For me, I'd feel bad about not being able to save those people, but if saving their lives meant dehumanizing an individual for the rest of their days and basically having to torture them if they don't go along with what you want, that would cross a line for me. That's something I truly couldn't live with. Bad things are always going to happen in the world, and trying to stop them all is impossible. It's also wrong if it means treating certain people as sub-human, or just walking crystal balls with no say in their own use.
Yeah, like when he tries to stop the casino robbery. Something small like that, and he's almost arrested. Then it's getting strapped to that chair for the "greater good."
A compromise would be if you treated it like it was just another job in the police force or something. They would get a salary for their time and contributions, and they'd be able to support themselves and live their lives aside from that role.
This was a concept I meant to discuss on the Heroes board before the topic died down. There'd be people complaining that the good guys aren't really heroes since they don't use their powers much to help in "normal" life.
"Why doesn't freeze lady fix the melting ice caps?"
"Shouldn't time-travel guy undo every major disaster?"
It occurred to me that this isn't responsibility... for the rest of us. This is a world where 17 gifted people put aside their own lives to fix all the world's problems solely out of the goodness of their hearts. They'd be guilted/forced into cleaning up everyone else's mess.
And another thing - how would you feel if you found out that our taxpayer money was being spent to prove the existence of psychics and then force them to help, without compensating them, I might add. How much does Moore's character earn? Are we paying for her Las Vegas trip? Maybe if she'd done some investigating work herself instead of searching for magic people, she'd have discovered the terrorists are on her own city spying on her office.
reply
share
The-Phantom-2040
12 years ago
And another thing - how would you feel if you found out that our taxpayer money was being spent to prove the existence of psychics and then force them to help, without compensating them, I might add.
Well, I'd certainly question why recruiting them--as mentioned above, regarding paying them for their services and otherwise treating it like a "job"--wasn't happening. If the answer was because they refused to help, I'd still be on the fence. I think that the weight of other human lives can't, or at least shouldn't, be set aside. If someone's life truly depended on someone like Cris who refused to help--I think that while I wouldn't be
fine with it, I'd ultimately accept it because I believe in the "greater good".
----------------
Sometimes You Plant Seeds For Trees You Will Never Sit Under
reply
share
mlooi
9 years ago
The movie "Source Code" (2011) seems the definite answer Hollywood's consensus gives to this question: even half a body is enough to keep alive, in order to exploit the brain and it's exceptional skills of a soldier "for saving lives".
I personally don't believe in that crap, since it remains nothing more than "an assumption of success". While the condemning and multi-level reduction of the individual, for which it serves as motivation, is nothing of an assumption, but a most certain fate.
This is how war, abortion, euthanasia and surgical interventions, are usually motivated - all measures of immediate, real and irreversible effect,
based on fictive, assumed, predicted and mostly highly dramatised "fixed ideas" of some authority. Who then brainwashes everyone else into that same belief.
reply
share