seems like maybe the others are good, right? if ethan did that bad stuff on his own? but still there is ben's secrecy. too much. this episode screwed up my brain.

I think with all the talk of being the "good guys" the others certainly think that they are good. My guess is that it's a matter of the ends justifying the means. They have good intentions initially but they have sure done some questionable things to achieve their goals. The question in the end will be if it really is justifiable for all they've done.

Ahhhh...an old favorite thread redone again for this episode....

It is about perspective....They think they are good...doing good for the rest of the world!

seems like maybe the others are good, right? if ethan did that bad stuff on his own? but still there is ben's secrecy. too much. this episode screwed up my brain.

Well, after this epi it seems they may have "good" intentions but forcing Juliet to stay on the island against her will, not helping the plane survivors after the crash and stealing children is going too far.

Yep, it's the ol' perspective theme which is THE major theme of Lost, imho.

much was revealed. some actions thought to be evil were for a greater good. The Others act in good spirit but they also seem to act in the name of some unusual sciences. I think they are scientists first and people second. Instead of helping, they observe. Instead of answering questions, they create more questions. I like when the show back tracks and shows what happened from their perspective. I still dont like the boogers but at last now i understand their motivation.

Good? No, I don't even think in the beginning they were. I'm starting to think that what ever medical research they are doing. Curing cancer or whatever will be sold to the highest bidder. It is a privite company that has them on that island. Not a goverment, so the cure would be released to the masses. Nope it's all coming down to money.

Plus I believe Ben, Jaocb or whoever is in charge was never going to let Juliette or anyone else off that island.

Of course they're good. Look, if they live on an island that has something connected with it that has the ability to manifest peoples' hidden desires - no matter how frightening they may be - it would be suicide for the Others to harbor someone in their midst who would manifest nightmares. So one of the basic foundations of their society is to insure that every member is good enough so that they don't have destruction rained down on them through "The Box" manifesting someone's hidden fears.

They're not "bad" or "good," and neither are the Losties. They are shades of gray, with sympathetic sides and not-so-good deeds. Just like real life!

They're not "bad" or "good," and neither are the Losties. They are shades of gray, with sympathetic sides and not-so-good deeds. Just like real life!

Then why have TPTB made such a big deal about it? What about Mikhail's big speech about the Losties being all "damaged goods"? No, there is definitely a very strong "Good" versus "Not Good" theme going on. Now, as far as a philosophical stance, I agree with you - people are never completely good or bad. But this is a TV show, not reality...

They have good intentions initially but they have sure done some questionable things to achieve their goals. The question in the end will be if it really is justifiable for all they've done.


Exactly. I've been saying this for a while.
But I think my opinion on the others doing these things to the castaways for 'greater good' will change in the next 5 episodes. The others DON'T seem to be up to any good.

It's the Others/Ben's singlemindedness that has caused them to act questionably.
I wouldn't call that good, but considering what they're trying to achieve, they're hardly evil either.

Every person does things for the greater good, WW2 was fought because a certain group though they were cleansing the earth for the greater good. Today people blow them selves up for the greater good. African fighters slay thousands of other African civilians for the greater good. Good can only be defined by your actions. Leaving 40 people to fend for themselves, after such a traumatic event, while you live in luxury is not good. It is selfish! Kid napping, manipulating, and hurting the survivors of the crash for any reason is not good.

Every person does things for the greater good, WW2 was fought because a certain group though they were cleansing the earth for the greater good. Today people blow them selves up for the greater good. African fighters slay thousands of other African civilians for the greater good. Good can only be defined by your actions. Leaving 40 people to fend for themselves, after such a traumatic event, while you live in luxury is not good. It is selfish! Kid napping, manipulating, and hurting the survivors of the crash for any reason is not good.

Good can only be defined by cultural mores. Different societies have different morals. The Others' society defines its actions through its own set of morals. In their eyes they are doing good, and for all we know they have a very valid basis for their beliefs. Thinking that your own set of morals ought to be universally applied to all other societies is not a very good way to go about understanding what motivates other peoples' behaviors, which is what we're really trying to do here in terms of the Others...

[ Leaving 40 people to fend for themselves, after such a traumatic event, while you live in luxury is not good. It is selfish!
[/COLOR]

But I wonder, if we were in the same position - a small isolated community - would we welcome a large group of murderers, con-men, torturers, etc, etc into our midst?

Maybe I'm looking too deep at this. I think the Others represents all those in the world that have good intentions for humanity, but for some reason or other they eventually run amuck with lawlessness. I mean to discover the cure for cancer and not share it?

Maybe I'm looking too deep at this. I think the Others represents all those in the world that have good intentions for humanity, but for some reason or other they eventually run amuck with lawlessness. I mean to discover the cure for cancer and not share it?

Yes, however, if the cure for cancer is tied in with the Box, then of course they wouldn't want to share it. Think about it. Given the nature of the world as it is, would you want the whole world to know about a way to manifest desires? It would be the recipe for global catastrophe.
100%
But I wonder, if we were in the same position - a small isolated community - would we welcome a large group of murderers, con-men, torturers, etc, etc into our midst?

Well said!

Given the nature of the world as it is, would you want the whole world to know about a way to manifest desires? It would be the recipe for global catastrophe.

Good point. Then again, if it was a pharmaceutical company running the experiments it would be to their best interest to retain the secret to cancer.

seems like maybe the others are good, right? if ethan did that bad stuff on his own? but still there is ben's secrecy. too much. this episode screwed up my brain.In the middle of running a con on the Lostees, Juliet disassociated herself from Ethan by claiming he acted on his own against the intent of the Others. If that is true why did the Others he was acting in concert with place an implant in Claire? Why did they cooperate with Ethan in keeping her prisoner and drugged? Why didn't they return her to her own people? Why didn't they discipline Ethan for his actions? Ethan was not acting on his own in taking Claire. True they may have wished to conceal their presence & actions from the Lostees but Ethan when faced with discovery was forced to act and their acceptance of his actions indicates approval by the rest of the Others.

But I wonder, if we were in the same position - a small isolated community - would we welcome a large group of murderers, con-men, torturers, etc, etc into our midst? LOL So you assume every plane that crashes is full of murderers, con-men, torturers and etc etc.;) The Others sent people to investigate not help so that might be their outlook too. But they did not know what kind of people were on the plane when it crashed or how many survivors there might be. Even now we have learned about a minority of the Lostee group so we can not say for sure that they are a large group of murderers, con-men, torturers, etc, etc. (is 40+/- a large group? compared to the Others?) Even if we make that premature assumption that most of the plane passengers or surviving Lostees are that sort of person, the Others declined to help them before they knew if any of them were bad, good or inbetween. Besides extending help to crash survivors does not mean you have to welcome all of them to your community.

Edited to add

Good can only be defined by cultural mores. Different societies have different morals. The Others' society defines its actions through its own set of morals. In their eyes they are doing good, and for all we know they have a very valid basis for their beliefs. Thinking that your own set of morals ought to be universally applied to all other societies is not a very good way to go about understanding what motivates other peoples' behaviors, which is what we're really trying to do here in terms of the Others...
I am not sure we are dealing with a completely different society here. It looks more like a cult or company operation that originated from within our own society. In that case it is appropriate to use our societies standards to judge them. Even if they were a different society we would tend to use the standards that we understand to judge them with, when they forcibly interact with us. Yes that could lead to misunderstandings on both sides if we don't try to understand the Others through some study or social anthropology process. But they are the ones who initiated contact so the onus of doing a study and understanding might be placed at their feet not at the Lostees feet. I think we, through our viewing/introduction to the groups within the show, largely equate ourselves with the Lostees and use their/our standards to judge those forcing the interaction (the Others).

1- Manipulation
2- Deceit
3- Inprisonment
4- kidnapping
5- purging (Dharma?)

These are all things that can be attributed to Ben and the others in some way.

However, they do claim to be good. But I found it funny that Juliet was afraid of smokey. I also believe that smokey is karma incarnate and that it would have judged her. That's why the others like living inside a gated community. They fear judgment from smokey.

I am not sure we are dealing with a completely different society here. It looks more like a cult or company operation that originated from within our own society. In that case it is appropriate to use our societies standards to judge them. Even if they were a different society we would tend to use the standards that we understand to judge them with, when they forcibly interact with us. Yes that could lead to misunderstandings on both sides if we don't try to understand the Others through some study or social anthropology process. But they are the ones who initiated contact so the onus of doing a study and understanding might be placed at their feet not at the Lostees feet. I think we, through our viewing/introduction to the groups within the show, largely equate ourselves with the Lostees and use their/our standards to judge those forcing the interaction (the Others).

If this society has been on the Island since at least from the time of the shipwreck of the Black Rock in the year 1881, and if it also was cut off from all interaction with the outside world until the time that Dharma arrived in the year 1970 or later, then there was PLENTY of time (about 90 years) for the Island people to have developed their own unique society. This would especially be true if some of those people had come from different cultures originally, which since the Black Rock was carrying slaves, would almost certainly have been the case.

The Others are made up mostly from people who were descendants from this earlier Island society - NOT from Dharma people. As such, most of their cultural mores and norms would be from the earlier nativist population, NOT from "a cult or company operation that originated from within our own society", such as you are maintaining.

Here is the basic message: IF you wish to understand the motivations of the Others, you MUST accept that they have their own set of cultural values, norms, morals, ethics, etc. And you MUST accept that these will be different than yours.

However, you don't HAVE to accept this condition if all you want to do is label the Others as Evil and have done with it. You are welcome to castigate Ben and Company with as much vitrolic nastiness that the spell checker on the Fuselage will permit. But that won't get you very far if you really want to understand what makes them do what they do.

I absolutely believe that the Others have very good reasons for doing what they feel is necessary for their survival and for the best of their community. If this makes them evil in the minds of some, then they are simply judging and condemning the Others from their own perspective. Hey, it's easier than heck to judge someone else's culture as being evil, but it still won't help you understand why they are doing something that doesn't make sense to you. And isn't that what all these threads are about? Trying to figure it all out?

I'm sure Al Qaida also have their own cultural values that tell them blowing up yourself in the middle of a bunch of civilians is the right thing to do.

Here is the basic message: IF you wish to understand the motivations of the Others, you MUST accept that they have their own set of cultural values, norms, morals, ethics, etc. And you MUST accept that these will be different than yours.

However, you don't HAVE to accept this condition if all you want to do is label the Others as Evil and have done with it. You are welcome to castigate Ben and Company with as much vitrolic nastiness that the spell checker on the Fuselage will permit. But that won't get you very far if you really want to understand what makes them do what they do. Um er :eek2: I did pepper my post with non-absolutes such as, "not sure "' "looks more like ",and "might be". I was not trying to dismiss your viewpoint. I rather agreed with your post. However re their being a different society instead of an off shoot of ours - Look at the intermixing that has gone on. People who we either saw come from our society (Juliet, Cindy Locke) or pass for a member of our society (Goodwin, Ethan, Ben) are plentiful and their group carries with it the trappings of US suburbia, in book clubs discussing current books, clothing that could pass on any street corner here, typical housing, recreational activities and language including some current slang plus frequent dealings with and through an active company in the US. I think that adds up to a lot of off set for the presence of a single ship that may or may not have had survivors. In my mind the majority of the clues point towards an off shoot of our society that developed since the 60's. Assuming a population that has been almost completely isolated since the Black Rock wrecked until recent time might be akin to a situation like Pitcairn Island. If the Lostees were in contact with Pitcairn residents there would be plenty of room for misunderstandings but even more room for common ground including basic morals such as rendering aid to the injured and will murder, abductions and treating people as guinea pigs be allowed? There should be a lot of overlapping motivations and standards - shared culture. I think that any possible existing island society was absorbed into the new society.

We do not have to accept that the Other's are a completely different society with different standards if we are trying to understand them. We can look at that as a possibility without leaping to it as a base hypothesis. Considering the external similarities to our society I think we should first attempt to understand the Others by treating them as if they might have common standards with us. The Lostees as a group show a wide range of motivations. Since some of the Other's can pass for Lostees and some of the Lostees are suitable for membership in the Other's, I think we will find the behavior of the Others fits within the range of motivations shown by the Lostees. (OK I don’t understand all of the Lostees motivations either)



Ps Ben is evil ;)


Edited to add:
I'm sure Al Qaida also have their own cultural values that tell them blowing up yourself in the middle of a bunch of civilians is the right thing to do.
I think here we are just talking about understanding the Others not agreeing with them.

Yes, however, if the cure for cancer is tied in with the Box, then of course they wouldn't want to share it. Think about it. Given the nature of the world as it is, would you want the whole world to know about a way to manifest desires? It would be the recipe for global catastrophe.
100%

Good point. There's a Twilight Zone episode based on that very idea with interesting implications that might parallel the Others' situation.

I'm sure Al Qaida also have their own cultural values that tell them blowing up yourself in the middle of a bunch of civilians is the right thing to do.

Bingo. That's absolutely correct. Al Qaeda indeed DOES believe that what they are doing is "good" and "Godly". So did the Conquistadores in how they enslaved and killed millions of Native Americans in their silver mines. So did the Pilgrims when they knowingly gave the Native Americans blankets that were infected with smallpox. Do you want more examples?
100%
I was not trying to dismiss your viewpoint. I rather agreed with your post. However re their being a different society instead of an off shoot of ours - Look at the intermixing that has gone on.

My apologies Fogey. I got a bit pedantic there... It's just a TV show, and ultimately it doesn't amount to a hill of beans whether the Others' society dates back to the Black Rock or not. Sometimes I get confused and believe that this all is very important. :redface:

We do not have to accept that the Other's are a completely different society with different standards if we are trying to understand them. We can look at that as a possibility without leaping to it as a base hypothesis.

I think here we are just talking about understanding the Others not agreeing with them.

Yes, this is what I'm saying... The reason that the Others appear to people to be evil (including Ben) is basically because they are being judged from outside their own society. There are no cultural absolutes that transcend all societies. What people interpret as evil being done among the Others is actually proof that the Others society is substantially different from mainstream Western European. The reason I say that is due to the fact that more than a few times the writers have basically told us that the Others think of themselves as "good". If then what they do appears to us to be evil, the problem lies in that we do not understand the Others' society and values, not that they are evil in fact.

Does that make sense?

So did the Pilgrims when they knowingly gave the Native Americans blankets that were infected with smallpox.I think that was done by the US government long after the Pilgrim era. As was testing biological agents by releasing them in the NY subway system and testing VD treatments by allowing infected people (black) to go untreated as a control group.
The reason that the Others appear to people to be evil (including Ben) is basically because they are being judged from outside their own society..............Does that make sense? It does if they are are a complete and separate society However mainstream western European society includes examples such as Jim Jones and Jones town, the KKK , the mafia, the events that occured between the English and the Irish or any of numerous other examples. They could exhibit all the behaviors we have seen and still be a part of, or offshoot from, Western society & thus fit to be judged by our standards.

It does if they are are a complete and separate society However mainstream western European society includes examples such as Jim Jones and Jones town, the KKK , the mafia, the events that occured between the English and the Irish or any of numerous other examples. They could exhibit all the behaviors we have seen and still be a part of, or offshoot from, Western society & thus fit to be judged by our standards.

I see now that the basis of our disagreement lies in the fact that we both have different definitions of what precisely would constitute a separate society. I see the Others' society as being separate, with its own unique mores and values, and you see it as being part of the larger mainstream Western European society. At least we both understand one another.

I tell you what, from now on when I make reference to the idea of the Others' society being separate, I'll make sure to put in a caveat that other people feel differently about this. Perhaps you too could extend the same courtesy. :)

Good can only be defined by cultural mores. Different societies have different morals. The Others' society defines its actions through its own set of morals. In their eyes they are doing good, and for all we know they have a very valid basis for their beliefs. Thinking that your own set of morals ought to be universally applied to all other societies is not a very good way to go about understanding what motivates other peoples' behaviors, which is what we're really trying to do here in terms of the Others...

No, the question posed was "Are the Others good?" not "What is the motivation of the Others?"

The Others are not good. The motives of the Others are apparently to serve the needs and ends of their own clan, with absolutely no regard for any other individual or other group. This is pretty close to the DEFINITION of evil. They have no qualms whatsoever about taking innocent lives to further their own ends, or kidnapping children to provide a future for their clan. It doesn't matter whether or not they are clever enough to justify to themselves that they are "the good guys". They are evil.
100%
The reason that the Others appear to people to be evil (including Ben) is basically because they are being judged from outside their own society. There are no cultural absolutes that transcend all societies. What people interpret as evil being done among the Others is actually proof that the Others society is substantially different from mainstream Western European. The reason I say that is due to the fact that more than a few times the writers have basically told us that the Others think of themselves as "good". If then what they do appears to us to be evil, the problem lies in that we do not understand the Others' society and values, not that they are evil in fact.

Sure, most people will think of themselves as good if they can. In fact, anyone will think of anything that serves his own interests as "good" if he does not know better. This does not mean that absolute good and evil do not exist -- they do. (I'm not saying that any one person can be absolute good or evil.) Cruelty is evil, for example. Philosophies that champion cruelty as "good", such as Nazism, and apparently "Otherism," are evil. That said, genuine ignorance of what is good and evil is a mitigating factor. Societies where no one knows anything but cruelty cannot be judged by the same standards because they don't have the freedom that comes with knowledge of good. But I don't think the Others can claim ignorance any more than the Nazis could. I think they are responsible for the philosophy they have adopted, as is every educated person.

No, the question posed was "Are the Others good?" not "What is the motivation of the Others?"

The question of "Are the Others good?" can (in my opinion) only be answered by judging their society through their own values. This is not what everyone believes, but it is what I was taught in college. To understand a society, one must separate oneself from his or her own subjectivity in order to best make sense of the other society. And then this society may only be accurately judged through their own worldview. The idea of what motivates the others doesn't accurately portray what I was doing, but seems to be your interpretation of it.

The Others are not good. The motives of the Others are apparently to serve the needs and ends of their own clan, with absolutely no regard for any other individual or other group. This is pretty close to the DEFINITION of evil. They have no qualms whatsoever about taking innocent lives to further their own ends, or kidnapping children to provide a future for their clan. It doesn't matter whether or not they are clever enough to justify to themselves that they are "the good guys". They are evil.

You say this as if you are absolutely stating a universally held law of nature. But it is far from being universal. There is no clear definition of what constitutes "good" or "evil". Besides, you are still imposing your own set of values on another society.

Sure, most people will think of themselves as good if they can. In fact, anyone will think of anything that serves his own interests as "good" if he does not know better. This does not mean that absolute good and evil do not exist -- they do. (I'm not saying that any one person can be absolute good or evil.) Cruelty is evil, for example. Philosophies that champion cruelty as "good", such as Nazism, and apparently "Otherism," are evil. That said, genuine ignorance of what is good and evil is a mitigating factor. Societies where no one knows anything but cruelty cannot be judged by the same standards because they don't have the freedom that comes with knowledge of good. But I don't think the Others can claim ignorance any more than the Nazis could. I think they are responsible for the philosophy they have adopted, as is every educated person.

Your assertion that absolute evil and good exist is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I'm sure in your worldview such is the case - they do exist for you. However, you just simply cannot force other people to believe as you do. I myself do not believe in an absolute good or evil, and I know many other people who are the same, including some very noted philosophers.

To place a label that is entirely subjective on the Others as "good" or "evil" therefore (in my opinion) is foolish, because first there is no universally recognized definition for good or evil, and second, the Others' society ought to be judged by its own standards, not yours. This entire thread is basically a philosophical debate on the number of angels that can dance on the tip of a pin.

No, the question posed was "Are the Others good?" not "What is the motivation of the Others?"LOL I guess Saukkomies and I drifted off into good by whose standards ours or theirs or a mix perhaps as you add on an absolute basis.

The Others are not good. The motives of the Others are apparently to serve the needs and ends of their own clan, with absolutely no regard for any other individual or other group. This is pretty close to the DEFINITION of evil. They have no qualms whatsoever about taking innocent lives to further their own ends, or kidnapping children to provide a future for their clan. It doesn't matter whether or not they are clever enough to justify to themselves that they are "the good guys". They are evil.To paraphrase: Manifest destiny with survival of their group and ascendancy over lesser groups? - sounds like a lot of groups and the desire for group survival in general. Clans are a form of extended family aren’t they? - many people put family first over their society or other societies. Even many churches, when placed in control of the distribution of government charity or relief supplies, give to their membership first. Doesn’t make them necessarily bad. No regard for any other individual or group is also common but I agree it is wrong,. That is one of the arguments against manifest destiny. Kidnapping children and adults to supplement the group is a long standing accepted device for many cultures. Since it aids group survival it can be seen as good (unless they are taking from your group.:biggrin: ) Western European society at one time included the kidnapping of women for brides. ;)

As a group I believe the Other's do feel they are good using their own standards. I see them as a subunit of our larger society with a divergent set of standards and judge them as members of my society. Though some do see them as a separate society. On a group basis I view the Other's as bad using the standards of my society in its current form. I base it mainly on," absolutely no regard for any other individual or other group". That is what gives them the ability to kill and manipulate the Lostees with no guilt and continue to see themselves as good. Their belief that they are the only group that matters.

Sayid, Sun and Jin come from nonwestern-European societies. How many people at this site judge them based on Western European standards?

This entire thread is basically a philosophical debate on the number of angels that can dance on the tip of a pin. You mean we are debating Hurley's numbers again?:drowsy:

If then what they do appears to us to be evil, the problem lies in that we do not understand the Others' society and values, not that they are evil in fact.

Does that make sense?

No.
There most certainly exists evil in this world.
For example, taking pleasure in another person's suffering is purely evil.
Denying a group of people basic rights because you view them as worthless is evil.

It doesn't matter a damn if some other society considers that "normal" or even "good".
If they do, they are wrong.
And evil.

Does that make the Others evil?
We don't know yet.

But they certainly might be.

I don't really think they mean it as being a 'good' rightful person, but a 'good, clear headed person who knows how to stay calm when something happens, shows no fear, are intelligent, has a good record, and so forth.' so they can come and join their team. They are being tested by this on the island, I believe.

That's how 'good' is defined in their perspective, I think.


LOL, oops..:biggrin: I didn't answer the threads main question, NO, the Other's are NOT good people. I should say mainly Ben is not. Ethan and the rest of them must have been brainwashed. Ben thinks he may be doing the right thing by trying to cure cancer and impregnate women. But, he is not. He's killing all these innocent people. He is not doing the right thing at all. They are mostly being treated like lab rats. Juliet has helped him gain more power of the island since she started to black mail the Losties and run tests on Claire. Juliet got trapped in this.

Many things what you guys are saying is great. Since I only started watching Lost on television since this season, I don't really know when the debate of the Others being good began, but whatever the case is, it's interesting.

I think that TPTB made the Others seem more humane in Season 3 on purpose to question their goodness/badness. In fact, I think in a sense, that's how the real world works - when you see people's faces and their intentions, their goodness/badness are in shades of grey.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you guys think that little-by-little, they are showing once again the Others maliciousness despite Ben's innocent-looking face? After all, in the "Farewell to Nikki and Paulo" episode you saw Ben's intentions to kidnap Jack so he'll do the surgery (tricky, that's mean!). But it doesn't stop there, Ben wouldn't let Juliet leave the island (unless if Juliet lets the cancer to continue in her sister), and they pulled that trick to get Juliet to be planted amongst the Losties.

The Others clearly are not "good" by the norms of any mainstream society. Example: If all pregnant women die, they'll just get more pregnant women. A rational society (i.e., one that plans to continue living together successfully over many generations) wouldn't make that judgment. To the Others, human beings--those outside their own little society, and to a lesser extent those within--are merely tools toward some obscure goal.

As far as I can recall, the only person who has attempted to define the Others' idea of "good" for the Lostaways was Mikhail, who said they were not worthy because they were "weak" and "fearful." Therefore, "good" = "strong" and "fearless" as the Others define them. This may have something to do with the Others' manipulations to get people to WANT to do things for them--real-world events happen as the result of human will, to a greater extent than in the "normal" world. Something to do with Smokey and/or the magic box?

That's all I've got.

For example, taking pleasure in another person's suffering is purely evil.
Denying a group of people basic rights because you view them as worthless is evil.Sounds good but LovesLaboursLost I am curious, can you name one society/nation that would pass muster as good IF these 2 items are used as a black & white test? Can we allow for a few lapses and still call the society good?

Not stating a position there, just exploring. I think we may have gone off course with black & white instead of numerous shades of gray. Are the people that watch & laugh at celebrities who take pratfalls enjoying another persons suffering? (Beware the evil fans of Kutcher’s Punk’d) How do we define the basic rights of people? Societies differ in this some giving more rights than others and some having rights that are at odds with what we consider rights. Are you keying in on the denial of some rights to those viewed as having a lower status? For instance not allowing (insert minority here) to vote? (This might be why I prefer treating the Others as members of the same larger society I belong to. It simplifies my judgment of them. ;) )

Nice post LostMyMarbles.

Sounds good but LovesLaboursLost I am curious, can you name one society/nation that would pass muster as good IF these 2 items are used as a black & white test?

It's not Black v.s. White. It's UtterlyBlack v.s. NotUtterlyBlack.


Not stating a position there, just exploring. I think we may have gone off course with black & white instead of numerous shades of gray. Are the people that watch & laugh at celebrities who take pratfalls enjoying another persons suffering?
Being embarrassed about a trick being played on you does not constitute suffering. Being raped, starved or disabled does.


How do we define the basic rights of people? Societies differ in this some giving more rights than others and some having rights that are at odds with what we consider rights. Are you keying in on the denial of some rights to those viewed as having a lower status? For instance not allowing (insert minority here) to vote?

An example of a basic human right is to live without constant fear of rape, assault and death. As such, the Janjaweed of Sudan are utterly evil, as were the Nazis. Ditto the perpetrators of "honor killings" whereby a girl can be murdered on mere suspicion of immorality, while the males involved go unpunished.

Some may describe these as "extreme examples", but pure evil is extreme by its nature.

Again, does this have anything to do with the Others?
We just don't know yet.

Being embarrassed about a trick being played on you does not constitute suffering. Being raped, starved or disabled does.I think you are applying a sliding scale to suffering here. While your examples do illustrate worse suffering being publically embarrassed does cause suffering and in fact has often been used as a form of punishment by various societies. So lets call people who enjoy seeing minor suffering light gray not dark gray. :cool: (Just a little evil not wholly given to the dark side)

The question of "Are the Others good?" can (in my opinion) only be answered by judging their society through their own values.So you are saying the only "correct" question we can ask is "Do the Others think they are good?"

While I agree the factors constituting "good" and "evil" are entirely subjective, I also don't believe judging a person or group based on one's own standards is automatically illegitimate. Someone mentioned Nazism, and certainly by their standards the Nazis were doing the "right" and "good" thing. But I have no qualms weighing their actions against on my own opinion of "right" and "wrong." When it comes to stripping other humans of their basic right to life (for instance), I withhold no judgement.

Which brings me to the Losties. Because of how the Others went out of their way to infiltrate, abduct, terrorize, and kill these plane crash survivors (the concept of which was clearly not foreign to them), the Losties -- and by extension the viewers -- have every right to use their own standards of "good" and "bad" when describing them.

While you may believe the only applicable standard must be "In their society, abducting people's children at gunpoint is good," I would submit that, while perhaps distasteful and politically incorrect to some, asserting the basic right of an individual to protect oneself and one's own children trumps any consideration of what an aggressive societies' actions means amongst their own.

Besides, as Fogey has pointed out, this isn't some tribe of supersticious cavemen, separated from civilization for thousands of years. The Others are engulfed by modern popular culture (book club meetings?), modern technology and medicine, people from our society (Juliet and Mikhail; clearly many others), plus have the apparent ability to leave and return to the island at will. The decisions they've made regarding the Losties were not made in a cultural vaccuum. They had the capacity to know exactly what they were perpetrating on these accidental castaways. And they did it anyway.

So the only legitimate question here is "Do the Others think they are good?"

Hardly.

There most certainly exists evil in this world.
For example, taking pleasure in another person's suffering is purely evil.
Denying a group of people basic rights because you view them as worthless is evil.

It doesn't matter a damn if some other society considers that "normal" or even "good".
If they do, they are wrong.
And evil.

Does that make the Others evil?
We don't know yet.

But they certainly might be.

So, like torture, murder, theft, extortion, swindling... these are values that are not good according to the definition above, right? Hmmm... I wonder who might be guilty of those sorts of things on the Island? :rolleyes:
100%
The Others clearly are not "good" by the norms of any mainstream society. Example: If all pregnant women die, they'll just get more pregnant women. A rational society (i.e., one that plans to continue living together successfully over many generations) wouldn't make that judgment. To the Others, human beings--those outside their own little society, and to a lesser extent those within--are merely tools toward some obscure goal.

As far as I can recall, the only person who has attempted to define the Others' idea of "good" for the Lostaways was Mikhail, who said they were not worthy because they were "weak" and "fearful." Therefore, "good" = "strong" and "fearless" as the Others define them. This may have something to do with the Others' manipulations to get people to WANT to do things for them--real-world events happen as the result of human will, to a greater extent than in the "normal" world. Something to do with Smokey and/or the magic box?
That's all I've got.

LMM,

You present a very solid thesis, perhaps one of the best constructed so far. However, I disagree with your conclusions. I still maintain that the Others are good, and the reason I say this is due to my whole approach to the subject of judging other societies. I was trained to be completely impartial whenever I observe another group of people - it is essential to do this if you do any sociological or anthropological research.

One could make a pretty solid case that the Others are neither good nor evil, and I would most likely not argue against that thesis. However, the reason I maintain they are good is because I believe that the Others have a set of values to which they adhere fairly rigorously, with only a few examples of individuals deviating from them. So, since their values are what they use to judge their own behavior by, and since they adhere to those values religiously, I believe they are by their own definition "Good".
100%
It's not Black v.s. White. It's UtterlyBlack v.s. NotUtterlyBlack.

Being embarrassed about a trick being played on you does not constitute suffering. Being raped, starved or disabled does.

An example of a basic human right is to live without constant fear of rape, assault and death. As such, the Janjaweed of Sudan are utterly evil, as were the Nazis. Ditto the perpetrators of "honor killings" whereby a girl can be murdered on mere suspicion of immorality, while the males involved go unpunished.

Some may describe these as "extreme examples", but pure evil is extreme by its nature.

Again, does this have anything to do with the Others?
We just don't know yet.

The Others are hardly "Utterly Evil" or even remotely comparable to the Janjaweed of Sudan. If they were like that then the first thing they would have done after the plane wreck would have been to have launched a coordinated military offensive against the Survivors, saving the pregnant and the young, and dropping the rest into a mass grave with machine guns. They could easily have done this. Why didn't they? Because they only could afford to save those people who would not create chaos by introducing them into the Others' society. This is all because of the Island/Box. If you cannot understand how the Box thingy works, then you will never understand how the Others society is not evil.
100%
So the only legitimate question here is "Do the Others think they are good?"

Hardly.

You make a good case Booga. Point taken.

However, I think that people are ignoring a lot of what makes up the world of Lost. There's the whole business involving the Hanso Initiative's original charter of trying to save the world. Then there's the thing about the Box. There's also the aspect of the Island being cut off from the rest of the world. All of these things create certain parameters within which any society that has a desire to stay on the Island for any length of time must take into consideration in how it operates and what its values and ethics will be. I don't think people are really understanding these things when they just pass judgment on the Others, condemning them as being "Evil" without trying to understand why they do what they do.

However, I think that people are ignoring a lot of what makes up the world of Lost. There's the whole business involving the Hanso Initiative's original charter of trying to save the world. Then there's the thing about the Box. There's also the aspect of the Island being cut off from the rest of the world. All of these things create certain parameters within which any society that has a desire to stay on the Island for any length of time must take into consideration in how it operates and what its values and ethics will be. I don't think people are really understanding these things when they just pass judgment on the Others, condemning them as being "Evil" without trying to understand why they do what they do. Trying to save the world or is it trying to save the world for Hanso & associates? originated off island in our society. So to use it suggests they are not isolated and are acting on goals originating from our society. Makes sense to judge that part of their operation by our standards.

The box I feel was a metaphor used by Ben. Until I see proof of it being an actual box and a demonstration of what it actually does I think it is premature to use it as a device to explain the Other's actions. OK I would accept as an alternate proof that they believe it exists and are acting on that belief.

If their society is one that believes it wishes to remain on the island and develop there, then why did Ben use the promise of the ability to return to the outside to maintain his leadership position over some of them? They were not cut off from the world until after the Swan implosion cut off communications and Locke destroyed the sub. Some of them (Ben's age & older) may have been cut off from the world prior to the arrival of Hanso and formed a society then but we appear to be looking at a blended society not a strictly island based one.

If the Lostees had run into an island population that gave more indications of being almost completely island based I would probably be on your side. I just see too many outside influences in their group to perceive them as isolated, separate and distinct from our general society.
.

However, I think that people are ignoring a lot of what makes up the world of Lost. ... I don't think people are really understanding these things when they just pass judgment on the Others, condemning them as being "Evil" without trying to understand why they do what they do.I can see where you're coming from. We may eventually learn the Others have had compelling reasons for every one of the things they've done.

But right now we can only judge the Others based on what we've been shown. We've seen first hand they are quite connected with the outside world, so isolation is not an excuse. And the Others saw via the TV reports that the plane crash was not an incursion by "hostile forces" but an genuine accident. We also know they had the capacity and resources to protect their secrets by simply helping the survivors off the island (presumably none would be able to find their way back).

Also from what we've seen, the "Saving the World" aspects of the island (Dharma & Hanso) were overrun by the Others, who seem unlikely to have continued that mission. "The Box" has only been referrenced in a single episode, rather cryptically, by the Others' Chief Deceiver. It is much too early for either to be used as justification for, say, kidnapping children...

So while I agree we don't have all the facts about their society, I won't preemptively excuse their transgressions on the mere assumption they had a good reason. One thing of note is while they had three of the Losties caged, there was never once an attempt to justify or explain their actions to their captives. And this was during the period their leader was trying to trick one of them into operating on him.

I can see the nobility in not rushing to judgement of a group we don't fully understand. And I expect if given a good reason, many (including myself :) ) will soften their opinions of the Others. But until we actually get some explanation, I can only judge their repeated lies, deceptions and violence from what we've seen them to be...

I think this past episode showed that the others, especially juliet are not good. she just can't stop lying. she lied about ethan working on his own. claire's flashback, initiated by libby's hypnosis showed that ethan was definitely helped by other people; tom was there, as well as like 5 other people. alex saved her by getting her outside where danielle knocked her out and carried her close to camp, she had to knock her out b/c claire was actually calling out to the others that were trying to find her. alex had said they planned to cut claire open and get the baby out, killing claire in the process. i think that the others have the losties in the long con of all long cons and that they shouldn't trust juliet at all. i am so glad saiyd is there - he has been right so many times and he was right again with last weeks episode. i hope that jack is really playing juliet, and wants to be so careful he is not telling anyone. the others are taking advantage of something very emotional to locke (i.e. his father) who, despite his balls-out attitude towards anything he believes is right, is easily manipulated by other people from his father to jack, to ben, to sawyer, etc. and probably want him to do something with this involving sawyer. oh, and this episode showed that there is no loyalty at all with any of the others, especially juliet, as she seemed the most sympathetic (but now we know it was all an act) as even though the losties are trying as hard as they can to get off the island (something completely aligned with what juliet wants) she is still working on something against them.

I think I'm just going to rest from any more input into this particular thread. Not because I have any negative opinions regarding anyone else who's posted ideas that conflict with what I have posted - I really have enjoyed the mental sparring that has taken place here in regards to the subject at hand. But I think that I've pretty much said what I believe about the Others being good or not, and have repeated it a few times, and any further discussion on my part is just going to be completely redundant. So please excuse me as I politely leave this discussion to the rest of you. I have enjoyed it, but for me it's the proper time to now move on before I turn into a pumpkin... :)

I think this past episode showed that the others, especially juliet are not good. she just can't stop lying. ............................oh, and this episode showed that there is no loyalty at all with any of the others, especially juliet, as she seemed the most sympathetic (but now we know it was all an act) as even though the losties are trying as hard as they can to get off the island (something completely aligned with what juliet wants) she is still working on something against them.I am going with Jack on this, she is too good looking to be bad.;) Er wait I mean I reserve judgment until we see if she is acting under duress or trying to outsmart Ben. We really don't know yet how he got her to agree to the con of the Lostees.

for me it's the proper time to now move on before I turn into a pumpkin... :)Would that be at midnight?


In case anyone wants to take up the native culture argument I had a longer post I intended for this thread, in summary the gist of it was:
Where is the language drift from isolation if they started from the archaic English used on the Black Rock? Where are the old folk from an established culture? are they put to death to conserve resources? Why do they depend on Dharma goods instead of having their own support system of supply from the magic box, is it because this is a reservation for the natives set up by Hanso Corp?

Saukkomies if you check back, it was fun and you could turn out to be right.

seems like maybe the others are good, right? if ethan did that bad stuff on his own? but still there is ben's secrecy. too much. this episode screwed up my brain.


The others will never be "good". Sometimes they do nice things. They only do it because they think it'll be better for them and they're done with the person. Like they sent Michael and Walt away because they were done with them. Michael did what he had to do for them. Ben didn't need anything else so he sent them away.They'll do good stuff but they're not what you call "good".:biggrin:

So, like torture, murder, theft, extortion, swindling... these are values that are not good according to the definition above, right? Hmmm... I wonder who might be guilty of those sorts of things on the Island? :rolleyes:

Yes, there is individual evil in lots of places. That's not the issue.
The issue is whether a society or culture can be evil.
And the answer is yes, if that society endorses and promote any of those evil acts.


I was trained to be completely impartial whenever I observe another group of people - it is essential to do this if you do any sociological or anthropological research.

That's because nobody will allow you to study them if they think you might judge them harshly, and thus be a threat. But, that's a practical matter having nothing to do with whether they deserve to be judge harshly.


The Others are hardly "Utterly Evil" or even remotely comparable to the Janjaweed of Sudan. If they were like that then the first thing they would have done after the plane wreck would have been to have launched a coordinated military offensive against the Survivors, saving the pregnant and the young, and dropping the rest into a mass grave with machine guns. They could easily have done this. Why didn't they? Because they only could afford to save those people who would not create chaos by introducing them into the Others' society.

Not every evil society is as crude as the Janjaweed. Since we really know very little about the Others, we can't say one way or the other at this point.

This is all because of the Island/Box. If you cannot understand how the Box thingy works, then you will never understand how the Others society is not evil.


What? Are you claiming that you do understand the "Box thingy"?
I certainly don't. You must have access to future scripts.

Once again, I am not suggesting that the Others are an evil society, just that nobody can claim at this point that they aren't, either.

We will all have to wait, possibly until the end of the series to find out for sure.