims, or words to that effect) to a certain extent
> mirrors the greater tragedy of Londo's corruption, rise and fall;
> they both become emperor, in a sense, and their accession to power is
> something they don't want, and it brings sorrow to both of them and
> suffering to countless others.
Both are forced into their positions simply because there's no one else who
can do the job. Sheridan manages to create the Alliance and, in the end, it
survives. Londo almost destroys his world because he loves it. I love the
Faustian quality of Londo. There've been times I've been close to tears as
I've re-watched the fatal steps Londo took.
> The only way out that appears to be on offer is redemption through
> love (Sheridan and Delenn, Garibaldi and Lise) This aspect never
> really convinced me; I find it unconvincing in Goethe and Wagner,
> even more so in B5. IMHO the concept is handled far better in Londo's
> case; would Londo have been redeemed if Morden hadn't murdered Adira?
> Of course, he's denied the the chance, and Adira's death seals his
> fate. Meanwhile, unrequited love kills Marcus and leads Lennier to
> disgrace and (presumably) death; all of which raises a suspicion in
> my mind that the women in B5 are there to represent some
> Romantic/medival notion of Woman as something to be loved, which love
> leads either to redemption or damnation. Lofty stuff, though maybe we
> should've grown out of that kind of thinking in the 1890's.
<shrug> I guess it's emphasising the importance of being true to yourself no
matter what. Sheridan is manipulative, devious and constantly plotting in
the political arena (once he realises that's the only way he's got a hope of
winning), but his true self comes out with Delenn. With her he can go back
to being the dreamer and honest idealist. I suspect he needed that refuge
from time to time. Londo's fate, ultimately, is to be alone. As he said,
he's only ever truly loved one thing his entire life, Centauri Prime. With
her as his mistress there was no room for anyone else, but his blind
devotion nearly killed his love. Marcus only ever found meaning in his life
when he sacrificed it. I can imagine the last thought going through his head
being from the end of A Tale of Two Cities 'It is a far, far better thing I
do than I have ever done. It is a far, far greater rest I go to than I have
ever known.' Everything he'd ever cared about had been taken from him in
ways beyond his control. The only way of finding his own redemption was to
take control and sacrifice himself for the one person left in his life who
he loved. Given Ivanova's need for control, though, I bet it stuck in her
craw that he did that!
Shaz
Lisa Coulter
Tom Holt wrote:
> > Shaz wrote:
>
> > > The things is, he TRIED being open and honest, and they behaved as though he
> > > was double dealing them. I think, eventually, he got so frustrated at their
> > > lack of faith in him, and their insistence that he always had to be up to
> > > something that wasn't in their best interests, he decided to play them at
> > > their own game.
>
> Isn't this one of the themes of B5; that trying to do what you
> believe is the right thing can make you do the exact opposite, and
> that in trying to resist evil, we risk becoming what we oppose. Londo
> and G'kar want the restoration of their people to their rightful
> place, and end up being responsible for the devastation of their
> worlds. Sheridan can only oppose Clark by staging a military coup and
> overthrowing the government he's sworn to uphold. Delenn dissolves
> the Gray Council so as to resist the Shadows and thereby causes the
> Minbari civil war. Byron tries to save his followers from the Corps
> without resorting to violence, but the outcome is a shoot-out and a
> massacre, followed by Lyta's bloody vendetta against the Corps.
>
I agree that one theme is even attempting to do what is right, or even doing what is
at the time right (such as breaking the Grey Council or declaring war on Earth) can
have unintended consequences which we are then responsible for. Our heroes show
this: Delenn may be a cause of the Minbari Civil War (and hardly the only one) but
she is willing to die to stop it; Sheridan defeats Clark and has to face the
consequences of his act - resignation from Earth Force. I'd like to point out this
is true of _all_ of us - we all do what we hope is right and sometimes tragedy
results. the ethical thing is to then accept responsibility and try to clean it up
- as Sheridan and Delenn (two example from the series ) do.
>
> Sheridan's decline, from honest, loyal, straightforward soldier into
> devious, manipulative politician ("They've made a politician out of
> me!" he exclaims, or words to that effect) to a certain extent
> mirrors the greater tragedy of Londo's corruption, rise and fall;
> they both become emperor, in a sense, and their accession to power is
> something they don't want, and it brings sorrow to both of them and
> suffering to countless others.
>
> The only way out that appears to be on offer is redemption through
> love (Sheridan and Delenn, Garibaldi and Lise) This aspect never
> really convinced me; I find it unconvincing in Goethe and Wagner,
> even more so in B5. IMHO the concept is handled far better in Londo's
> case; would Londo have been redeemed if Morden hadn't murdered Adira?
> Of course, he's denied the the chance, and Adira's death seals his
> fate. Meanwhile, unrequited love kills Marcus and leads Lennier to
> disgrace and (presumably) death; all of which raises a suspicion in
> my mind that the women in B5 are there to represent some
> Romantic/medival notion of Woman as something to be loved, which love
> leads either to redemption or damnation. Lofty stuff, though maybe we
> should've grown out of that kind of thinking in the 1890's.
I must disagree that becoming a manipulative politician is necessarily a fall for
Sheridan. I know I am in the minority but think of what would have happened in the
galaxy if he and Delenn had _not_ formed the Alliance. Even the jerks 100 years in
the future admit it has been a force for good - though they are ready enoough to
criticize its founders. And in 1000 years it leads to the Rangers helping rebuild
Earth, and in 1 million years it leads (at least in part, and we must assume those
future descendants consider it a cause) to a great destiny for humanity. Sheridan
forms and maintains the Alliance by being somewhat manipulative. This seems, at
least in part, to be a change which comes about as a result of Z'ha'dum - perhaps
when you know you have little time left, you are less willing to "butt your head
against a wall" to attempt change and more willing to use craftiness. Again, why is
this bad? the results (saving earth from the Drakh, stopping the raids on shipping
lanes, eventually saving the Centauri from the Drakh, Sheridan's 100 year peace) in
general seem to be, at least from a utilitarian standpoint, and probably even more
from that, good.
In addition, one of our other great heroes, Sinlcair as Valen, _must_ clearly
manipulate in order to do what is necessary in the past - and he can't be ceertain
of the future outcome, and , in addition, knows that it leads to a war that he must
not prevent (the Earth-Minbari War). I consider this very tragic. Yet even he
achieves a great deal for the Minbari and the galaxy.
I think, unlike many fictional heroes, the ones jms creates are very _real_ in this
sense. As Gandalf says, you can't defeat evil for all time, just do the best you
can in the time you are given. Jms shows that even the greatest of heroes will have
bad things happen as a result of their acts. I contend this is more real. Consider
Churchhill and Roosevelt - yes they defeated the Axis and saved many people from
Hitler, but they inadvertently helped Stalin ( a real monster) and Roosevelt at
least can get some credit for causing the nuclear arms race and the Cold War. On
the other hand, at least as far as WW2 is concerned, they are clearly heroes.
As for love, it is redemptive, but I see that more in the image of Delenn as the
Lady of Rebirth in "ceremonies" and "A Late Delivery from Avalon", and, most
beautifully in "whatever Happened to ..." (boy I'm a sap!). On the other hand, I
think it is more of areward and (I hope ) consolation for Garibaldi/Lise and
Sheridan/Delenn - these people have, and will, go through some terrible times, and
any healing love will bring is definitely deserved!
Faith manages - Delenn
In the end there is always the sunrise
Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
Mark Maher wrote:
> Shaz wrote in message <8dir3a$3r1$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
> >
> ><brau...@pcocd2.intel.com> wrote in message
> >news:8dipal$nun$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> In article <20000411171408...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> >> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> >> > >I have often wondered why Delenn got so criticized for
> "keeping
> >> > >secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major
> male
> >> > >characters - even our great heroes - did this.
> >> >
> >> > Yup.
> >> >
> >> > jms
> >>
OK, I guess this is my point. You are defending Sheridan - and I agree,
what he does is right. What interests /irritates me is that Delenn often
acts in a similar fashion and gets really criticized for it. Political
manipulation is good or bad depending on reasons and potential outcome.
Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
>
> > In article <20000411171408...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
> > jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> > > >I have often wondered why Delenn got so criticized for "keeping
> > > >secrets", "being manipulative", etc., when *all* the major male
> > > >characters - even our great heroes - did this.
> > >
> > > Yup.
> > >
> > > jms
Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
> >Even Anna and Z'ha'dum, which she suffered greatly for, she did in a
> >misguided?
>
> Did Delenn know? Anything happening underground on Z'ha'dum was invisible,
> probably even to the Vorlons.
>
I am confused. Of course she wouldn't have known the outcome until and unless
Sheridan told her the whole story, but she _was_ trying to "change fate" (her
flashforward) much as _he_ was (recall his farewell message to her. Also, not
all the flashforwards happened - Sinclair's about the fall of B5 - so unless the
Minbari knonw a lot more about time travel than is implied, I don't see what
difference it makes. It was a mistake, clearly, and she suffers a great deal of
guilt and almost suicides because of it - on the other hand, given the fact that
she was trying to protect him and the alliance it is, I think, understandable
that she at least had some good motivations behind it.
And you know, thinking about it, I think it is very good he didn't tell her what
Kosh said about him and Z'ha'dum - quite a secret to keep, though she very well
may have felt if he went he would die. On the other hand, in "Hour of the Wolf"
she is shown (along with Lyta and Susan) to have some hope. If she had not, I
rather suspect she would not have made it through his farewell message.
>
> > As a contray example, what Sinclair does to G'kar
> >in _Midnight on the Firing Line_ is completely dishonest and is for _no
> >one's_
> >good - just petty revenge.
>
> I am not certain. G'Kar never again poisoned anyone or plotted Babylon 5's
> destruction.
>
> Andrew Swallow
>
So the ends justify the means. I am not even arguing that, but if in fact you
believe it it becomes very hard to criticize Delenn.
Faith manages - Delenn
In the end, there is always the sunrise
Lisa Coulter
Mark Maher
>
>OK, I guess this is my point. You are defending Sheridan - and
I agree,
>what he does is right. What interests /irritates me is that
Delenn often
>acts in a similar fashion and gets really criticized for it.
Political
>manipulation is good or bad depending on reasons and potential
outcome.
>
I agree that a lot of people criticized Delenn far too harshly
for her manipulations. And IIRC, jms agreed, the other
characters were manipulative and got little criticism for it.
In all fairness, one of the initial story points was human
distrust of Minbari sincerity. How many times did we hear
someone say "the Minbari never tell the whole truth"? They are a
society in which information is tightly controlled and Delenn is
a master at it. *That* is what irks everybody about Delenn. I do
agree that *some* people base their criticism of her on the
basis that she is female, but I think there would have still
been a significant amount of criticism even if the character had
been male. Pick a prejudice; whether it was based on race or
gender, the criticism would have still been there.
Why? Because Delenn's whole story required so much deception and
manipulation in order to accomplish what the character was
really there to do. Carry out the last wish of her mentor Dukhat
to organize an alliance to stop the Shadows - in total secrecy,
even from a lot of her own people. When Sinclair practiced
deceit and manipulation, it was usually to accomplish one
specific goal and it is done and over with in one episode.
Sheridan did deception a lot better and longer, in my opinion,
and there was always a part of his thinking that I didn't quite
know. So did Londo. But none of their characters required
greater caution, manipulation or secrecy than did Delenn.
Just an opinion.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Lisa Coulter
>
> > > As a contray example, what Sinclair does to G'kar
> > >in _Midnight on the Firing Line_ is completely dishonest and is for _no
> > >one's_
> > >good - just petty revenge.
> >
> > I am not certain. G'Kar never again poisoned anyone or plotted Babylon 5's
> > destruction.
> >
> > Andrew Swallow
> >
> So the ends justify the means. I am not even arguing that, but if in fact you
> believe it it becomes very hard to criticize Delenn.
>
> Faith manages - Delenn
> In the end, there is always the sunrise
>
> Lisa Coulter
Let me clarify this a bit. (One of the disadvantages of usenet - post, then think)
I see no evidence that Sinclair acted as he did in order to achieve a good end,
whether he in fact did or not. He was mad about ragesh 3 ( understandable) and
wanted to get back at G'kar. Even if it _did_ achieve a good outcome we have the
ends justifying the means completely in that there was not even the intent on
Sinclair's part to do something good, merely petty. I can sanction manipulativeness
where it seems the best / only way to get something good done. For example, Sheridan
and co. hiding their working with Gen. Hague from the others. In general this is the
type of manipulation the Three seem to employ - and there is nothing wrong with
that. In fact, I find it amusing that Sinclair says a half-truth is worse than a
lie - think of all the secrets he must hold when he goes back to be Valen. Perhaps
there are things even worse than half truths (or more likely evading questions and
care in answwering). He, Delenn, and Sheridan all seem to believe this.
In the end, there is always the sunrise - Lisa Coulter
Mark Maher
>
>
>>
>
>Let me clarify this a bit. (One of the disadvantages of
usenet - post, then think)
>I see no evidence that Sinclair acted as he did in order to
achieve a good end,
>whether he in fact did or not. He was mad about ragesh 3
>wanted to get back at G'kar. Even if it _did_ achieve a good
outcome we have the
>ends justifying the means completely in that there was not even
the intent on
>Sinclair's part to do something good, merely petty.
I gotta throw the flag at you on this one. Sinclair knew what
was going on - naked aggression and he has a big problem with
that. Especially when the EarthGov senator decided to waffle on
the side of "let'em fight it out." It went against Sinclar's
every moral fiber, and I suspect that it did to a lot of other
folks out there. By placing Ivanova in charge and going after
the raider himself, he was able to find the *truth*, which he
used to get the Narns to withdraw form Ragesh 3.
It wasn't petty spite, Sinclair stopped the Narn aggression in
it's tracks and he did it without getting Earth embroiled in a
military crisis. So what if he has to confront G'Kar in closed
doors and put his aces on the table for the ambassador to see?
Sometimes showing a suspect "the smoking gun" is the quickest
way to get a confession or at least a plea of no contest.
Sinclair did his job of preserving the peace by responding to
reverse an illegal seizure of territory by the Narn. That sounds
like working to achieve a good end to me.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Sheridan's rule no. 1 "Why use a .22 when a tactical nuke'll do
the job?"
Lisa Coulter
Mark Maher wrote:
OK, we are referring to two different things. I can't disagree with a
thing you said - Sinclair is clearly from any standpoint in the right.
What I am referring to (and perhaps I am remembering the wrong episode,
but I don't think so) is when he telss G'kar he has planted a bug (or
was it something worse?) inside him. As Garibaldi points out, think of
what the Narans will do to try to find it. Of course, Sinclair did not
really plant it, but he and Garibaldi go out of their way to make G'kar
think they did. Manipulative, devious, and not nice.
Lisa Coulter
Lisa Coulter
Mark Maher wrote:
> Lisa Coulter wrote in message <38FF5550...@stetson.edu>...
> >
> >OK, I guess this is my point. You are defending Sheridan - and
> I agree,
> >what he does is right. What interests /irritates me is that
> Delenn often
> >acts in a similar fashion and gets really criticized for it.
> Political
> >manipulation is good or bad depending on reasons and potential
> outcome.
> >
>
> I agree that a lot of people criticized Delenn far too harshly
> for her manipulations. And IIRC, jms agreed, the other
> characters were manipulative and got little criticism for it.
>
> In all fairness, one of the initial story points was human
> distrust of Minbari sincerity. How many times did we hear
> someone say "the Minbari never tell the whole truth"? They are a
> society in which information is tightly controlled and Delenn is
> a master at it. *That* is what irks everybody about Delenn. I do
> agree that *some* people base their criticism of her on the
> basis that she is female, but I think there would have still
> been a significant amount of criticism even if the character had
> been male. Pick a prejudice; whether it was based on race or
> gender, the criticism would have still been there.
>
Here I disagree. Yes, "Minbari never tell the whole truth" - and I
contend that during the story Delenn becomes much more open and less
willing to use manipulation (compare actions after Sheridan returned
from Z'ha'dum with before.) On the other hand, I will even defend her
from before. Consider the Intersteelar Alliance and the Centauri/Drakh
situation. Only a few people at the very top knew what was really going
on when they were searching for evidence. They even withheld info from
Londo - and Delenn in particualr does not look thrilled about this. Also
consider Sheridan's manipulation of the Alliance worlds to accept White
Star protection. Absolutely necessary for their own good. Also, by not
fighting with them about it but getting what he wanted via manipulation
he most likely saved more lives. Sorry, he seemed pleased and amused by
his strategams, not disturbed.
As for Sinclair, he is a *master* at manipulation, both before and
(arguably necessarily) after he becomes Valen. Even the little we know
of Valen's story - showing up with the Vorlons, who he doesn't really
trust but uses to get the Minbari to accept him, being a "Minbari not
born of Minbari" - truth but not (and for quite a good reason ) the real
truth. I could go on, but these are just a few example of when our two
other major heroes held back.
>
> Why? Because Delenn's whole story required so much deception and
> manipulation in order to accomplish what the character was
> really there to do. Carry out the last wish of her mentor Dukhat
> to organize an alliance to stop the Shadows - in total secrecy,
> even from a lot of her own people.
Yes, this is true. She claims they aren't ready, and certainly many
among them, especially the warrior caste, aren't willing to believe her
or prophecy. In addition, in working with Kosh it would not surprise me
if she is required to keep some info back, or at least feels it is
better if it comes from him and not her. Sheridan, in "In the Shadow of
Z'ha'dum", agreed with her that secrecy, at least then, was necessary.
It costs them both trememndously later, as witness her confrontation
with G'kar in "Ship of Tears". On the other hand, and here I will use
the Lurker's guide to back me up, when she has the White Starts, she
immediately gives them to Sheridan. When they find out about the teeeps
the idea is immediately tested- and she insists on throwing Minbari
ships into it. She also, although she is at the center, is clearly not
always the leader and is answerable to others - Sinclair, Draal (he
tells her to introduce Sheridan to the Rangers, which she does and then
also gives him co-command of the ones she has), the Grey Council, which
for much of the second and third seasons, when she and Sheridan are
really starting to form their alliance, holds her in extreme disfavor to
the point of throwing her off. Her own people call her a freak. This
must cause her uncertainty, and given her fear of the Shadows, is it so
ynreasonable that she doesn't act as quickly or openly as she might.
Whenever Sheridan asks for/needs help, even immediately after she is
kicked off the Council, it is there.
As for having to form an Alliance in secret, what of Lord of the Rings
where Frodo is sent secretly with the Nine Wlakers to destroy the Ring.
No one would say that Elrond and co. should have announced their plans
to the world.
This is another war - can I draw an analogy and say that it is not
unreasonable that the initial planning was done in secret? Why is it a
problem here? Is it beause, as someone else noted, Tolkien lays all his
cards on the table from the start (Frodod is in much of the book the
viewpoint character) whereas by focussing on Sheridan, Ivanova, and
Sinclair, who don't know as much as Delenn initially, jms is hiding
things from us? And by mid third season, shortly after Severed Dreams,
B5 has turned into the main staging area against the Shadows with all
the major ambassadors knowing the score. As Delenn says when asked why
they should trust her in "Shadow Dancing" (she is refusing to give the
location of the upcoming battle with the Shadows) they should trust her
and Sheridan because the Army has kept their promises, and always will
(at least as far as we see).
I am sorry, I guess we profoundly disagree. However, as you say, just an
opinion.
> Just an opinion.
>
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
Fiath manages - Delenn
In the end, there is always the sunrise.
Lisa Coulter
lcou...@stetson.edu
I agree with both of these statements. And I would put Delenn (as
Sheridan's partner) and Valen (as the one who created the Grey Council)
in this category as well.
Exceleent post about what the men get out of their relationships/ love.
I would like to say I think Delenn (the only major female character with
an ongoing relationship) gains a great deal as well. Love is redemptive
for her in the sense that it gives her (as much as Sheridan) something
worth living for, as Lorien puts it. When I watch her at the end of
Season three and the first few eps of season 4 it breaks my heart. She
may be secretive with Sheridan, even on Z'ha'dum, but I still think she
had good reason to be. The Alliance had to be protected, she could not
_know_ if Anna would come back / was alive (if Sheridan can attempt to
change the future, why can't she) and she is, as she says, terrified
that Sheridan will run off to Z'ha'dum after Anna and be killed or
worse. I am sorry, but even though she accepts complete blame for his
actions and the predicament the Alliance is in after Z-day, I still feel
1.) she had good reasons to act as she did - to protect him and the
Alliance
2.) she takes too much responsibility for _his_decision. In fact, I
think this is one of her flaws, perhaps due to her past in the EM War
(which she is still trying to atone for - Atonement). When Kosh tells
Sheridan what's going to happen (and btw, has anyone asked jms *how*
Kosh could knonw? ) and Sheridan records that farewell message to her,
it is clear he _is_ thinking his actions through and accepting
responsibility. That she can't accept this, or more likely it's
consequence, his apparent permanent demise, is tragic and leads to her
attempted suicide, and , even when she's "feeling better" , her abortive
and likely foolhardy /suicidal attempt to attack Z'ha'dum.
On the other hand, it is clear in season 5, Sleeping in Light and
Deconstruction, that this love, for her, has been healing and
redemptive.She seems much more secure / at peace. So I would argue that
not only are male characters redeemed via love, but so, at least in this
instance, is a female.
As to whether we should still view love this way in the 2000's (not
80s!), why not? Love is one of the most powerful emotions / motivators
for good and ill that humanity (and in B5 at least some aliens) have.
Faith manages - Delenn
Lisa Coulter
Mark Maher
>
<SNIPPAGE from a very well-presented and lengthly post>
>I am sorry, I guess we profoundly disagree. However, as you
say, just an
>opinion.
>
I don't disagree with any of your suppositions, per se. All of
the character were deceptive, manipulative, secretive at some
level. Even Vir went into the business of deceipt by getting the
Narns off their home world when he created "Abrahamo Lincolni."
Your initial post to jms regarding this seemed to insinuate that
Delenn was catching a lot more flack than the other characters
just because she was female. If I mis-interpreted your intent,
I'm sorry. If I didn't, then I'll agree *partially* but not
totally with your assertion.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Mark Maher
>
>OK, we are referring to two different things. I can't disagree
with a
>thing you said - Sinclair is clearly from any standpoint in the
right.
>What I am referring to (and perhaps I am remembering the wrong
episode,
>but I don't think so) is when he telss G'kar he has planted a
bug (or
>was it something worse?) inside him. As Garibaldi points out,
think of
>what the Narans will do to try to find it. Of course, Sinclair
did not
>really plant it, but he and Garibaldi go out of their way to
make G'kar
>think they did. Manipulative, devious, and not nice.
>
wasn't a very nice thing to do. But then neither were G'Kar's
actions during this story. He was deeply involved in both of the
assasination attempts on Kosh, and in leading the Lynch mob that
almost got Sinclair sent away to the Vorlons. That spurred a
potential attack by them that would have destroyed the station
had it been carried out. *THAT* is what made Sinclair do what he
did to G'Kar at the end. The dialogue makes it clear that
Sinclair wanted G'Kar to understand in no uncertain terms that
he would not tolerate anyone putting the station at risk again.
As Delenn explains later to Sheridan, there a number of
deifferent ways to communicate a message. I'm sure that by the
time the Narns got through looking for the non-existent
transmitter, G'Kar *GOT* the message.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Lisa Coulter
Mark Maher wrote:
> Lisa Coulter wrote in message <3900A4C1...@stetson.edu>...
> >
> <SNIPPAGE from a very well-presented and lengthly post>
>
> >I am sorry, I guess we profoundly disagree. However, as you
> say, just an
> >opinion.
> >
> I don't disagree with any of your suppositions, per se. All of
> the character were deceptive, manipulative, secretive at some
> level. Even Vir went into the business of deceipt by getting the
> Narns off their home world when he created "Abrahamo Lincolni."
> Your initial post to jms regarding this seemed to insinuate that
> Delenn was catching a lot more flack than the other characters
> just because she was female. If I mis-interpreted your intent,
> I'm sorry. If I didn't, then I'll agree *partially* but not
> totally with your assertion.
>
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
That was my *initial* point. In the course of the debate, it changed a
bit.
So I guess we agree more than I thought.
I also think she may have been criticized (as some suggested) since she
was a) Minbari (and hence an alien we did not know if we could trust)
and b.) hiding things from the audience
As far as hiding things from the audience, sorry, but I think jms is to
blame! And you know what, our not knowing the whole story of the Shadows
made it much more *exciting* and interesting as piece by piece the
mystery was revealed - so I *compiment * him for this.
As far as her being Minbari, well, why should *she* or the Minbari trust
humans or Narn, in particular Sheridan or G'kar. G'kar was rather
villainous at the start of the first season and a loose cannon for a
while after that. In addition, if his government/military had trusted
him Narn might not have fallen.
In terms of Sheridan, let's face it he is 1. the Starkiller - who knows
his opinion of Minbari(she may or may not remember their brief meeting
in the EM war) and 2. we can assume she knows he has a wife either dead
(to be hoped) or on (yikes!) Z'ha'dum. Either way, why bring him in?
When she has to, ie. Kosh and Draal give permission and it becomes
necessary she does - and not only that but gives him some authority.
Unitl then she attemps to learn about him, helps him more than I would
expect (although it does make sense her cause is "life" after all),and
attempts to establish good relations, which any ambassador eager to ally
themselves with a race or at least prevent war would do. She fully
assumes responsibility for the Grey Council's actions in her talk with
G'kar, and quite frakly, she is clearly not the only one that can be
held at fault. Leaving aside the question of her status on the Council
at the time of the decision, since we can very reasonably assume that
the decision was made after Chrysalis her authority is very
quesationable, Sheridan blames himself (to at least some extent) and
clearly Kosh and the Vorlons could have possibly done more. Yes, as you
said she had to secretly form an Alliance with humans against the
Shadows, but it isn't just due to Dukhat - all leaders have State
secrets - and arguably in the early aprt of season 2 by allying with
Sinclair and helping the Rangers by supporting their admission of humans
she may feel she is doing this. In terms of G'kar and the Narn as she
says it is millions versus billions and I am reminded of Marcus and
Ivanova's discussion of the ethics of where they are at Coriana 6 ("cold
hard numbers") and the Inquisitor's taunt - "not for the millions" - her
(and Sheridan's) followers or the people they allow to die. Thank God
*I* wil never be in such an ethical situation - I would collapse!
Finally, I would point out that 5 years after the end of B5 in "A Call
to Arms" Sheridan tells Dureena that after really thinking about it more
lives *couldn't* have been saved - he seems reconciled to some of the
awful decisions he and Delenn have had to make.
Anyway, this is longer than I had intended. If you don't have the
patience of Methuselah (sp) n keys work!
"Faith manages" - Delenn
"In the end, there is always the sunrise"
Lisa Coulter
Mark Maher
>
>That was my *initial* point. In the course of the debate, it
changed a
>bit.
>So I guess we agree more than I thought.
I thought so :-)
>I also think she may have been criticized (as some suggested)
since she
>was a) Minbari (and hence an alien we did not know if we could
trust)
>and b.) hiding things from the audience
>
>As far as hiding things from the audience, sorry, but I think
jms is to
>blame! And you know what, our not knowing the whole story of
the Shadows
>made it much more *exciting* and interesting as piece by piece
the
>mystery was revealed - so I *compiment * him for this.
Part of the mastery of the design of the story is how some parts
are revealed quite early but not explained until well after
their impact on the story is over and done.
>As far as her being Minbari, well, why should *she* or the
Minbari trust
>humans or Narn, in particular Sheridan or G'kar. G'kar was
rather
>villainous at the start of the first season and a loose cannon
for a
>while after that. In addition, if his government/military had
trusted
>him Narn might not have fallen.
The Narn homeworld was doomed to be taken over. The Centauri
would have continued on, no matter what. The Shadows would not
have let them stop.
G'Kar takes a lot longer to get accepted into the circle. His
people are the ones that provided the tinder for the Shadows to
ignite this war. Still, his transformation (at Kosh's behest -
with a little help from the dust) was finally taken as genuine
and Delenn was left with little choice but to come clean. It was
the only way to convince him of her own sincerity. Besides, he'd
learn the truth sooner or later.
>In terms of Sheridan, let's face it he is 1. the Starkiller -
who knows
>his opinion of Minbari(she may or may not remember their brief
meeting
>in the EM war) and 2. we can assume she knows he has a wife
either dead
>(to be hoped) or on (yikes!) Z'ha'dum. Either way, why bring
him in?
She had to. She knew Valen's prophecies and believed that
Babylon 5 was the place from which the Forces of Light would
gather (she said as much when she insisted on remaining on the
station as ambassador after being removed from the council). For
that to happen, Sheridan had to give at least his tacit
approval, if not his full cooperation and support. She's on a
clock, as well. Once she went through with the transformation,
they were all committed to the path.
>When she has to, ie. Kosh and Draal give permission and it
becomes
>necessary she does - and not only that but gives him some
authority.
She gives him equal authority. She does not do so for totally
noble reasons. First, by sharing authority, she gets Sheridan
really invested in this whole thing. Second, she needs his
charisma and commanding presence. He's demonstrated a great deal
of both with all of the races on Babylon 5 by this time. He's
the logical choice to take point, especially after finding out
about Draal.
>Unitl then she attemps to learn about him, helps him more than
I would
>expect (although it does make sense her cause is "life" after
all),and
>attempts to establish good relations, which any ambassador
eager to ally
>themselves with a race or at least prevent war would do.
She carefully studies him, both privately and publicly. The help
that she provides is limited at first. She seems to anticipate
just when to quietly sneak up on him and when to wow him. The
two-fold purpose; determine if he is indeed the point-man leaded
to be the visible head of the forces of light and if so, do
whatever she can to get him on her side. He almost blows it a
couple of times and like Sinclair before him, there are a couple
of deliberate attempts to oust him from the position, one of
which she is forced to discretely intervene on his behalf. He
really won her over by returning that favor.
>> She fully
>assumes responsibility for the Grey Council's actions in her
talk with
>G'kar, and quite frakly, she is clearly not the only one that
can be
>held at fault. Leaving aside the question of her status on the
Council
>at the time of the decision, since we can very reasonably
assume that
>the decision was made after Chrysalis her authority is very
>quesationable, Sheridan blames himself (to at least some
extent) and
>clearly Kosh and the Vorlons could have possibly done more.
I'm certain that they could have done more, but I don't think
that the ROE allowed them to.
>Yes, as you
>said she had to secretly form an Alliance with humans against
the
>Shadows, but it isn't just due to Dukhat - all leaders have
State
>secrets - and arguably in the early aprt of season 2 by allying
with
>Sinclair and helping the Rangers by supporting their admission
of humans
>she may feel she is doing this.
Feel, nothing. She *did* do this. She was the one who voted for
full war with the Humans. She was the one who is brought to the
Kosh twins during the war and shown Dukhat's message. She was
the one who discovered that Sinclair carried Valen's soul. She
ordered the shooting stopped. Against the chafing of the Warrior
caste, she embraced relations with the humans. She rejected the
leadership of the Minbari because she has a much bigger job
ahead. Make no doubt, the Kosh boys were certainly guiding a
good deal of this but she was at the center and it is her love
for life that was the emotional core of the Forces of Light.
>In terms of G'kar and the Narn as she
>says it is millions versus billions and I am reminded of Marcus
and
>Ivanova's discussion of the ethics of where they are at Coriana
6 ("cold
>hard numbers") and the Inquisitor's taunt - "not for the
millions" - her
>(and Sheridan's) followers or the people they allow to die.
Thank God
>*I* wil never be in such an ethical situation - I would
collapse!
It wasn't exactly a piece of cake for Delenn either, as
witnessed by her very emotional response during her conversation
with G'Kar.
>Finally, I would point out that 5 years after the end of B5 in
"A Call
>to Arms" Sheridan tells Dureena that after really thinking
about it more
>lives *couldn't* have been saved - he seems reconciled to some
of the
>awful decisions he and Delenn have had to make.
>
You either reconcile yourself or you kill yourself - or you stop
"looking into mirrors" as Londo said. Sheridan wasn't in a
position that afforded him the luxury of never having to look
back.
>Anyway, this is longer than I had intended. If you don't have
the
>patience of Methuselah (sp) n keys work!
>
A pleasure as always.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Andrew M Swallow
>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>
>>
>
A line missing here?
>> >Even Anna and Z'ha'dum, which she suffered greatly for, she did in a
>> >misguided?
>>
>> Did Delenn know? Anything happening underground on Z'ha'dum was
>invisible,
>> probably even to the Vorlons.
>>
>I am confused. Of course she wouldn't have known the outcome until and unless
>Sheridan told her the whole story, but she _was_ trying to "change fate" (her
>flashforward) much as _he_ was (recall his farewell message to her.
I thought the point about Anna and Z'ha'dum you were referencing was Anna still
being alive. Delenn and Kosh had, at the minimum, stongly implied that Anna
was dead. Her return had confused both Sheidan and Delenn. If Delenn and Kosh
knew she was alive, lying about it would be very wrong. I was saying that
Delenn and Kosh genuinely throught Anna died. 'The Shadow Within' by Jeanne
Cavelos show her being captured below ground.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew M Swallow
>thing you said - Sinclair is clearly from any standpoint in the right.
>What I am referring to (and perhaps I am remembering the wrong episode,
>but I don't think so) is when he telss G'kar he has planted a bug (or
>was it something worse?) inside him. As Garibaldi points out, think of
>what the Narans will do to try to find it. Of course, Sinclair did not
>really plant it, but he and Garibaldi go out of their way to make G'kar
>think they did. Manipulative, devious, and not nice.
>
>
>
The episode was 'The Gathering'/Pilot. Sinclair had discovered that the Narns
had helped smuggle the real assassin into Babylon 5. When the assassin killed
himself, the explosion nearly destroyed Baylon 5. Sinclair used the fake
transmitter to both punish G'Kar with pain and to warn G'Kar that if he did
anything like that again that he would be killed.
Andrew Swallow
lcou...@stetson.edu
andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) wrote:
> >
> >Andrew Swallow wrote:
> >
> >> >Even Anna and Z'ha'dum, which she suffered greatly for, she did
in a
> >> >misguided?
> >>
> >> Did Delenn know? Anything happening underground on Z'ha'dum was
> >invisible,
> >> probably even to the Vorlons.
> >>
> >I am confused. Of course she wouldn't have known the outcome until
and unless
> >Sheridan told her the whole story, but she _was_ trying to "change
fate" (her
> >flashforward) much as _he_ was (recall his farewell message to her.
>
> I thought the point about Anna and Z'ha'dum you were referencing was
Anna still
> being alive. Delenn and Kosh had, at the minimum, stongly implied
that Anna
> was dead. Her return had confused both Sheidan and Delenn. If Delenn
and Kosh
> knew she was alive, lying about it would be very wrong.
Ok I will play devil's advocate here. Yes they implied (and at least I
believe ) thought Anna was dead - at least until Delenn's flashforward
which it is likely she did not fully understand and may have been
attempting to cahnge in any case.
As for your post, *why* would it be very wrong to lie if Anna were
alive? (Remember I think they thought her dead). The fact is Sherdian
was the leader by this point of the AOL. If she is alive she is an
*incredible* Shadow weaapon. We may assume that if alive, she is working
for them, willingly or unwillingly. Why in the world would Kosh and
Delenn want Sheridan to know this? As she says in Z'ha'dum he would have
run off there and either gotten killed or turned (these at least seem
the most likely outcomes.) I am sorry but Anna alive is *one* person,
peresumably not even herself after being with the Shadows so in essence
dead - keeping a secret about *one* person to keep the Army together and
save *billions*. I fail to see this as incredibly unethical.
Just my opinion.
Faith manages - Delenn
In the end, there is always the sunrise
Lisa Coulter
Andrew M Swallow
>peresumably not even herself after being with the Shadows so in essence
>dead - keeping a secret about *one* person to keep the Army together and
>save *billions*. I fail to see this as incredibly unethical.
Providing you are not the person.
Andrew Swallow
Mark Maher
<20000425175636...@ng-fy1.news.cs.com>...
*no one* comes back from Z'ha'dum unless they are working for
the The Shadows, like Morden. Those who are working for the
Shadows are seen as irredeemable and irretrievable. Anna, even
though she was "alive," was not the Anna that John knew. She was
toasted a long time before they pulled her out of that ship and
rewired her head to some version of normalcy.
There was no one to go for. Sheridan knew that and accepted it
before he ever ordered Garibaldi to pack a couple of nukes in
the White Star's trunk on the sly. If he had any hope that he
could rescue Anna, he would never have left the message that he
did for Delenn. He didn't expect to come back.
But that's just my opinion...
__!_!__
Gizmo
Iain Rae
> >I am sorry but Anna alive is *one* person,
> >peresumably not even herself after being with the Shadows so in essence
> >dead - keeping a secret about *one* person to keep the Army together and
> >save *billions*. I fail to see this as incredibly unethical.
>
> Providing you are not the person.
>
> Andrew Swallow
Sometimes in war ethics,have to take a back seat in the Falklands Adm.
Woodward needer to know if San Carlos water was mined, he didn't have
minsweepers and if he had we couldn't spare the time or give away the fact
that that was where the Britsih ground troops were going to land. He looked
round, picked his most expendable asset (a type 21 frigate, I think the
Alacrity) and ordered the captain to make the passage. Woodward said he felt
like an utter shit doing this, the fact that the Captain knew what was
involved and suggested he "poke his nose into all the creeks and inlets"
made it easier but it was a decision that had to be made and ~120 lives
against the thousands that would be put at risk was a fair exchange
Lisa Coulter
Mark Maher wrote:
> Andrew M Swallow wrote in message
> <20000425175636...@ng-fy1.news.cs.com>...
> >>I am sorry but Anna alive is *one* person,
> >>peresumably not even herself after being with the Shadows so
> in essence
> >>dead - keeping a secret about *one* person to keep the Army
> together and
> >>save *billions*. I fail to see this as incredibly unethical.
> >
> >Providing you are not the person.
> >
> Until that time, the Vorlons took it as an article of faith that
> *no one* comes back from Z'ha'dum unless they are working for
> the The Shadows, like Morden. Those who are working for the
> Shadows are seen as irredeemable and irretrievable. Anna, even
> though she was "alive," was not the Anna that John knew. She was
> toasted a long time before they pulled her out of that ship and
> rewired her head to some version of normalcy.
>
> There was no one to go for. Sheridan knew that and accepted it
> before he ever ordered Garibaldi to pack a couple of nukes in
> the White Star's trunk on the sly. If he had any hope that he
> could rescue Anna, he would never have left the message that he
> did for Delenn. He didn't expect to come back.
>
> But that's just my opinion...
>
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
I agree. He was trying to change fate by sacrificing his life for a
better future. Kosh told him he would die - and at least Sheridan (and
possibly Kosh) had no clue Lorien could bring him back.
How is it ethical to run off to Z'ha'dum to "save" Anna? ( and granted
he did not do this -- he had seen Franklin's report.) And *why* is it
unethical to keep something secret (assuming they - Kosh and Delenn -
even did) which would, in their view save his life and the AOL while
*not* impacting Anna at all- if she has been alive on Z'ha'dum for all
this time she is clearly, in their view, a Shadow agent - you want your
leader tempted by her? I certainly would not. Nothing to gain, and, as
far as they knew *before* he went - and this is what we are discussing I
thought - *everything* ( and that's a lot of lives) to lose. In
addition, I'd like to point out that even though Delenn apologizes to
Sheridan aferward, he accepts her initial motive that she was doing what
she thought was right- and he has the most reason to be angry. Frankly,
even by the time he leaves he is not ( his farewell message)
Faith manages - Delenn
In the end, there is always the sunrise.
Lisa Coulter
lcou...@stetson.edu
Iain Rae <ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
> Andrew M Swallow wrote:
>
> > >I am sorry but Anna alive is *one* person,
> > >peresumably not even herself after being with the Shadows so in
essence
> > >dead - keeping a secret about *one* person to keep the Army
together and
> > >save *billions*. I fail to see this as incredibly unethical.
> >
> > Providing you are not the person.
> >
>
> Sometimes in war ethics,have to take a back seat in the Falklands Adm.
> Woodward needer to know if San Carlos water was mined, he didn't have
> minsweepers and if he had we couldn't spare the time or give away the
fact
> that that was where the Britsih ground troops were going to land. He
looked
> round, picked his most expendable asset (a type 21 frigate, I think
the
> Alacrity) and ordered the captain to make the passage. Woodward said
he felt
> like an utter shit doing this, the fact that the Captain knew what was
> involved and suggested he "poke his nose into all the creeks and
inlets"
> made it easier but it was a decision that had to be made and ~120
lives
> against the thousands that would be put at risk was a fair exchange
>
Also in the fictional universe of B5 recall Sheridan and Delenn sending
out the Ranger in "The Long Night" to get the Shadows to take the bait?
He knew he and his crew were doomed, but it had to be done. In addition,
there is Sheridan's use of the teeps in Endgame - even more
questionable since they couldn't be asked to volunteer, but from the
point of view of saving thousands of lives clearly the correct choice.
Shaz
"Lisa Coulter" <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message
news:39071190...@stetson.edu...
> I agree. He was trying to change fate by sacrificing his life for a
> better future. Kosh told him he would die - and at least Sheridan (and
> possibly Kosh) had no clue Lorien could bring him back.
Ahem, point of order. The following is in Whatever Happened to Mr Garibaldi:
"Kosh."
"Is that it's name? I think I met it once."
"He told me to jump. Did he know...?"
"That I was here? Almost certainly."
So Kosh knew Lorien was there. Sheridan told Kosh he already knew he'd die
if he went to Z'ha'dum, and Kosh said "Yes...now." in Interludes and
Examinations, because Kosh believed he wouldn't be there to guide Sheridan
(no way he could protect him all on his own) and keep him going until Lorien
could help (assuming he'd want to). Kosh found a way to stay with John.
Lorien said that Kosh was part of the problem as to why Sheridan was trapped
'in between'. Both were 'clinging to life' and they had to both surrender
and trust Lorien if they were to escape Z'ha'dum. They did. Kosh got killed
off in Falling Towards Apotheosis, fighting Ulkesh, and John got his twenty
years. So it seems to me Kosh Naranek not only knew about Lorien, but
believed he would help Sheridan, if only the latter could be helped to
survive that long.
>
> How is it ethical to run off to Z'ha'dum to "save" Anna? ( and granted
> he did not do this -- he had seen Franklin's report.) And *why* is it
> unethical to keep something secret (assuming they - Kosh and Delenn -
> even did) which would, in their view save his life and the AOL while
> *not* impacting Anna at all- if she has been alive on Z'ha'dum for all
> this time she is clearly, in their view, a Shadow agent - you want your
> leader tempted by her? I certainly would not. Nothing to gain, and, as
> far as they knew *before* he went - and this is what we are discussing I
> thought - *everything* ( and that's a lot of lives) to lose. In
> addition, I'd like to point out that even though Delenn apologizes to
> Sheridan aferward, he accepts her initial motive that she was doing what
> she thought was right- and he has the most reason to be angry. Frankly,
> even by the time he leaves he is not ( his farewell message)
It depends on the ethics you subscribe to. Throughout this discussion the
ethical position assumed correct has been utilitarianism: the greatest good
for the greatest number. Now a deontologist (someone like Kant) would
disagree with you. Lying is wrong, period. It doesn't matter if it saves
lives, it's still wrong.
That said, Kant always seemed to me to be living on another planet when it
came to ethics anyway.
Shaz
nav...@lucent.com
from "Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> contains these words:
> Both are forced into their positions simply because there's no one else who
> can do the job. Sheridan manages to create the Alliance and, in the end, it
> survives. Londo almost destroys his world because he loves it. I love the
> Faustian quality of Londo. There've been times I've been close to tears as
> I've re-watched the fatal steps Londo took.
Tom Holt <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>For me, Londo's tragedy is the core of B5. His tragic flaw is
>ambition,
Hmmm, I never saw Londo as ambitious, at least not for himself. To
me, his tragic flaw was more his sense of pride or what constituted pride
for him. He thought of his people and their current lifestyle as an
embarrassment. When asked what he wanted by Morden, he said it was to see
his people return to their former glory. It wasn't about him wanting to
exault himself or his position but about wanting a sense of pride at being
a Centauri. He didn't see that his race had done some pretty awful stuff
to others (namely, the Narns) in the name of "glory". Like Sheridan, I don't
think he really sought to become the leader of his people. He took on the
role because he felt that it was the right thing to do, not because he
wanted to do it. By then he had come to realize that what he thought of
as a glorious past wasn't really so glorious after all.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Tom Holt
The message <2000042622...@ctip5en.ih.lucent.com>
from nav...@lucent.com contains these words:
>
> Hmmm, I never saw Londo as ambitious, at least not for himself. To
> me, his tragic flaw was more his sense of pride or what constituted pride
> for him. He thought of his people and their current lifestyle as an
> embarrassment. When asked what he wanted by Morden, he said it was to see
> his people return to their former glory. It wasn't about him wanting to
> exault himself or his position but about wanting a sense of pride at being
> a Centauri. He didn't see that his race had done some pretty awful stuff
> to others (namely, the Narns) in the name of "glory". Like Sheridan, I don't
> think he really sought to become the leader of his people. He took on the
> role because he felt that it was the right thing to do, not because he
> wanted to do it. By then he had come to realize that what he thought of
> as a glorious past wasn't really so glorious after all.
See your hmmmm and raise ten. IIRC, at the stage in his career where
the harm is done, at the very least Londo's wish to see his people
restored to their rightful place in the galaxy was pretty
comprehensively intertwined with a parallel wish to see himself in an
appropriate place in the Ceentauri hierarchy ie at the top... It's in
furtherance of the latter that he seeks an endorsement from the
technomages, and his alliance with Refa, as I understand it, was
based on the understanding that they'd be advancing their own
positions as well as the interests of the republic.
Granted, Londo was never ambitious in the sense of seeking personal
power and glory regardless of or at the expense of the interests of
the Centauri; to that extent his ambition was 'altruistic'.
But, I believe, it was also always personal as well as general;
contast G'kar - even the early, 'bad' G'kar, who schemes and does bad
things in order to promote Narn and hurt the Centauri, but never to
promote his own personal standing.
Both Londo and G'kar, in my interpretation at least, are punished by
having their dreams come true; Londo's punishment is to see the
Centauri retuen to the old ways and their old pre-eminence (for a
short time...) and to become emperor. G'kar's punishment is to see
the Centauri flattened and humiliated, (but only after the same has
happened to Narn, due in no small measure to the provocation he
afforded Londo & the Centauri during his people's earlier ascendancy)
- which is why both of tem have to be sacrificed so that the rest can be saved.
Lisa Coulter
Shaz wrote:
To be honest, I am not familiar with Kant's ethics - only the Critique of Pure
Reason - vaguely remembered from college.
But I would say I am not even being really utilitarian here- he wasn't going to
"save" Anna, she wasn't in any true sense alive. I can't quote philosphers here
(mostly studied Plato, Aristotle, and political philosophy in college) but I do
know that even Christian philosphers do not come out compeltely against lying.
"Bearing false witness" - accusing somebody publicly of something they did not
do (at least that's the interpretation I have heard) is wrong, yes; lying, well,
it depends on why and what the outcome is. In this case, saving Sheridan's life
and the AOL on the one hand vs. gaining nothing (and certainly Delenn if not
Kosh believed this) other than the leader's demise or potential turning in the
other case. I would lie in this situation in a heart beat and *not* consider it
a sin. And not just for utilitarian reasons - she loves him and wants to protect
him. While this behavior is seen more in males than females it seems to be
perfectly consistent with Delenn. It is even compassionate - why put him through
all of that (info that Anna is alive would be confusing / painful at least) if
it wasn't necessary - and as she states she is not sure.
But just what I think!
Faith manages - Delenn
I will see you in the place where no shadows fall - Delenn
Lisa Coulter
Shaz
> To be honest, I am not familiar with Kant's ethics - only the Critique of
Pure
> Reason - vaguely remembered from college.
Not in there so much as his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
> But I would say I am not even being really utilitarian here- he wasn't
going to
Yes you are.
> "save" Anna, she wasn't in any true sense alive. I can't quote philosphers
here
> (mostly studied Plato, Aristotle, and political philosophy in college) but
I do
> know that even Christian philosphers do not come out completely against
lying.
> "Bearing false witness" - accusing somebody publicly of something they
did not
> do (at least that's the interpretation I have heard) is wrong, yes; lying,
well,
> it depends on why and what the outcome is. In this case, saving Sheridan's
life
> and the AOL on the one hand vs. gaining nothing (and certainly Delenn if
not
> Kosh believed this) other than the leader's demise or potential turning in
the
> other case. I would lie in this situation in a heart beat and *not*
consider it
> a sin. And not just for utilitarian reasons - she loves him and wants to
protect
> him. While this behavior is seen more in males than females it seems to be
> perfectly consistent with Delenn. It is even compassionate - why put him
through
> all of that (info that Anna is alive would be confusing / painful at
least) if
> it wasn't necessary - and as she states she is not sure.
Delenn's personal feelings to one side for a moment, that is STILL
utilitarian thinking. You're aiming for the greatest happiness for the
greatest number. In this case, to save Sheridan would create the greatest
happiness because of all he can do if he survives. If you let him die,
millions pay the price for millennia to come, if he lives, a lot of people
will still die, but not anywhere near so many. When Marcus says 'It's
numbers, pure and simple' he's also appealing to a Utilitarian Ethic. The
number on Coriana 6 is greater than the number on Centauri Prime, so Coriana
6 wins since saving more people generates the greatest happiness (actually,
happiness is a really poor word here, but it'll do!). Delenn is also seeking
happiness for herself, but if her own happiness would cause pain for
billions I don't think she'd do it. Lucky for old Johnny, then, that his
being alive was better for the greatest number!
> But just what I think!
Oh, I entirely agree, I'm just pointing out the basis of the ethical
reasoning. Those who subscribe to Kant's deontological ethical approach
would say it's wrong, period. It doesn't matter how many are involved, if
you have to lie to save 1 person or 100 billion, lying, in and of itself, is
still wrong and therefore you don't do it.
Like I said, Kant belonged on another planet. The rest of us would happily
lie to save a life, and especially to save billions. It's just that as far
as Kant is concerned that just means we're all immoral.
Personally I, together with most of the human race, subscribe more to
Bentham and Mill's view.
I suggest you get a copy of Flew's Dictionary of Philosophy. A nice,
relatively cheap way of getting the wood for the trees in philosophical
debate. Of course, if you prefer the expensive way, Edwards' Encyclopaedia
of Philosophy is a snip at £200+ (hard back). ;-) Oh, and Frankena's
'Ethics' (if you can find it) is a nice, simplified explanation of the
concepts outlined above and a great many others. True Kantians would argue
Act Deontology is an oxymoron, but I think Frankena was just trying to keep
the same pattern as he had under Utilitarianism.
Shaz
lcou...@stetson.edu
OK, but why is it immoral to lie then? And I mean in the abstract, no
lives or agendas involved since this must be what Kant and his ilk
think.
Of course, Delenn explicitly states at one point late in Season 3
(forget episode - Rock?) that Minbari will lie to save lives.
I guess why I dislike being called utilitarian ( even if sometimes I am)
is that I kind of retain the Platonist view of their being a "Good" out
there to which we should all subscribe. I do not, however, clain to know
it in every case! ;)
> > But just what I think!
>
> Oh, I entirely agree, I'm just pointing out the basis of the ethical
> reasoning. Those who subscribe to Kant's deontological ethical
approach
> would say it's wrong, period. It doesn't matter how many are involved,
if
> you have to lie to save 1 person or 100 billion, lying, in and of
itself, is
> still wrong and therefore you don't do it.
>
> Like I said, Kant belonged on another planet. The rest of us would
happily
> lie to save a life, and especially to save billions. It's just that as
far
> as Kant is concerned that just means we're all immoral.
>
> Personally I, together with most of the human race, subscribe more to
> Bentham and Mill's view.
Agreed. I did read Mill.
>
> I suggest you get a copy of Flew's Dictionary of Philosophy. A nice,
> relatively cheap way of getting the wood for the trees in
philosophical
> debate. Of course, if you prefer the expensive way, Edwards'
Encyclopaedia
> of Philosophy is a snip at £200+ (hard back). ;-) Oh, and Frankena's
> 'Ethics' (if you can find it) is a nice, simplified explanation of the
> concepts outlined above and a great many others. True Kantians would
argue
> Act Deontology is an oxymoron, but I think Frankena was just trying to
keep
> the same pattern as he had under Utilitarianism.
>
> Shaz
>
thanks for the recommendations. Strangely, I did not study much ethics
in college philosophy. More epistemology/ ontology. And my favorite
philospher was Plato - loved the Theory of Forms.
Shaz
<lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message news:8ea0jb$gdf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8e9sgh$ss1$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Lisa Coulter" <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message
> > news:390849CA...@stetson.edu...
> OK, but why is it immoral to lie then? And I mean in the abstract, no
> lives or agendas involved since this must be what Kant and his ilk
> think.
Kant argues logically. He applies a principle of universalisability: Only do
that which you can at the same time will to be a universal law. If you lie
at ANY time you are saying (according to Kant) that it is all right to lie
EVERY time. And if it's all right for you to lie to save a few billion on
Coriana 6, then it's all right for Hitler to lie to bring about what he
considered right in WW2. Yes, I know the consequences are different, but
Kant doesn't give a rip about consequences because the future CANNOT be
guaranteed accurately predicted in every situation. So you lie in situation
X and it works out all right regarding consequences. You lie in situation Y
(similar) and it turns out all wrong. Morality, he claims, cannot be based
on hopes for future consequences. It must be based on guaranteed truths. By
the principle of universalisability it can be deduced that lying is wrong
(you wouldn't want people to lie all the time to you. You wouldn't want
people to lie as a general rule. Apart from anything else, if they did the
whole principle of lying would collapse, for in order for there to be a lie
there has to be the notion of people telling the truth at least some of the
time). Ergo, lying is wrong, regardless of consequences, it just IS WRONG.
You've got to understand, this is a man who told a woman to tell the truth
about her affairs to her husband. Her husband (this was back in the 18th
century) promptly divorced her and left her destitute. When she complained
to Kant he said that didn't matter because morally she was in the right. She
told the truth. The fact that she was now on the streets was irrelevant.
Like I said, the man is on another planet!
> Of course, Delenn explicitly states at one point late in Season 3
> (forget episode - Rock?) that Minbari will lie to save lives.
> I guess why I dislike being called utilitarian ( even if sometimes I am)
> is that I kind of retain the Platonist view of their being a "Good" out
> there to which we should all subscribe. I do not, however, clain to know
> it in every case! ;)
Oh, Kant believes there's a good, but that Good isn't based on consequences,
it's based on hard logic. The ideal of morality is deduced from logic, not
mutable consequences which cannot be predicted. Kant had read Hume and
understood the problem of Induction, a theory upon which we base our entire
lives, but which proves we don't, strictly speaking, have a logical leg to
stand on. Our assumption that the future will resemble the past is based on
the fact that it always has before, but that's using an inductive argument
to support an inductive argument. Just because it's worked in the past
doesn't guarantee it will work in the future. Hume (pragmatist that he was)
conceeded that ultimately it was a matter of pure faith. We trust the future
will resemble the past because it has always done so (inductive reasoning)
and because we have nothing else we CAN use to predict the future. Anything
else we use ultimately proves to be inductive in basis (e.g. you use tarot
cards to predict the future. Why do you trust them? Because they've always
worked before. *ding* inductive reasoning. OK, tea leaves... same thing.
Anything you trust you trust because it worked in the past and you're
assuming it will CONTINUE to work in the future, and that's an inductive
argument). Kant felt that morality cannot be based on a circular argument.
To him there HAS to be an ultimate right or wrong out there. If we base our
morality on predictions of consequences whether it is right or wrong can't
be known until the end of the universe when all the pros and cons are
weighed. For example: it's better to save 6 billion on Coriana 6 than the
whatever less than 6 billion on Centauri Prime. But suppose the 6 billion
later (a million years in the future) conquer the galaxy and bring misery to
the universe? The consequences of your act were then evil. Morality, for
Kant, can't be like that. Thus he basis it on the principle of
universalisability which takes him to pure logic. So in fact he'd argue that
he's trying to give you exactly what you're demanding -- an ideal truth of
the matter based in logic, not on the unknown future.
> > Personally I, together with most of the human race, subscribe more to
> > Bentham and Mill's view.
>
> Agreed. I did read Mill.
Clever feller. Mind you, so was Kant, but he held to a stricter ethic than
most people can practice!
> thanks for the recommendations. Strangely, I did not study much ethics
> in college philosophy. More epistemology/ ontology. And my favorite
> philospher was Plato - loved the Theory of Forms.
Uh huh. Me too. Psychologically it's very appealing. Doesn't work if you
analyse it of course. What does the ideal form of a dog actually look like?
Tall, short, black, white, tail, no tail, fat, thin etc. etc. etc. Whatever
you say you've got the problem that anything on Earth that doesn't fit that
form which we call a dog can't be a dog. So a three legged, toothless old
mutt that doesn't bark isn't a dog if the Form of a dog has four legs, teeth
and barks. Plato is a lot more appealing intuitively, and his Cave allegory
was actually a brilliant political attack on those who murdered Socrates.
Who, after all, is the one dragged from the cave and shown the truth who
then returns to tell the others? A man who is dismissed, reviled, called a
liar and, when he refuses to shut up, would be killed if only the prisoners
in the cave could get free of their chains. The ruling elite of Athens DID
kill Socrates, albeit in Plato's view they were still in the Cave, as,
indeed, are we all. Socrates told the truth, they didn't like it, so they
killed him. Glaucon says: 'This is a strange picture you paint, Socrates,
and the people in it are strange." to which Socrates replies "They are like
us." So all of us who have not stepped out of the dingy cave into the bright
sun of the truth (by way of philosophy) are still in that Cave, subject to
the shadow images on the wall. To drag this back on topic, Sheridan was in
the Cave, he was shown the truth, he came out and spoke that truth to the
masses, and they tried to kill him. Of course, in his case learning the
truth cost him all but twenty years of his life!
Phew. I never thought I'd end up doing Ethics 101 and Ancient Philosophy 300
in a Babylon 5 discussion newsgroup!
Shaz
Jonathan Biggar
> You've got to understand, this is a man who told a woman to tell the truth
> about her affairs to her husband. Her husband (this was back in the 18th
> century) promptly divorced her and left her destitute. When she complained
> to Kant he said that didn't matter because morally she was in the right. She
> told the truth. The fact that she was now on the streets was irrelevant.
> Like I said, the man is on another planet!
You are ignoring the point that she broke her vows of fidelity to her
husband and thus committed another immoral act. Just because she
happens to be in the right in telling the truth doesn't mean that she
does not deserve to suffer the consequences of the other immoral act.
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
Shaz
"Jonathan Biggar" <j...@floorboard.com> wrote in message
news:3908D18A...@floorboard.com...
> Shaz wrote:
> > You've got to understand, this is a man who told a woman to tell the
truth
> > about her affairs to her husband. Her husband (this was back in the 18th
> > century) promptly divorced her and left her destitute. When she
complained
> > to Kant he said that didn't matter because morally she was in the right.
She
> > told the truth. The fact that she was now on the streets was irrelevant.
> > Like I said, the man is on another planet!
>
> husband and thus committed another immoral act. Just because she
> happens to be in the right in telling the truth doesn't mean that she
> does not deserve to suffer the consequences of the other immoral act.
I think Kant's point was that here was a potential immorality she could
avoid. I don't think he cared about her past misdemeanour, and he argued
both for and against the existence of God (the former only when he found his
manservant in tears after he'd used logic to disprove the existence of god),
so he didn't care about spiritual payback either. For Kant you don't do
something for a reward or not do something out of fear of punishment. You do
it because it's right, and you don't do it because it's wrong. The afterlife
is completely irrelevant to him. I seem to recall the university procession
used to go through the town and into the cathedral at the end for a service.
At that point Kant walked around the cathedral and went home.
Anyway, with regard to her infidelity, what is done is done, and nothing can
take it back. It was wrong, but she can't do anything about it now. It was
the present matter that concerned him. Whether or not she suffered the
consequences of her infidelity was also irrelevant. The point was she should
not confound her first error by lying about it. That said, I don't think her
husband had actually asked her so, strictly speaking, she wasn't lying if
she didn't tell him. I think I would at the very least have waited until he
asked me before admitting such behaviour! Sadly the rest of the details of
the incident have not come down to us, so we can only wonder at her
behaviour throughout.
Shaz
Lisa Coulter
Jonathan Biggar wrote:
> Shaz wrote:
> > You've got to understand, this is a man who told a woman to tell the truth
> > about her affairs to her husband. Her husband (this was back in the 18th
> > century) promptly divorced her and left her destitute. When she complained
> > to Kant he said that didn't matter because morally she was in the right. She
> > told the truth. The fact that she was now on the streets was irrelevant.
> > Like I said, the man is on another planet!
>
> You are ignoring the point that she broke her vows of fidelity to her
> husband and thus committed another immoral act. Just because she
> happens to be in the right in telling the truth doesn't mean that she
> does not deserve to suffer the consequences of the other immoral act.
>
> --
> Jon Biggar
> Floorboard Software
> j...@floorboard.com
> j...@biggar.org
OK, so you think it just that as a consequence of breaking a marriage vow one
should become homeless and destitue? Tow of the virtues I have always admired (and
tried to follow) are compassion and charity. This seems a sin against both.
lcou...@stetson.edu
"Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> "Lisa Coulter" <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message
> news:390849CA...@stetson.edu...
>
*death* ends up being for the greatest good - not just for a thousand
years, but in many ways, period. That said, none of the major characters
knew this then.
The only thing I think this leads to is the question of why Delenn told
him not to go in WWE Part 2 - and there are several possibilities,
including the fact that he gives her statement as one of the reasons he
*goes*. Of course it is also possible that she says it because, as
Sinclair says, she always has, or that she loves him and hates to see
the suffering he went through because of it - especially since it did
not stop the fall of Centauri Prime, as he was hoping.
When Marcus says 'It's
> numbers, pure and simple' he's also appealing to a Utilitarian Ethic.
The
> number on Coriana 6 is greater than the number on Centauri Prime, so
Coriana
> 6 wins since saving more people generates the greatest happiness
(actually,
> happiness is a really poor word here, but it'll do!). Delenn is also
seeking
> happiness for herself, but if her own happiness would cause pain for
> billions I don't think she'd do it. Lucky for old Johnny, then, that
his
> being alive was better for the greatest number!
>
> > But just what I think!
>
> Oh, I entirely agree, I'm just pointing out the basis of the ethical
> reasoning. Those who subscribe to Kant's deontological ethical
approach
> would say it's wrong, period. It doesn't matter how many are involved,
if
> you have to lie to save 1 person or 100 billion, lying, in and of
itself, is
> still wrong and therefore you don't do it.
>
> Like I said, Kant belonged on another planet. The rest of us would
happily
> lie to save a life, and especially to save billions. It's just that as
far
> as Kant is concerned that just means we're all immoral.
>
> Personally I, together with most of the human race, subscribe more to
> Bentham and Mill's view.
>
> I suggest you get a copy of Flew's Dictionary of Philosophy. A nice,
> relatively cheap way of getting the wood for the trees in
philosophical
> debate. Of course, if you prefer the expensive way, Edwards'
Encyclopaedia
> of Philosophy is a snip at £200+ (hard back). ;-) Oh, and Frankena's
> 'Ethics' (if you can find it) is a nice, simplified explanation of the
> concepts outlined above and a great many others. True Kantians would
argue
> Act Deontology is an oxymoron, but I think Frankena was just trying to
keep
> the same pattern as he had under Utilitarianism.
>
> Shaz
>
OK, I have done some research on this - looked a bit at Bentham and an
argument based on Kant's analysis that lying is evil. Interestingly
enough, there is at least a consequentialist, if not utilitarian, part
to this in that one of the reasons he believes lying is wrong is that it
betrays trust. Also, even if not found out, it causes another moral
agent to not have the information necessary to act morally. I find it
interesting that Delenn, in Whatever Happened to Mr. Garibaldi, gave
some of these reasons for her view that what she did was wrong. "It
broke the trust between us.... He did not choose his actions wisely,
they chose him." It wouldn't surprise me if Joe is asking us to consider
the Kantian position here. However,, I have to say I don't think Delenn
is wholly right - she is acting out of grief. In Sheridan's farewell he
clearly knows the whole truth, is acting on it to the best of his
ability (even if that means dying) and, even if he does not say he
trusts her, he does say he loves her - and love without trust doesn't
work in my book.
In terms of utilitarianism, I have yet to do as much research as I would
like, but the simple "greatest good / happiness for the greatest number"
and computing of a pleasure / pain index bugs me. I have always felt (
and since it, like so much of philosophy, is a basic axiom, I can't
prove it) that certain things are right / wrong in and of themselves.
The fact that most virtues also tend to go along with the utilitarian
view doesn't necessarily make the reasoning behind them utilitarian.
You are right, some of the ethics displayed in the Shadow War (and I
suspect in most of our lives) do have the flavor of "lesser of 2 evils -
greatest good for the greatest number" - but that does not mean that we
have to come to these goods or choose them out of utilitaranism. That
said, perhaps a hierarchy of Good (or lesses of evils) might suffice. I
know, again, that some utilitarians deal with this, but to attempt to
divorce it a bit from utilitarianism if I am a Minbari and hold Life and
Truth as goods which come in conflict, so I can only pick one of them ,
perhaps Life wins out since it is the higher good. Note also Delenn at
least values Freedom to some extent (the Summoning and elsewhere). Now a
famed SF author - and I am thinking of 2 names now so I am not going to
embarras myself- said that freedom*safety = constant. I think this is
largely true. But then if you put a high enough value on freedom ( and
for example, the Interstellar Alliance is a completely free association
of worlds, no one is forced to join) this may *not* even lead to
happiness for the most or the greatest good for the greatest number.
Think of the arguments on gun control currently being waged in the US.
But this is too long and since you know more ethics than me I expect to
have all my flaws exposed....
I will see you in the place where no shadows fall - Delenn
Jonathan Biggar
>
> Jonathan Biggar wrote:
>
> > Shaz wrote:
> > > about her affairs to her husband. Her husband (this was back in the 18th
> > > century) promptly divorced her and left her destitute. When she complained
> > > to Kant he said that didn't matter because morally she was in the right. She
> > > told the truth. The fact that she was now on the streets was irrelevant.
> > > Like I said, the man is on another planet!
> >
> > husband and thus committed another immoral act. Just because she
> > happens to be in the right in telling the truth doesn't mean that she
> > does not deserve to suffer the consequences of the other immoral act.
> OK, so you think it just that as a consequence of breaking a marriage vow one
> should become homeless and destitue? Tow of the virtues I have always admired > (and tried to follow) are compassion and charity. This seems a sin against
> both.
You are leaping to conclusions. Certainly it would be a good (and
right) thing for her husband to have forgiven her. I'm not advocating
that the husband's action was justice here, only making the point that
doing things that are wrong almost always result in bad consequences.
Doing something right later doesn't automatically make those bad
consequences go away.
Ultimately, whether or not others make right or wrong choices, the wrong
choice to commit adultery was hers to make and the consequences are her
responsibility.
This isn't a slam at you, but I really hate the TV sitcom "let's make it
all better in a half-hour" mentality. It allows people to believe that
the consequences of wrongdoing can be fixed easily and with little
long-term damage.
Jeanne Marie Rice
"Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:8eapaq$q8b$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> "Jonathan Biggar" <j...@floorboard.com> wrote in message
> news:3908D18A...@floorboard.com...
> > Shaz wrote:
> truth
> > > about her affairs to her husband. Her husband (this was back in the
18th
> > > century) promptly divorced her and left her destitute. When she
> complained
> > > to Kant he said that didn't matter because morally she was in the
right.
> She
> > > told the truth. The fact that she was now on the streets was
irrelevant.
> > > Like I said, the man is on another planet!
> >
> > husband and thus committed another immoral act. Just because she
> > happens to be in the right in telling the truth doesn't mean that she
> > does not deserve to suffer the consequences of the other immoral act.
>
about the persecution of people in China who practice Falun Dafa. According
to The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, April 26, 2000, page A18, article
titled "Falun Dafa Adherents, Defying Police, Stage Protests": "Police were
asking people they thought looked like believers--many of whom had come from
out of town and look a bit countrified compared to Beijingers--if they
believed in Falun Dafa, *counting on the sect's insistence that members
answer any question with absolute honesty* to weed out believers before they
reached the central plaza." ( I added the asterisks to the pertinent part of
the sentence.) If I understand your explanation of Kant's philosphy, Falun
Dafa adherents, at least as far as truth-telling, follow Kant's philosophy.
--
Jeanne Marie Rice jeann...@hotmail.com
"If you're going to be worried every time the universe doesn't
make sense, you're going to be worried every moment of every
day for the rest of your natural life!" -G'Kar
Keith Wood
Lisa Coulter wrote:
>
> Jonathan Biggar wrote:
>
> > Shaz wrote:
> > > You've got to understand, this is a man who told a woman to tell the truth
> > > about her affairs to her husband. Her husband (this was back in the 18th
> > > century) promptly divorced her and left her destitute. When she complained
> > > to Kant he said that didn't matter because morally she was in the right. She
> > > told the truth. The fact that she was now on the streets was irrelevant.
> > > Like I said, the man is on another planet!
> >
> > You are ignoring the point that she broke her vows of fidelity to her
> > husband and thus committed another immoral act. Just because she
> > happens to be in the right in telling the truth doesn't mean that she
> > does not deserve to suffer the consequences of the other immoral act.
> >
> > --
> > Jon Biggar
> > Floorboard Software
> > j...@floorboard.com
> > j...@biggar.org
>
> OK, so you think it just that as a consequence of breaking a marriage vow one
> should become homeless and destitue?
My wife broke her vows, filed for divorce when she got pregnant, and her
lover left his (second) wife to shack up with Kyla and our 5 kids 7
months before the divorce got to court.
I lost my home, my livelihood (home office), nearly everything I owned
which was of any value, and she even managed to convince everyone that
it was MY fault, so I haven't heard from them in over 3 years.
All too often, the consequences of one spouse breaking the marriage vows
are borne by the faithful spouse. At least I didn't catch whatever STDs
her current partner's prior (and current?) extra- marital partners might
have, but I was worried about that for a long time.
The real price will be paid by the kids (ALL of the kids), when they
have to survive the next divorce.
All that said, NO, I do not agree that cheating should automatically
break up a family -- but if it does, the cheater should be the one who
loses, not the rest of the family.
Infidelity is a perfect example of the Vorlon / Shadow gulf. You cheat
when you embrace the question "What do you want?" and turn your back on
"Who are you?"
lcou...@stetson.edu
Interestingly enough, Minbari seem to have this view about saving life.
It is good in and of itself. Think about what Lenneir said after saving
Londo - he had to do it, but it might have bad consequences for the
future.
I guess on this Good at least I'd agree with them. Even if it puts me on
some other world!
Never lying, on the other hand, is quite different in my view. And it's
interesting, because I think especially Americans (citizens of US) are
raised to value truth very highly - Washington and the cherry tree and
all that. It is hard to escape your upbringing sometimes.
I wonder if this is why some disliked, in particular, Delenn's lies so
much.
Tgere aksi seens to be a feeling, taht you should not present yourself
as good or a religious leader if you have sins ( past or present).
Someone essentially stated this, and my response was very cynical -
interesting how becoming an adult does that to one. However, if you
think about it, what religions (philosophies) require that their
followers publicly confess their guilt? Not too many that I can think of
. Yes you ackknowledge (either between yourself and God or perhaps a
priest - and here I am clearly speaking of Christians) that you were
wrong, then you "Go and sin no more". In this sense, and in a much less
cynical manner, I fail to see how Delenn acting as if she is caring,
moral, devout is wrong - she is (and has been since the war) attempting
to atone for her acts. This, as I've noted, seems to be jms's idea of
correct action, and , whether it is or not, I must agree. Think of Saul.
real bad person as far as Christians were concerned. Became a saint. Of
course his past was known to at least some, but I doubt he started out
every new meeting with " I used to persecute Christians, but I am good
now" On second thought, maybe he did. But I don't think it is necessary.
As Delenn says to Sheridan in the fourth season, " I know you love me
*for what I've become*." He loves her for what she has made of herself
*despite* her past. And then, "Never forget who I am and what I can do".
Clearly she never will, and this is a warning to him that she's not all
sweetness and light. But then, none of us are.
I had forgotten Hume ( I refuse to admit how long ago I was an
undergrad!) but mathematics of course has induction. If it works for i,
and you assume it works for n > i, and can thus prove it works for n+1
it always works. This seems to be more rigorous than Hume.
Kant felt that morality cannot be based on a circular
argument.
> To him there HAS to be an ultimate right or wrong out there. If we
base our
> morality on predictions of consequences whether it is right or wrong
can't
> be known until the end of the universe when all the pros and cons are
> weighed. For example: it's better to save 6 billion on Coriana 6 than
the
> whatever less than 6 billion on Centauri Prime. But suppose the 6
billion
> later (a million years in the future) conquer the galaxy and bring
misery to
> the universe? The consequences of your act were then evil. Morality,
for
> Kant, can't be like that. Thus he basis it on the principle of
> universalisability which takes him to pure logic. So in fact he'd
argue that
> he's trying to give you exactly what you're demanding -- an ideal
truth of
> the matter based in logic, not on the unknown future.
>
> > > Personally I, together with most of the human race, subscribe more
to
> > > Bentham and Mill's view.
Note my comments about Lenneir and the sanctity of life here.
Yes. And I hadn't caught the Cave as an attack on the Athenians of the
day - clever.
>
> Phew. I never thought I'd end up doing Ethics 101 and Ancient
Philosophy 300
> in a Babylon 5 discussion newsgroup!
>
> Shaz
But that's what makes this forum so fun!
Thanks! Now how much do I owe you for the courses? ;)
Faith manages - Delenn
Shaz
"Jeanne Marie Rice" <jeann...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ecv2...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> This discussion reminded me of several articles in the Wall Street Journal
> about the persecution of people in China who practice Falun Dafa.
According
> to The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, April 26, 2000, page A18, article
> titled "Falun Dafa Adherents, Defying Police, Stage Protests": "Police
were
> asking people they thought looked like believers--many of whom had come
from
> out of town and look a bit countrified compared to Beijingers--if they
> believed in Falun Dafa, *counting on the sect's insistence that members
> answer any question with absolute honesty* to weed out believers before
they
> reached the central plaza." ( I added the asterisks to the pertinent part
of
> the sentence.) If I understand your explanation of Kant's philosphy,
Falun
> Dafa adherents, at least as far as truth-telling, follow Kant's
philosophy.
That would depend, at least in part, on whether they were honest because
it's right, or because of a belief in reward or punishment in an afterlife.
If the latter, that's not Kant. If the former, yes.
(The following is just an attempt to trim what's rapidly turning into a
novel of a thread!)
Oh, and to Lisa: jms doesn't turn it on its head. The future is still the
future and, to the people at the time performing the acts, unknown. We, as
the audience, happen to know it worked out, but they don't. So J&D and
everyone else can only do what they think is right at the time. How they
determine the answer to that question is up to them. Kant would approve of
the fact that both are massively driven by duty.
The betrayal of trust stuff goes back to the logic argument. If there is no
notion of trust (because everyone is lying) then the notions of truth and
falsehood go out the window and neither mean anything any more. So it's
illogical to will everyone to lie since the very meaning of lying would,
under those circumstances, be lost.
Bentham's scale was ridiculous, but a genuine effort to give a quantifiable
method to moral reasoning. It's just utterly impractical. Mill understood
that and tried to come up with a more useful method, but ultimately we're
still stuck with the same problem that Kant tried to resolve with logic. The
thing is, I don't think human morality CAN be subsumed under logic. It's
like all the efforts to formalise natural language. Nice idea, but a real
pig to try and realise because natural language doesn't always follow set or
rational rules (eg. the use of 'I could care less' understood to mean the
same as 'I couldn't care less'. Yet, strictly speaking, if you COULD care
less that means you do care some, so the thing (whatever it is) hasn't
reached rock bottom which, in fact, was what you were claiming when you said
the phrase. And, of course, the phrase 'I could care less about this'
meaning you actually DO care some is rapidly losing any pretence of meaning.
Despite this, the ambiguous phrase is being accepted more and more.).
Bentham was another one who wasn't always on planet earth (IMHO, of course!)
I think, in general, we're pretty well on the same side. We both want some
kind of 'truth' out there, it's just a question of how you get to it. If
anyone ever found the ultimate method, they'd make billions, and
philosophers would be out of a job! <G>
Shaz
lcou...@stetson.edu
>
> > I agree. He was trying to change fate by sacrificing his life for a
> > better future. Kosh told him he would die - and at least Sheridan
(and
> > possibly Kosh) had no clue Lorien could bring him back.
>
> Ahem, point of order. The following is in Whatever Happened to Mr
Garibaldi:
>
> "Kosh."
>
> "Is that it's name? I think I met it once."
>
> "He told me to jump. Did he know...?"
>
> "That I was here? Almost certainly."
>
> So Kosh knew Lorien was there. Sheridan told Kosh he already knew he'd
die
> if he went to Z'ha'dum, and Kosh said "Yes...now." in Interludes and
> Examinations, because Kosh believed he wouldn't be there to guide
Sheridan
> (no way he could protect him all on his own) and keep him going until
Lorien
> could help (assuming he'd want to).
interpretation of what Kosh said to Sheridan in Interludes was that Kosh
knew he *would* go to Z'ha'dum once Kosh was gone - "When you go to ..."
The question of his death was not what Kosh was referring to - whether
he would go or not was. Thinking about it, it probably could be taken
both ways.
You also point out something else - Kosh did know about Lorien, I agree,
but could not predict Lorien's actions and whether he would be able or
want to resurrect Sheridan. In fact, unless we have evidence that
Lorien had intervened to any extent in the past (and there is none)
why would Kosh assume a being who did not get involved with the Elder
Races would help one of the Younger Ones? If you accept this
interpretation, then my point still stands that Kosh believed that if
(and when ) he went to Z'ha'dum, he would die. Permanently.
Jonathan Biggar
> > > She
> > > told the truth. The fact that she was now on the streets was irrelevant.
> > > Like I said, the man is on another planet!
> >
> > husband and thus committed another immoral act. Just because she
> > happens to be in the right in telling the truth doesn't mean that she
> > does not deserve to suffer the consequences of the other immoral act.
>
> avoid. I don't think he cared about her past misdemeanour, and he argued
> both for and against the existence of God (the former only when he found his
> manservant in tears after he'd used logic to disprove the existence of god),
> so he didn't care about spiritual payback either. For Kant you don't do
> something for a reward or not do something out of fear of punishment. You do
> it because it's right, and you don't do it because it's wrong. The afterlife
> is completely irrelevant to him. I seem to recall the university procession
> used to go through the town and into the cathedral at the end for a service.
> At that point Kant walked around the cathedral and went home.
I wasn't actually trying to bring up any issue of punishment or the
afterlife, only noting that doing the right thing doesn't automatically
make everything better, particularly the results of any other wrongs we
have done in the past.
> Anyway, with regard to her infidelity, what is done is done, and nothing can
> take it back. It was wrong, but she can't do anything about it now. It was
> the present matter that concerned him. Whether or not she suffered the
> consequences of her infidelity was also irrelevant. The point was she should
> not confound her first error by lying about it. That said, I don't think her
> husband had actually asked her so, strictly speaking, she wasn't lying if
> she didn't tell him. I think I would at the very least have waited until he
> asked me before admitting such behaviour! Sadly the rest of the details of
> the incident have not come down to us, so we can only wonder at her
> behaviour throughout.
Many would argue that breaking a vow and continuing to live like you
hadn't is simply living a continual lie, since you are allowing someone
to remain deceived about your actions and the state of the vow.
John W. Kennedy
> Bentham's scale was ridiculous, but a genuine effort to give a quantifiable
> method to moral reasoning. It's just utterly impractical. Mill understood
> that and tried to come up with a more useful method, but ultimately we're
> still stuck with the same problem that Kant tried to resolve with logic.
I have always been extremely suspicious of the fact that utilitarianism
arose just as integral calculus was beginning to become known among the
intelligentsia at large.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-jwk...@attglobal.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Iain Clark
<snip>
> Bentham's scale was ridiculous, but a genuine effort to give a
quantifiable
> method to moral reasoning. It's just utterly impractical. Mill understood
> that and tried to come up with a more useful method, but ultimately we're
> still stuck with the same problem that Kant tried to resolve with logic.
The
> thing is, I don't think human morality CAN be subsumed under logic. It's
> like all the efforts to formalise natural language. Nice idea, but a real
> pig to try and realise because natural language doesn't always follow set
or
> rational rules (eg. the use of 'I could care less' understood to mean the
> same as 'I couldn't care less'. Yet, strictly speaking, if you COULD care
> less that means you do care some, so the thing (whatever it is) hasn't
> reached rock bottom which, in fact, was what you were claiming when you
said
> the phrase. And, of course, the phrase 'I could care less about this'
> meaning you actually DO care some is rapidly losing any pretence of
meaning.
> Despite this, the ambiguous phrase is being accepted more and more.).
> Bentham was another one who wasn't always on planet earth (IMHO, of
course!)
That's the nice thing about language, though - it's fluid, and the literal
meaning of our phrases and metaphors drifts constantly due to the context in
which they're used. As with "bad" - which amongst other things used to mean
wrong (and still does), but came to mean 'extreme', or good. It's even
starting to be used as a noun: "My bad", meaning my mistake or misdeed. At
some point new usage stops being terrible grammar and becomes an accepted
new meaning. (I think it'll be a while before "my bad" makes it to the
dictionary, though <g>).
Personally I think that "I could care less" is currently still just a lazy
way of talking. But then, so is saying "couldn't instead of "could not".
Pretty soon we'll have things down to a few multi-syllabic grunts!
> I think, in general, we're pretty well on the same side. We both want some
> kind of 'truth' out there, it's just a question of how you get to it. If
> anyone ever found the ultimate method, they'd make billions, and
> philosophers would be out of a job! <G>
Your fascinating discussion reminds me of an interesting SF book called On
My Way to Paradise (by Dave Wolverton, who went on to write, er, Star Wars
novels). In it there are a race of human-animal hybrids who believe that
all morality derives from territorial instincts. The chimera character
suggests that humans have a territory encompassing their bodies, their
family, beliefs, thoughts, culture, and that we only class as evil those
things that invade someone's 'territory'. In his (rather
self-congratulatory) afterword the author even endorses the idea.
I've just dug out the book and the chimera character says "when one person
steals, he violates another's territory. When one person kills, he violates
another's territory. When someone lies about you, he violates the good name
you have attained through your actions...All that is evil can be seen as
arising from violating another's territory."
By the same token, good is "to allow others into your own territory; to deny
your own teritorialism; it is good to give your money to the poor. It is
good to give your coat to the naked....It is good to perform labour for
another so that you enlarge his domain whilst diminishing your own."
I always felt that it was an interesting thought. I suspect it's so broad
as to be almost meaningless, but I don't have the grounding in philosophy to
analyse it competently!
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Shaz
<lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message news:8eclfo$ef6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8e7jai$8aj$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Lisa Coulter" <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message
> > news:39071190...@stetson.edu...
> >
> > > I agree. He was trying to change fate by sacrificing his life for a
> > > better future. Kosh told him he would die - and at least Sheridan
> (and
> > > possibly Kosh) had no clue Lorien could bring him back.
> >
> > Ahem, point of order. The following is in Whatever Happened to Mr
> Garibaldi:
> >
> > "Kosh."
> >
> > "Is that it's name? I think I met it once."
> >
> > "He told me to jump. Did he know...?"
> >
> > "That I was here? Almost certainly."
> >
> > So Kosh knew Lorien was there. Sheridan told Kosh he already knew he'd
> die
> > if he went to Z'ha'dum, and Kosh said "Yes...now." in Interludes and
> > Examinations, because Kosh believed he wouldn't be there to guide
> Sheridan
> > (no way he could protect him all on his own) and keep him going until
> Lorien
> > could help (assuming he'd want to).
> OK, this is nitpicky, but we're all here for fun, no?
Absolutely!
>*My*
> interpretation of what Kosh said to Sheridan in Interludes was that Kosh
> knew he *would* go to Z'ha'dum once Kosh was gone - "When you go to ..."
Except he said IF you go to Z'ha'dum, not when. There was still the
possibility John wouldn't. His freewill wasn't totally denied at that point.
> The question of his death was not what Kosh was referring to - whether
> he would go or not was. Thinking about it, it probably could be taken
> both ways.
> You also point out something else - Kosh did know about Lorien, I agree,
> but could not predict Lorien's actions and whether he would be able or
> want to resurrect Sheridan. In fact, unless we have evidence that
> Lorien had intervened to any extent in the past (and there is none)
> why would Kosh assume a being who did not get involved with the Elder
> Races would help one of the Younger Ones? If you accept this
> interpretation, then my point still stands that Kosh believed that if
> (and when ) he went to Z'ha'dum, he would die. Permanently.
True, but perhaps Kosh saw something in Sheridan and, since he'd run into
Lorien before, thought it was something Lorien would appreciate too. He
chose to 'teach him to fight legends', and you don't pick your leaders
randomly for something like that. It's too important.
You're right, we don't and CAN'T know, but I like to think Kosh held out the
hope Lorien would see the same spark in Sheridan Kosh did and, of course, he
did. And, of course, Sheridan did die, so Kosh was right about that. What
Kosh thought he could do if still alive when Sheridan went to Z'ha'dum I
have NO idea, unless it was what he DID in fact do by keeping him alive long
enough to get to Lorien's attention. It's not like he could defend himself
against just three Shadows. Against the numbers in their stronghold? Not a
chance. Unless by some bizarre reasoning he thought he'd be able to get the
other Vorlons to help out, but from the evidence of Kosh Ulkesh that was a
forlorn hope. Ulkesh was quite happy to assume Sheridan's death and leave
him there (Hour of the Wolf).
Shaz
Shaz
> I wasn't actually trying to bring up any issue of punishment or the
> afterlife, only noting that doing the right thing doesn't automatically
> make everything better, particularly the results of any other wrongs we
> have done in the past.
Oh, you're absolutely right. Thankfully we can be forgiven a lot of things
provided we prove by later actions that we know we made a mistake and are
doing our best to improve ourselves. The mark is never completely expunged,
but that's as well. If we could we'd probably just keep repeating our
mistakes. I'd hate to be held still accountable for some of the things I did
as a stupid kid!!!
> > Anyway, with regard to her infidelity, what is done is done, and nothing
can
> > take it back. It was wrong, but she can't do anything about it now. It
was
> > the present matter that concerned him. Whether or not she suffered the
> > consequences of her infidelity was also irrelevant. The point was she
should
> > not confound her first error by lying about it. That said, I don't think
her
> > husband had actually asked her so, strictly speaking, she wasn't lying
if
> > she didn't tell him. I think I would at the very least have waited until
he
> > asked me before admitting such behaviour! Sadly the rest of the details
of
> > the incident have not come down to us, so we can only wonder at her
> > behaviour throughout.
>
> Many would argue that breaking a vow and continuing to live like you
> hadn't is simply living a continual lie, since you are allowing someone
> to remain deceived about your actions and the state of the vow.
Again, we don't know the full story, so I can't say how she felt, but if she
was anything like me (and by going to someone like Kant to ask his advice
I'd say she had a strong moral sense) I don't think she would ever be able
to live as though it hadn't happened. It would always be there, a guilty
memory you wish you didn't have. Just because a person doesn't say anything
doesn't mean they can expunge it from their memory or conscience, and I know
my conscience is still having a go at me for misdemeanours when I was 7! So
if she didn't say anything she might be acting on the surface as though
nothing had happened, but acting and living are not the same thing.
Anyway, the whole is a counterfactual in this instance. She did speak out. I
guess I feel her husband's behaviour would be more explicable if he'd found
out on his own, rather than finding he had a wife honest enough to risk her
fate by telling him. If she's THAT honest I'd say he'd actually, NOW, got a
good wife. She's highly unlikely to repeat the error. Of course, if she did
I'd be inclined to agree with him! I can forgive one error (who among us is
perfect, after all?). After that, you're on your own!
Shaz
Shaz
<lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message news:8ecobh$hrv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
True. B5 spawns some amazing discussions!
> Thanks! Now how much do I owe you for the courses? ;)
Oh, you can have that one on the house <G>
Shaz
Andrew M Swallow
A white lie simply means that both speaker and listener gain (in the opinion of
the speaker).
People object to being lied to because they know that they are going to be
tricked into losing. When the person in charge of a country lies, practically
the entire country loses.
We probably only accept lying in war because we are part of the group hoping to
gain the advantage.
Andrew Swallow
lcou...@stetson.edu
things are good because they are, or God is coincident with the Will of
God. In either case, Godd is out there to be discovered and adhered to
regardless of consequences in a potential afterlief. As you say if we
could determine how to figure out what Good is, it would be incredible.
> (The following is just an attempt to trim what's rapidly turning into
a
> novel of a thread!)
>
> Oh, and to Lisa: jms doesn't turn it on its head. The future is still
the
> future and, to the people at the time performing the acts, unknown.
We, as
> the audience, happen to know it worked out, but they don't. So J&D and
> everyone else can only do what they think is right at the time. How
they
> determine the answer to that question is up to them. Kant would
approve of
> the fact that both are massively driven by duty.
>
> The betrayal of trust stuff goes back to the logic argument. If there
is no
> notion of trust (because everyone is lying) then the notions of truth
and
> falsehood go out the window and neither mean anything any more. So
it's
> illogical to will everyone to lie since the very meaning of lying
would,
> under those circumstances, be lost.
>
quantifiable
> method to moral reasoning. It's just utterly impractical. Mill
understood
> that and tried to come up with a more useful method, but ultimately
we're
> still stuck with the same problem that Kant tried to resolve with
logic. The
> thing is, I don't think human morality CAN be subsumed under logic.
any lgoically consistent system is incomplete - there are truths in it
unprovable by the axioms and rules of the system itslef. If this is true
of Logic and the Foundations of Math, how much more so in attempting to
use logic to define morality. IMHO, Kant is nuts.
It's
> like all the efforts to formalise natural language. Nice idea, but a
real
> pig to try and realise because natural language doesn't always follow
set or
> rational rules (eg. the use of 'I could care less' understood to mean
the
> same as 'I couldn't care less'. Yet, strictly speaking, if you COULD
care
> less that means you do care some, so the thing (whatever it is) hasn't
> reached rock bottom which, in fact, was what you were claiming when
you said
> the phrase. And, of course, the phrase 'I could care less about this'
> meaning you actually DO care some is rapidly losing any pretence of
meaning.
> Despite this, the ambiguous phrase is being accepted more and more.).
> Bentham was another one who wasn't always on planet earth (IMHO, of
course!)
>
some
> kind of 'truth' out there, it's just a question of how you get to it.
If
> anyone ever found the ultimate method, they'd make billions, and
> philosophers would be out of a job! <G>
>
>
I agree. We are. And you are certainly right about a way to get to
Truth.
lcou...@stetson.edu
forgive ourselves our past offenses.
So
> if she didn't say anything she might be acting on the surface as
though
> nothing had happened, but acting and living are not the same thing.
>
> Anyway, the whole is a counterfactual in this instance. She did speak
out. I
> guess I feel her husband's behaviour would be more explicable if he'd
found
> out on his own, rather than finding he had a wife honest enough to
risk her
> fate by telling him. If she's THAT honest I'd say he'd actually, NOW,
got a
> good wife. She's highly unlikely to repeat the error. Of course, if
she did
> I'd be inclined to agree with him! I can forgive one error (who among
us is
> perfect, after all?). After that, you're on your own!
>
> Shaz
>
virtues of charity, compassion and forgiveness which, since he *seems*
to be comig from a Christian perspective, are believed to be moral
obligations.
I find even more frightening Kant's willingness to tell a murderer that
an intended victim is in your house. Thankfully, many people in WW2 and
in the Underground Railroad (American Civil War era) didn't have as
strong a belief in the truth at any cost. If you ask me, *they* were the
ones acting morally.
lcou...@stetson.edu
Jonathan Biggar <j...@floorboard.com> wrote:
> Lisa Coulter wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Biggar wrote:
> >
> > > Shaz wrote:
the truth
> > > > about her affairs to her husband. Her husband (this was back in
the 18th
> > > > century) promptly divorced her and left her destitute. When she
complained
> > > > to Kant he said that didn't matter because morally she was in
the right. She
> > > > told the truth. The fact that she was now on the streets was
irrelevant.
> > > > Like I said, the man is on another planet!
> > >
her
> > > husband and thus committed another immoral act. Just because she
> > > happens to be in the right in telling the truth doesn't mean that
she
> > > does not deserve to suffer the consequences of the other immoral
act.
>
marriage vow one
always admired > (and tried to follow) are compassion and charity. This
seems a sin against
> > both.
>
> You are leaping to conclusions. Certainly it would be a good (and
> right) thing for her husband to have forgiven her. I'm not advocating
> that the husband's action was justice here, only making the point that
> doing things that are wrong almost always result in bad consequences.
> Doing something right later doesn't automatically make those bad
> consequences go away.
>
> Ultimately, whether or not others make right or wrong choices, the
wrong
her
> responsibility.* Emphasis added.
No. They are also the husband's responsibility since he is interacting
with her and making moral choices of his own.
>
> This isn't a slam at you, but I really hate the TV sitcom "let's make
it
> all better in a half-hour" mentality. It allows people to believe
that
> the consequences of wrongdoing can be fixed easily and with little
> long-term damage.
I agree. One of the things that made B5 so great - actions have
consequences and we must accept our responsibility and act to atone for
or clean up bad consequences from the past. At least Sheridan and Delenn
clearly believe and follow this.
> --
> Jon Biggar
> Floorboard Software
> j...@floorboard.com
> j...@biggar.org
>
>
Lisa Coulter
lcou...@stetson.edu
andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) wrote:
> People lie to make other people behave in a manner advantagous to the
speaker.
Here we go again.
Not necessarily. I don't think Delenn lied to/ misled Sheridan about
Anna because it was in her best interest, but because she (and Kosh)
believed it was in his. remember that Minbari believe in the sanctity of
lief.
> A white lie simply means that both speaker and listener gain (in the
opinion of
> the speaker).
>
> People object to being lied to because they know that they are going
to be
> tricked into losing.
Again, if Delenn (to bring this back to B5) conceals her past, how is
she tricking anyone into losing? If Sheridan( to take some heat from
Delenn) essentially lies to his subordinates on the first part of season
2 by spying on them for Hague, the end result isn't that they lose.
When the person in charge of a country lies,
practically
> the entire country loses.
>
Always? I find this hard to believe. You seem to be arguing that keeping
state secrets is always bad. Interesting.
> We probably only accept lying in war because we are part of the group
hoping to
> gain the advantage.
>
> Andrew Swallow
>
Perhaps. As many have said, histroy tends to be written by the vicotrs.
But I believe a lie to save life to be a moral good. To give a non-war
example, if Kant believes I should tell a murderer an intended victim is
in my house, I think he's nuts. If the exxistence of little blue aliens
were proved, but my knowing about it would for some reason lead to my
death, I would hope that I would be lied to - even by the President.
Kant and Utilitarianism take off from the Golden Rule, at least to some
extent, and I do not believe this always prohibits lying, or indicates
it is bad.
Andrew M Swallow
>From: lcou...@stetson.edu
>Date: 01/05/00 16:20 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8ek7ar$97q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <20000429155208...@ng-cr1.news.cs.com>,
> andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) wrote:
>> People lie to make other people behave in a manner advantagous to the
>speaker.
>
>
>Here we go again.
>Not necessarily. I don't think Delenn lied to/ misled Sheridan about
>Anna because it was in her best interest, but because she (and Kosh)
>believed it was in his. remember that Minbari believe in the sanctity of
>lief.
Was it in the interests of Delenn and Kosh to have (probably) the galaxies
greatest war leader alive and fighting for them?
>> A white lie simply means that both speaker and listener gain (in the
>opinion of
>> the speaker).
>>
>> People object to being lied to because they know that they are going
>to be
>> tricked into losing.
>Again, if Delenn (to bring this back to B5) conceals her past, how is
>she tricking anyone into losing? If Sheridan( to take some heat from
>Delenn) essentially lies to his subordinates on the first part of season
>2 by spying on them for Hague, the end result isn't that they lose.
Babylon 5 is full of earth warriors - both Earthforce and Station Security.
One of these warriors could easily decide to revenge the Earth-Minbari War by
killing a member of the Grey Council. See G'Kar v The Centauri Emperor in 'The
Coming of Shadows'. Delenn would have lost.
The argument that lying is wrong, is a different one from that you should go
round admitting wrong unasked. Or that it correct to ask such questions. One
of the wrongess of Nightwatch.
(Whats the correct word for that. It is not sin or crime.)
> When the person in charge of a country lies,
>practically
>> the entire country loses.
>>
>Always? I find this hard to believe. You seem to be arguing that keeping
>state secrets is always bad. Interesting.
In practice it probably depends on wether he is lying for the country or
against it. In internal matters he is probably against the county.
>> We probably only accept lying in war because we are part of the group
>hoping to
>> gain the advantage.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>Perhaps. As many have said, histroy tends to be written by the vicotrs.
>But I believe a lie to save life to be a moral good. To give a non-war
>example, if Kant believes I should tell a murderer an intended victim is
>in my house, I think he's nuts. If the exxistence of little blue aliens
>were proved, but my knowing about it would for some reason lead to my
>death, I would hope that I would be lied to - even by the President.
Which is stonger? Thou shall not murder. Or thou shall not make false witness.
Is there anywhere in the bible it orders you to talk to everbody about what
that person wants to talk about?
Iain Reid
<lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message news:8ek7ar$97q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000429155208...@ng-cr1.news.cs.com>,
> andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) wrote:
> > People lie to make other people behave in a manner advantagous to the
> speaker.
>
>
> Here we go again.
> Not necessarily. I don't think Delenn lied to/ misled Sheridan about
> Anna because it was in her best interest, but because she (and Kosh)
> believed it was in his. remember that Minbari believe in the sanctity of
> lief.
There is also the Vorlon perspective of "Some must be sacrificed, if all are
to be saved". Sherridan was important to the war effort - if he hadn't been
there the person who took his place might not have successful as him - and a
lot of people would have died because of that. Delenn and Kosh must have
wieghed up the probabilities, knowing that if they told him he would
probably go.
The possible death of countless people weighed against the slim chance that
Anna was still alive and the even slimmer possibility that she had remained
unaltered by the shadows. Even taking into account the fact that Delenn
would gain from not telling John, the right decision was to keep the truth
from him.
Telling the truth can often be far more harmfull than a lie, and so people
don't just lie "to make other people behave in a manner advantagous to the
speaker". People also often lie to protect others from harm.
Iain Reid
Andrew M Swallow
all other weapons.
When would you allow the other person/group to use a weapon on you? And why?
When would you prevent it being used on you? And why?
When would you allow someone to use a weapon on your group, friends and family?
And why?
When would you use a weapon on your group, friends and family? And why?
When would you prevent someone using a weapon on your group, friends and
family? And why?
When would you permit someone else to prevent someone using a weapon on your
group, friends, family and self? And Why?
Are all weapons equally bad?
Or is there a scale?
Were is lying in the scale?
Note : A surgeons knife is also a weapon.
Andrew Swallow
p.s. Not many answers in the above, but something to think about.
Andrew M Swallow
>don't just lie "to make other people behave in a manner advantagous to the
>speaker". People also often lie to protect others from harm.
Be careful here. Harmed people frequently act in ways disadvantagous to you.
You may lose their friendship, they may no longer work hard for you or they may
even physically attack you.
Andrew Swallow
lcou...@stetson.edu
> >From: lcou...@stetson.edu
> >Date: 01/05/00 16:20 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8ek7ar$97q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> > andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) wrote:
the
> >speaker.
> >
> >
> >Here we go again.
> >Not necessarily. I don't think Delenn lied to/ misled Sheridan about
> >Anna because it was in her best interest, but because she (and Kosh)
> >believed it was in his. remember that Minbari believe in the sanctity
of
> >lief.
>
galaxies
> greatest war leader alive and fighting for them?
A lie so that the lied to gains, but the one lying gets nothing. Re
Delenn / Sheridan Justin says killing Sheridan won't work - someone will
take his place.
Here Delenn in fact, at the end of Season 3, appears to have gained
nothing by her conealment. She believes that she has lost John becaause
she broke their trust and he wasn't thinking rationally when he left.
Although we know the outcome, she did not, and risked a great deal, in
the end, for *his* good.
Another example - Vir lies to conceal his activities on behalf of the
Narn. Granted he gains by doing so (he is allowed to continue them) but
does anybody *lose*? At least morally, I would say not. Lives are saved.
( Think also of Schindler - similar situation and I would argue a just
and moral lie. Aslo, you claim the one lied to loses. Who? The Gestapo?
I hope so!)
>
> >> A white lie simply means that both speaker and listener gain (in
the
> >opinion of
> >> the speaker).
> >>
> >> People object to being lied to because they know that they are
going
> >to be
> >> tricked into losing.
> >Again, if Delenn (to bring this back to B5) conceals her past, how is
> >she tricking anyone into losing? If Sheridan( to take some heat from
> >Delenn) essentially lies to his subordinates on the first part of
season
> >2 by spying on them for Hague, the end result isn't that they lose.
>
> Babylon 5 is full of earth warriors - both Earthforce and Station
Security.
> One of these warriors could easily decide to revenge the Earth-Minbari
War by
> killing a member of the Grey Council. See G'Kar v The Centauri
Emperor in 'The
> Coming of Shadows'. Delenn would have lost.
>
gains. Who loses? People are, in your scenario, prevented from murder, a
great alliance in the service of life is formed, and an incredibly
beautiful romance results. All the people who benefit from this *gain*.
> The argument that lying is wrong, is a different one from that you
should go
> round admitting wrong unasked.
issue.
Or that it correct to ask such
questions. One
> of the wrongess of Nightwatch.
wrong by questioning them? While the US judicial system recognizes our
right not to answer such questions, they surely can and in many cases (
murder, extortion, theft,rape, etc.) should be asked.
>
> (Whats the correct word for that. It is not sin or crime.)
>
of law by using unsubstantiated charges without trial to ruin people.
They also did not believe in fundamental political rights most of us
believe in - the right to criticize your government among them.
> > When the person in charge of a country lies,
> >practically
> >> the entire country loses.
> >>
> >Always? I find this hard to believe. You seem to be arguing that
keeping
> >state secrets is always bad. Interesting.
>
> In practice it probably depends on wether he is lying for the country
or
> against it. In internal matters he is probably against the county.
>
see circumstances where the national good (the main duty of elected
officials ) would require that the leader lie - and about an internal
matter. For example, do we really all feel we have the right to know all
about investigations into organized crime?
> >> We probably only accept lying in war because we are part of the
group
> >hoping to
> >> gain the advantage.
> >>
> >> Andrew Swallow
> >>
> >Perhaps. As many have said, histroy tends to be written by the
vicotrs.
> >But I believe a lie to save life to be a moral good. To give a
non-war
> >example, if Kant believes I should tell a murderer an intended victim
is
> >in my house, I think he's nuts. If the exxistence of little blue
aliens
> >were proved, but my knowing about it would for some reason lead to my
> >death, I would hope that I would be lied to - even by the President.
>
> Which is stonger? Thou shall not murder. Or thou shall not make false
witness.
>
witness I have heard interpreted as meaning you shouldn't accuse your
neighbor of doing something he/she did not do. Not the same aa lying. 2.
If you tell the murderer where his intended victim is, you are *morally*
an accessory to his crime of murder - you see, results, especially ones
you can prevent, do matter. 3. Lie to me about the aliens - do unto
others ... - a rational person would choose life over knowledge in such
a situation.
> Is there anywhere in the bible it orders you to talk to everbody about
what
> that person wants to talk about?
>
aliens" and he has the choice to a.) lie to me - I live b.) tell me the
truth - I die.
As far as your argument about war, although as I said their is a
question of who writes the histories, there is also a question of, at
least in some cases, and WW2 and the Shadow War come to mind, who is on
the right side. Even if the wrong side had won in these conflicts (yuck)
it would be moral to lie in an attempt to preserve life.
> >
> >Kant and Utilitarianism take off from the Golden Rule, at least to
some
> >extent, and I do not believe this always prohibits lying, or
indicates
> >it is bad.
> >
> >
> >
> >Lisa Coulter
>
>
lcou...@stetson.edu
"Iain Reid" <theva...@callnet0800.com> wrote:
>
> <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message
news:8ek7ar$97q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) wrote:
> > > People lie to make other people behave in a manner advantagous to
the
> > speaker.
> >
> >
> > Here we go again.
> > Not necessarily. I don't think Delenn lied to/ misled Sheridan about
> > Anna because it was in her best interest, but because she (and Kosh)
> > believed it was in his. remember that Minbari believe in the
sanctity of
> > lief.
>
all are
> to be saved". Sherridan was important to the war effort - if he
hadn't been
> there the person who took his place might not have successful as him -
and a
> lot of people would have died because of that. Delenn and Kosh must
have
> wieghed up the probabilities, knowing that if they told him he would
> probably go.
>
> The possible death of countless people weighed against the slim chance
that
> Anna was still alive and the even slimmer possibility that she had
remained
> unaltered by the shadows. Even taking into account the fact that
Delenn
> would gain from not telling John, the right decision was to keep the
truth
> from him.
>
people
the
> speaker". People also often lie to protect others from harm.
>
>
Good points. Thanks. I agree.
Iain Clark
"Iain Reid" <theva...@callnet0800.com> wrote in message
news:8ekmst$98ubi$1...@fu-berlin.de...
Sinclair: "Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't want
to be blamed for something they didn't do and the guilty lie because they
don't have any other choice."
I agree that not everyone lies with the intention of hurting people
(although almost always with the intention of manipulating them, however
benign the motive.)
Repeatedly on B5 the main characters lie, but they always seem to weigh the
consequences of their lie. They are aware that it shows a lack of respect
and trust to the recipient, but they balance the 'greater' good of lying
against the potentially harmful consequences of being truthful. That's what
Sheridan was agonising over when he made his speech about Churchill.
Sheridan and Delenn probably commit "sins of omission", if that's what they
are, more than any other characters in the series. It's probably one of
the reasons why Sheridan is able to forgive Delenn for not telling him about
Anna - because he has been in that same position - for example when he
released Morden, or conspired with Delenn to keep G'kar in the dark. He was
even doing it when we first met him - spying on the command staff of B5 on
behalf of General Hague, to determine their loyalty to Preident Clark.
This argument about the morality of lying cuts both ways, though. Although
he does the traditional politician things such as manipulating the league of
non-aligned worlds through deceit, in Season 5 Sheridan actually tries to be
open and truthful with them on the issue of the Raider attacks. He commits
to passing them the evidence once he is reasonably certain of its veracity.
This puts him in such an awkward position that he later regrets making that
promise - arguably his honesty results in the deaths of many on Centauri
Prime.
Of course, he withheld information from both the league and Londo whilst the
gathered evidence, and the evidence turned out to be misleading because he
was the victim of a malicious deceit, so I suppose it just highlights the
great uncertainty with which we make any 'moral' decision.
Jeff Walther
Possible Crusade Spoiler (third to last episode)
> I agree. One of the things that made B5 so great - actions have
> consequences and we must accept our responsibility and act to atone for
> or clean up bad consequences from the past. At least Sheridan and Delenn
> clearly believe and follow this.
Along those lines, I really liked the ending of the Crusade episode with
the energy being that almost took over the Excalibur's crew. At the end
of the episode there were two dead red shirts. Only they weren't red
shirts, because the episode ended with Gideon dictating the regrets
letters to their families, instead of just ignoring the faceless dead,
like so many other shows do.
Jeff Walther
> don't just lie "to make other people behave in a manner advantagous to the
> speaker". People also often lie to protect others from harm.
>
I believe there are some times circumstances in which lieing is the
morally correct thing to do. However, it should be approached with fear
and trembling. Lieing to another person is a form of oppression.
Think about it. If liberty is, at least in part, the opportunity to make
your own choices, then you must base your choices on the information
available to you. When people lie to you, they change your information,
and that deprives you of the ability to make an informed choice for
yourself. By altering or withholding information they oppress you just as
surely as if they had chained you.
So lieing to someone for their own good is just another form of
oppression, no matter how protective it appears. If people are truly
free, then they're trusted to make their own choices.
Lieing to one person to protect a different person is more justifiable but
still bears the onus of the wrong done to the person lied to.
I was never very happy that the Alliance council didn't tell Londo their
suspicions. They should have laid it all out to him, including their
concerns about how he might be in danger. Londo was a smart guy. He
should have had the opportunity to make his own choices. And as a member
of the council, they were obliged to share that information with him.
That, as much as anything, made it possible for the Drakh to drive a wedge
between the Centauri and the Alliance.
lcou...@stetson.edu
andrewm...@cs.com (Andrew M Swallow) wrote:
> >Telling the truth can often be far more harmfull than a lie, and so
people
> >don't just lie "to make other people behave in a manner advantagous
to the
> >speaker". People also often lie to protect others from harm.
>
to you.
> You may lose their friendship, they may no longer work hard for you or
they may
> even physically attack you.
>
> Andrew Swallow
See, Andrew, that is the problem. Lying may, most times, result in some
gain for the liar (though I find it hard to believe you actually
subscribe to this since you seem to think lying is always wrong.) But
just because that is *one* effect does not make it the main effect, and
does not change the good - loss of harm - that can come from lying.
Are you seriously arguing that all actions in which I gain (advantage or
otherwise) are *wrong*? How about compassion? Delenn, as an example,
sends Dr. Kirkesh to Minbar, or I am compassionate with one of my
students about a situation they are having. Yes, she and I both *gain*
influence by doing this. However, that does not make it wrong! In
general, I would hope an act in which a person gained could in fact be
moral, although this is most likely not always the case. In fact, by
acting in an ethical way, I make it more likely in
general that others will act ethical to me. So are you saying I should
not be ehtical? Really, I doubt this is your point.
In fact, acting unethically (murdering for example) in general results
in negative consequences.
As far as lying, yes the person who may be harmed may act better toward
me if I lie, but how does tha make the lie *itself* wrong? Preventing
harm if we can is an ethic most of us would agree with. If that means
occasional lying, so be it. In addition, if my lie saves a life, I
prevent harm, and quite frankly if I did not lie the person wouldn't be
around to harm me or not. In addition, as I said earlier, if I lie
*knowing* my lie will prevent a murder, I do a positive good; if I tell
the truth *knowing it will cause a murder, I do positive (if there is
such a thing) evil.
Do you believe that if something to my advantage results from an act it
is immoral, so that all moral acts must be completely selfless? If so,
where are you living?
As far as lying being like a weapon, I really don't see the analogy. But
there are certainly times I don't mind it used on me or my loved ones. I
kind of *like* the fact that my children (to use a light-hearted
example) believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. But I do lie to
them about it.
Just some things to think about.
Faith manages - Delenn
lcou...@stetson.edu
"Iain Clark" <iain.c...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
Good post. Just a few comments.
> > Telling the truth can often be far more harmfull than a lie, and so
people
> > don't just lie "to make other people behave in a manner advantagous
to the
> > speaker". People also often lie to protect others from harm.
>
> Sinclair: "Everyone lies, Michael. The innocent lie because they don't
want
> to be blamed for something they didn't do and the guilty lie because
they
> don't have any other choice."
>
> I agree that not everyone lies with the intention of hurting people
> (although almost always with the intention of manipulating them,
however
> benign the motive.)
Perhaps. Or perhaps, just because it is none of the other person's
business. We all have a right to some privacy.
>
> Repeatedly on B5 the main characters lie, but they always seem to
weigh the
> consequences of their lie. They are aware that it shows a lack of
respect
> and trust to the recipient, but they balance the 'greater' good of
lying
> against the potentially harmful consequences of being truthful.
That's what
> Sheridan was agonising over when he made his speech about Churchill.
I agree. What a terrible dilema for him, Delenn and the Minbari Grey
Council.
>
> Sheridan and Delenn probably commit "sins of omission", if that's what
they
> are, more than any other characters in the series. It's probably one
of
> the reasons why Sheridan is able to forgive Delenn for not telling him
about
> Anna - because he has been in that same position - for example when he
> released Morden, or conspired with Delenn to keep G'kar in the dark.
He was
> even doing it when we first met him - spying on the command staff of
B5 on
> behalf of General Hague, to determine their loyalty to Preident Clark.
>
See, I would not even consider these "sins of omission", Others don't
always have a right to know the full truth about things, much as some
would like to believe it. A sin of omission Sheridan does commit, I
think, is not being on board the Prometheus at the start of the EM War,
and from the novelization of In the Beginning, it is obvious he does
feel guilt. As far as hiding the truth, in general it is not really a
sin. As an example, when Sheridan was spying for Hague, he was acting as
a "secret agent". I think there are times this is completely justified.
As far as his forgiving Delenn, I think it is more what he said, he does
realize she was doing what she thought was right - and yeah I know
that's not *always* a good excuse, but in this case given many people's
analysi of her and Kosh's motives it is. And she basically tells
Sheridan what they are. Also, well, he loves her, and in Whatever
Happened to Mr. Garibaldi, at least the way I read it, she gives him
something worth living for.
> This argument about the morality of lying cuts both ways, though.
Although
> he does the traditional politician things such as manipulating the
league of
> non-aligned worlds through deceit, in Season 5 Sheridan actually tries
to be
> open and truthful with them on the issue of the Raider attacks. He
commits
> to passing them the evidence once he is reasonably certain of its
veracity.
> This puts him in such an awkward position that he later regrets making
that
> promise - arguably his honesty results in the deaths of many on
Centauri
> Prime.
>
Definitely true. Doing what you think is right sometimes ends up bad.
> Of course, he withheld information from both the league and Londo
whilst the
> gathered evidence, and the evidence turned out to be misleading
because he
> was the victim of a malicious deceit, so I suppose it just highlights
the
> great uncertainty with which we make any 'moral' decision.
>
> Iain
>
> --
> "Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
> we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
>
>
that's certainly true, and a reason, as Shaz pointed out, that people
like Kant hold to absolutes such as Truth at any consequence. Although I
like absolutes, I can't agree with Kant - consequences are important,
and we must muddle through as best we can.
Andrew M Swallow
they are doing it. However theft stops being advantageous to the thief, if
they are caught and punished.
Drawing up a cost/benefits analysis
Unpunished thief - winner, has goods or what they were sold for.
Heavily punished thief - loser, punishment exceeds the value of the goods.
Lightly punished thief - possible winner, punishment less than the benefit of
the goods.
Prey, goods not returned - loser, deprived of the benefit of the goods, may
have to replace.
Prey, goods returned damaged - loser, deprived of goods for a short while, may
still have to replace.
Prey, goods returned undamaged - small(er) loser, deprived of goods for a short
while. May also have high additional costs such as locks and guards.
Society - loser. High costs such as large transfers from the hardworking and
frugal to the lazy and wasteful. (Not many thieves save/invest the stolen
money.) [I have read that one of the main poverty generators in third world
countries is broken contracts - no one can keep the capital needed to generate
the long term wealth needed to buy themselves out of poverty. Logically if the
people can not escape poverty neither can the country.]
Large security costs also arise - insurance, police, courts and prisons.
The unhappiness generated is likely to be much larger than the smaller amount
of happiness generated by the theft. I doubt the burglar who stole my mothers
wedding ring enjoyed his drugs high for more than a few minutes. It still make
my mother unhappy many * years * later.
An equivalent cost/benefit analysis can be produced for lying. It would be
more complex to allow for the Prey benefiting from the lie. Then apply games
theory.
I am against lying and I am against theft. But I am not Kant. I can imagine
worse things.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew M Swallow
Re: Lying being a weapon.
When you lie to someone you damage them, normal action of using any weapon.
However unlike theft or a stabbing, they may possibly gain from a lie.
The benefits to them must exceed the damage, otherwise it is nothing other than
an attack.
For a lie to count as an act of charity (goodness), the liar must not benefit
from it. Otherwise is it, at best, some sort of business deal. Businessmen
have learnt to be very strict about agreeing their own deals. Otherwise they
get exploited. In all the examples you have given me the liar gains some
advantage.
In the case of misdirecting the murderer - the advantage to the liar is that
they are not an accessory to the crime. The disadvantage to the murderer is
that his task is harder and may become impossible. The advantage to the
intended victim is that she goes on living.
An alternative to lying is to draw a gun and arrest the attempted murderer.
The victim gets the same benefit, you just used a different weapon.
Andrew Swallow
lcou...@stetson.edu
A good analysis of an argument against theivery.
> I am against lying and I am against theft. But I am not Kant. I can
imagine
> worse things.
>
Vir (fictionally) saved lives and yet had to lie. I would argue no sin
is commited. If you are basing your morality on the Bible (which you
seem to be - correct me if I am wrong) then please 1.) find me the
relevant scripture 2.) you should really consider why God said certain
things are moral or not. You see, He gave us reason, a conscience, and
curiosity. This implies to me that He meant us to examine our beliefs,
and , while not necessarily basing them all on logic (this is futile in
any case, see Godel) understand why we believe a thing is true. To quote
Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living". Just some things to
think about.
> Andrew Swallow
lcou...@stetson.edu
tr...@io.com (Jeff Walther) wrote:
> In article <8ekmst$98ubi$1...@fu-berlin.de>, "Iain Reid"
> <theva...@callnet0800.com> wrote:
> >
people
> > don't just lie "to make other people behave in a manner advantagous
to the
> > speaker". People also often lie to protect others from harm.
> >
>
> I believe there are some times circumstances in which lieing is the
> morally correct thing to do. However, it should be approached with
fear
> and trembling.
be the Minbari view.
Lieing to another person is a form of oppression.
>
> Think about it. If liberty is, at least in part, the opportunity to
make
> your own choices, then you must base your choices on the information
> available to you. When people lie to you, they change your
information,
> and that deprives you of the ability to make an informed choice for
> yourself. By altering or withholding information they oppress you
just as
> surely as if they had chained you.
>
> So lieing to someone for their own good is just another form of
> oppression, no matter how protective it appears. If people are truly
> free, then they're trusted to make their own choices.
>
am wrong, in many ways, you just echoed Kant.
> Lieing to one person to protect a different person is more justifiable
> still bears the onus of the wrong done to the person lied to.*
(Emhasis added.) Then are you changing and saying lying is never right?
I am a bit confused. As for comparing lying to physical oppression
(chaining) if you really believe this you must be very unhappy as
anywhere you live that I am aware of the government, in your words, "has
you in chains". You see, I do think lying in a just cause and the
oppression you mention is different.
>
> I was never very happy that the Alliance council didn't tell Londo
their
> suspicions. They should have laid it all out to him, including their
> concerns about how he might be in danger. Londo was a smart guy. He
> should have had the opportunity to make his own choices. And as a
member
> of the council, they were obliged to share that information with him.
his knowledge had caused the death (at least as far as they could tell)
of a witness.
> That, as much as anything, made it possible for the Drakh to drive a
wedge
> between the Centauri and the Alliance.
bombs they had. Arguably, even without a Keeper, which of course they
had on both the Regent and evantually Londo, that alone would have been
enough to blackmail the Centauri leadership. Plus any war fleet the
Drakh most likely had. If you are the Centauri, who are you more afraid
of, high level Shadow servants who can and will(remember their ethics)
do you harm or the Alliance which may or may not (given their ehtics).
Iain Clark
<lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message news:8emrqi$6mm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000501162025...@ng-cd1.news.cs.com>,
<snip>
> Do you believe that if something to my advantage results from an act it
> is immoral, so that all moral acts must be completely selfless? If so,
> where are you living?
And can any act of charity truly be selfless? The charitable person will
always feel better about themselves from the act of charity, and therefore
gain by it, even if they lose in other ways. I think this was a storyline
on (of all things) Friends.
> As far as lying being like a weapon, I really don't see the analogy. But
> there are certainly times I don't mind it used on me or my loved ones. I
> kind of *like* the fact that my children (to use a light-hearted
> example) believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. But I do lie to
> them about it.
I think this is moving onto the debate about storytellers being professional
liars!
To my mind, children blur what's real and what's a story without any
assistance - in fact it seems tough to avoid, so it's natural to believe in
the conspiracy that is Father Christmas! The child enjoys the story like
any vivid story, and later learns to differentiate it from reality. You
could even argue that it's a beneficial part of that learning process, and
in the meantime at least it encourages imagination.
I suppose in absolute terms it's still a lie, but you're right that no-one
gains from it except in pleasure, and no-one loses from it.