What do we think is always safe to use as a standard of evil?
What kind of person/Who do we always see as good?
What is the scariest thing that can happen visually?
-scariest thing in general?
I just wanted to use this to springboard ideas....(kind of a help for the "What makes a hero" response.
8 comments:
Cait got me thinking about who we always see as good. This might be off topic slightly, but I pretty sure most people see Santa Clause aas good, but I watched a movie recently called "Rare Export" from Finland and Santa was actually an evil monster who ate children. this came from old mythology. ACtually if you rearrange the letters in Santa you get Satan. That's kind of freaky actually.
Evil = Murdering "innocents": puppies, children, etc. The desire to hurt for no reason than out of a perverted view of justice or sense of pleasure.
Good = defending "innocents." The desire to give aid for no apparent reason than out of an idealized view of justice or sense of pleasure in doing good (which can also be viewed as perverted, just in a different way).
Doing evil or doing good contain elements of selfish motivation.
I've sometimes wondered if Angel and co. would save anyone who didn't "deserve" it. Like, what if a demon or low-life came to them for help? Would they refuse because of the icky personality or past actions of that person/demon? Is it right to refuse aid to certain people? Just a thought.
I agree with Adam. I think Santa is creepy. Especially when his name is an anagram for Satan. Yikes!
To go off of Anna's comment about helping people who didn't "deserve it" as well as good being defined as defending the innocent, I think a mixture of the two would be another component to what can be considered a standard of good. An additional standard of good, to me at least, are people who come to the aid of a person/situation/animal/etc. when nobody else really will--especially if it's not a hugely dire problem. I think the good comes from the little things in which particular people step up when most turn a blind eye.
For example, if you're rushing somewhere and you walk by someone who just dropped a million papers all over the hall--do you stop and help them or not? They won't die a Whedon-esque death from it, but they're still in a bind and most people (and I'm truly not implying that most people are jerks!) would pass by.
People who sense a responsibility to others even about mundane things seem to be an extra level of goodness.
The whole "good vs. evil" thing is definitely not black and white. Going off what Hannah said, seeing a person drop his or her papers and not helping is not very nice.However, watching someone get beaten up and not calling the police is worse, still not evil, but worse. So I think it is not a matter of who is good and who is evil, but rather, who is less evil.
It's difficult to establish good v. evil. There are somethings that are obviously one or the other but there is a very large grey area for sure. I think a lot of it comes down to one's own moral and personal beliefs. What I see as good or evil is not necessarily the same as someone else.
@Ryan, I think a lot of people, especially in the creative world, as we see by way of the cliches in television would argue that at least EVIL is the same for most people, I see a lot of people willing to leave the definition for "GOOD" open, but a lot of people argue that evil is universal.
Characters in the Whedon-verse *do* help people who are less than deserving...we just haven't watched many of those episodes! Darn the confines of time!
Post a Comment