Why is it ok for good guys to kill
- Thread starter Merkavar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Anybody who gets killed by an ideologically-based group or person could have avoided it, yet they didn't.
In the case of the Evil Lair Security Guards, they either signed up to protect it knowing what happened there, or they didn't take the time to research their prospective employer. If you're going to be the muscle that stops intruders, you'd better have some idea of what you're protecting. Either way, they're just human shields that the senior commanders thew up to protect themselves.
In the case of the Young Conscript Soldier, there is still a choice. If you don't like the political climate in your country and war is brewing, leave. Even if the country doesn't allow you to leave, try to make it. You'll either be jailed, in which case you don't end up fighting, or you'll be killed on the spot, in which case you didn't contribute to the cause you attempted to flee. Or defect after conscription. Give whatever intelligence you can to the other side. As much as I hope there is a special spot in hell for traitors, deserters, and mutineers, it's not my beliefs that should stay your feet. And, once again, they're the human shields for the senior commanders.
Even the Innocent Bystander could have avoided such an death. This is the only group that garners any sympathy from me, because it is often difficult and painful to leave your life behind to escape to a less ideologically-targeted area. But it is still possible to avoid it by leaving. The victims of terrorist attacks and other such acts of destruction are tragic losses to their affiliated country, family, company, friends, and really anyone attached to them. It's nearly impossible to place any kind of significant blame on these people. But if, say, an Iranian citizen is killed in a raid on their uranium centrifuges or breeder reactors, I won't lose sleep. Don't be so close to such a hot target.
TL;DR: One can avoid becoming 'collateral damage' by removing one's self from the situation entirely.
In the case of the Evil Lair Security Guards, they either signed up to protect it knowing what happened there, or they didn't take the time to research their prospective employer. If you're going to be the muscle that stops intruders, you'd better have some idea of what you're protecting. Either way, they're just human shields that the senior commanders thew up to protect themselves.
In the case of the Young Conscript Soldier, there is still a choice. If you don't like the political climate in your country and war is brewing, leave. Even if the country doesn't allow you to leave, try to make it. You'll either be jailed, in which case you don't end up fighting, or you'll be killed on the spot, in which case you didn't contribute to the cause you attempted to flee. Or defect after conscription. Give whatever intelligence you can to the other side. As much as I hope there is a special spot in hell for traitors, deserters, and mutineers, it's not my beliefs that should stay your feet. And, once again, they're the human shields for the senior commanders.
Even the Innocent Bystander could have avoided such an death. This is the only group that garners any sympathy from me, because it is often difficult and painful to leave your life behind to escape to a less ideologically-targeted area. But it is still possible to avoid it by leaving. The victims of terrorist attacks and other such acts of destruction are tragic losses to their affiliated country, family, company, friends, and really anyone attached to them. It's nearly impossible to place any kind of significant blame on these people. But if, say, an Iranian citizen is killed in a raid on their uranium centrifuges or breeder reactors, I won't lose sleep. Don't be so close to such a hot target.
TL;DR: One can avoid becoming 'collateral damage' by removing one's self from the situation entirely.
Usually if the villian escapes he'd probably take more lives then the few security guards the hero dispatched while chasing after him.
Because in fiction a person is often deemed good or bad because of their 'end goals' not the 'means in which they do them.'
I always cringe a little in a movie when they break someone out of prison or something similar. Those guards don't have any political power! They're just doing their job!
I always cringe a little in a movie when they break someone out of prison or something similar. Those guards don't have any political power! They're just doing their job!
sacrifice a few, save many
kill the bad guy to prevent further killing by him (classic ethical issue)
or as the Operative from Serenity put it: "I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done." - so, it's not ok at all for the good guys to kill, but it's a necessary evil. there are no good evil-doers (killing is evil, thus who kills is evil, no matter what his intentions are)
btw, the quote above is one of my all time favourites. its meaning and the way Ejiofor delivered it is just pure awesomenessness.
kill the bad guy to prevent further killing by him (classic ethical issue)
or as the Operative from Serenity put it: "I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done." - so, it's not ok at all for the good guys to kill, but it's a necessary evil. there are no good evil-doers (killing is evil, thus who kills is evil, no matter what his intentions are)
btw, the quote above is one of my all time favourites. its meaning and the way Ejiofor delivered it is just pure awesomenessness.
This is why orcs, aliens, and zombies are popular bad guys, particularly in the, uh, less high-brow genres where philosophical concepts are less important than a thrilling story--it's a quick and lazy way for writers/developers/filmmakers to throw action into a piece without much need to justify things morally.
Same thing with generic human thugs. Except that for the heroes to still be completely in the right we need to make it explicit that the nameless goons that get gunned down by the truckload totally, like, hated our way of life, and stuff.
The more dehumanized an antagonist is the more easily his/her death is brushed aside. More human foes will either warrant more depth of character (from both them and the protagonists!), or will produce a rather different effect from the norm upon their untimely demise at the hands of a wisecracking everyman.
Same thing with generic human thugs. Except that for the heroes to still be completely in the right we need to make it explicit that the nameless goons that get gunned down by the truckload totally, like, hated our way of life, and stuff.
The more dehumanized an antagonist is the more easily his/her death is brushed aside. More human foes will either warrant more depth of character (from both them and the protagonists!), or will produce a rather different effect from the norm upon their untimely demise at the hands of a wisecracking everyman.
I would say it's more along the lines of collateral damage, and this is an excellent point to bring up. The faceless goons that heros tear through do have personalities, families and such.
It's 'The Matrix Reloaded' and I agree: It's hard to justify causing so much collateral damage, especially because the heroes in The Matrix movies are trying to save humanity.Susurrus said:
Happens all the time. In movies where the guy is condemned for a murder he didn't commit, he'll go on the war path to prove his innocence, often causing mayhem and a multitude of other crimes in the process. By the end, he'll have proved he didn't commit that murder, so all is fine. Never mind that real life courts love to find alternate ways to prosecute a fugitive, even if they turn out to be innocent of the original crime (running from the police is a crime too).
Because it's entertainment and the audience is supposed to support the hero in everything he does, including leaving a sea of bodies in his wake.
I've seen some things where it seemed like the only difference between the hero and the villain were the reasons why they were doing all the killing. It is a bit alarming how we're supposed to accept a mass murderer all because he's doing it for "all the right reasons." Frankly, I prefer the heroes that try their best not to kill every offender they run across. It's much more of a challege to bring someone to justice after seeing them do something that your gut is telling you they should die for.
I've seen some things where it seemed like the only difference between the hero and the villain were the reasons why they were doing all the killing. It is a bit alarming how we're supposed to accept a mass murderer all because he's doing it for "all the right reasons." Frankly, I prefer the heroes that try their best not to kill every offender they run across. It's much more of a challege to bring someone to justice after seeing them do something that your gut is telling you they should die for.
It is for this reason that I really want a movie to have the following scene:ShadowStar42 said:
Good guy pulls gun on bad guy. Bad guy gives cliched "You can't do it, you're too weak" line, or someone says the completely false statement that "if you kill him you'll be just like him". Then the hero just goes "Uh, no, you're wrong", and blows the guy's brains out.
There are so many things that I wonder why good guys are able to get away with. Such as theft and property damage. They are never held accountable.
After what the Transformers did at the beginning of the 2nd movie you would think that country would have been ready to declare war.
After what the Transformers did at the beginning of the 2nd movie you would think that country would have been ready to declare war.
Maybe I've been ninjaed, but remember the ending to Fight Club?
blow up the buildings where the 'evil doers' did their 'evil stuff'. But what about the innocent employees in those buildings? And you see them crash onto the ground. What about the people underneath the buildings? Like, holy shit that's a lot of innocent lives lost. But it's for the greater good right?
First of all, my apologies for what I am about to write.x EvilErmine x said:
So their insurance covers accidental overdose does it? It's heroine. With an "e".
Secondly, or I suppose third now, apologies for picking on you. 99% of the time it's someone spelling "Heroin" with an e, i.e. talking about people getting addicted to Joan of Arc, so you as the flip side stood out a bit.
OT: Yeah, movies and TV take liberties like that. If people acted like that IRL they'd be struck off the force or whatever and jailed pretty quickly and I imagine their seniors would be demoted for ever having hired such a dangerous nutcase in the first place.
There are a number of reasons. Killing bad guys is easily justified because they are not people but rather the enemy. Dehumanizing the opposition is perhaps the most important step in justifying their slaughter and making the process palatable to observers. See, for example, the common trend of calling every insurgent in Iraq a "terrorist" (with terrorist already being defined as an inhuman monster out to destroy everything you hold dear).
But what about people who don't deserve it? Well, there the difference is harder to justify. The most common way is that where the bad guys do it intentionally at worst (or at best don't even consider the possibility of collateral damage) the good guys view collateral damage as something to be avoided at any cost. Simply because it is at worst an accident for the "good guys" is somehow acceptable (or at least more acceptable than the alternative).
But what about people who don't deserve it? Well, there the difference is harder to justify. The most common way is that where the bad guys do it intentionally at worst (or at best don't even consider the possibility of collateral damage) the good guys view collateral damage as something to be avoided at any cost. Simply because it is at worst an accident for the "good guys" is somehow acceptable (or at least more acceptable than the alternative).
