man, Bernard (the most morally upright person on the island) layed into Locke tonite during the fishing session. "he's a murderer", etc. i think this is the beginning of Locke becoming a main antagonist on the show. also, it felt weird this week skipping the fiasco back at Locke's camp- what with Sawyer seeing Linus sauntering about...

I agree. Locke has changed a lot since season one. He lets Ben manipulate him all the time and Ben knows it. I understand he's frustrated but he needs to start thinking straight. He's going to absolutely turn out to be a bad guy imo.

I no longer feel sorry for him.

Ben is grooming Locke as his apprentice.

Locke is a Ben-in-training.

Ben is grooming Locke as his apprentice.

Locke is a Ben-in-training.

LOL

Oh dear God! Well if so then Locke better get his act together cause right now he ain't nowhere being Ben's apprentice.

Wait! Was there a time when Locke cared about more than himself? Was there a time when Locke was actually a good guy? I must have been watching a different show.

man, Bernard (the most morally upright person on the island) layed into Locke tonite during the fishing session. "he's a murderer", etc. i think this is the beginning of Locke becoming a main antagonist on the show.

Good observation. I hope you're wrong, though.

i think you guys, and Bernard, all have Locke wrong... Locke very much resembles Job from the Bible, whose faith was tested by God many times. I think God killed his family painfully by giving them diseases, then killed his second family, killed his cattle, destroyed his home, gave him a bunch of painful diseases and basically put him through the ringer to test his faith. Job never once wavered on his faith in God and in the end was rewarded with what God took away from him times 100, or something like that. Locke is being tested by the Island to see if he is ready to put all his faith into what the Island tells him to do. Locke kinda failed the "kill your daddy that's holding you back" test by having Sawyer do the dirty work, so I'm not surprised that the island decided to mess with him and disappear the cabin until further notice. I think until the last season, Locke will have victories followed by bigger defeats.

I have to agree with Bernard on this one, Sawyer is a murderer. His hand has been in more deaths on the island than anyone else's. He is also one of the most deceptive Losties. I believe Ben also gave us a preview of what is to come when he said Locke's people are going to start a revolution. But I think that revolution is all going to be in Locke's head. I feel bad for those that followed him.

Three-fourths of the people on the show have killed other human beings. The question is the definition of "murder." As I see it, murder is when you kill someone because you can, not because you have to. Charlie didn't HAVE to kill Ethan to protect Claire-- that makes him a murderer. Sun, on the other hand, killed Colleen out of self-defense-- that's not murder.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on whether Locke HAD to kill Naomi. But even if he didn't, and is, in fact, a murderer, he's certainly not the only one, and Bernard did seem to be on a bit of a high horse.

Three-fourths of the people on the show have killed other human beings. The question is the definition of "murder." As I see it, murder is when you kill someone because you can, not because you have to. Charlie didn't HAVE to kill Ethan to protect Claire-- that makes him a murderer. Sun, on the other hand, killed Colleen out of self-defense-- that's not murder.

"Murder" is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. Everything else is manslaughter at worst.

i thought it was funny that benard is calling locke a murderer when just a few days ago he killed how many Others on the beach. locke i think has only killed 1 person so far and she is probably going to turn out to be evil anyway.

I agree. Locke has changed a lot since season one. He lets Ben manipulate him all the time and Ben knows it. I don't think that Locke has changed that much. We saw how Cooper manipulated him in his flashbacks, over and over again. Locke was unreliable already in season one, hiding the hatch from everyone except Boone, knocking Sayid unconscious that one time and then giving him a reason to think it was Sawyer. I don't think he ever was a clear-cut good guy, but then again, who is?

Bernard killing the Others during the beach raid could be seen as self-defence. He was defending not only himself but the whole goup. Locke killed a woman he had never seen before, a woman who was trying to get the group rescued (or so they all thought), for no apparent reason. From Bernard's point of view, Locke is a crazy murderer.

i thought it was funny that benard is calling locke a murderer when just a few days ago he killed how many Others on the beach. locke i think has only killed 1 person so far and she is probably going to turn out to be evil anyway.

Bernard was protecting his home, family, and friends from a bunch of marauding killers. The Others were armed and were coming to kill them.

Naomi's status at the time was ambiguous at best. She did not appear to be a threat to anyone. No one but Locke and Ben were on board the "let's kill Naomi" train at the time. They didn't explain themselves well either.

That being said, I like Locke's character a lot more than Bernard's goody two shoes character.:)

Wait! Was there a time when Locke cared about more than himself? Was there a time when Locke was actually a good guy? I must have been watching a different show.

Did you skip the first season? He helped a lot of people, including Charlie, with his drug addiction, Michael in his relationship with his son, and Walt as well, Boone with his obsession with his step sister, and Claire with her baby. There is probably more, but these are the ones I recall at the moment.

I think Locke is/was a good guy, but I think he's struggling right now with what to do. He knows a bit too much about the island for his own good, but not enough to decide what to do about it. He does seem to be following Ben's lead, which is a scary thing. It will be interesting to see what happens with his character in the next season or two.

What I hate is how Locke is being portrayed as "the murderer" now. Has everyone on the island forgotten that Kate is one herself. Everyone seems to like her. What about Sayid? He tortured people for a living! I'm not bashing Kate or Sayid,I like Kate and I love Sayid! Those are just 2 examples, cause I'm too lazy to keep typing! I'm just trying to say that everyone on the island has done something bad. Noone is a saint.

i think you guys, and Bernard, all have Locke wrong... Locke very much resembles Job from the Bible, whose faith was tested by God many times. I think God killed his family painfully by giving them diseases, then killed his second family, killed his cattle, destroyed his home, gave him a bunch of painful diseases and basically put him through the ringer to test his faith. Job never once wavered on his faith in God and in the end was rewarded with what God took away from him times 100, or something like that. Locke is being tested by the Island to see if he is ready to put all his faith into what the Island tells him to do. Locke kinda failed the "kill your daddy that's holding you back" test by having Sawyer do the dirty work, so I'm not surprised that the island decided to mess with him and disappear the cabin until further notice. I think until the last season, Locke will have victories followed by bigger defeats.

Amen. Darlton said in their most recent podcast that Locke is going through a "Biblical" trial; he's not an evil person, his faith is being tested.

I've long believed that there are no "evil" people on Lost. They're all following the moral path they believe to be correct... whether anyone else would agree with that path or not. It's all a matter of perspective.

man, Bernard (the most morally upright person on the island) layed into Locke tonite during the fishing session. "he's a murderer", etc. i think this is the beginning of Locke becoming a main antagonist on the show. also, it felt weird this week skipping the fiasco back at Locke's camp- what with Sawyer seeing Linus sauntering about...

Yeah, the person I always watch with said, "Well, I guess Locke's officially a bad guy now."

What made me really angry was that Rose said "I am not going anywhere with that man" right after Jack would have shot his head off had the gun been loaded. I view killing a member of a community much worse than killing someone who I did not know.

Ben knows he's fallen out of favor with the island (and by extension, Jacob), so he's latching onto the closest thing to it. And since Locke is so easily manipulated, it's actually working.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on whether Locke HAD to kill Naomi. But even if he didn't, and is, in fact, a murderer, he's certainly not the only one, and Bernard did seem to be on a bit of a high horse.
Yeah, what about the 3 or 4 people that Bernard killed, who were going to kidnap an empty tent. Did he really "have" to kill them?

Locke has always been the good guy, always will be. He's gotten extremely confused from time to time, but he has always had purer motives than anyone.
100%
I've long believed that there are no "evil" people on Lost. They're all following the moral path they believe to be correct... whether anyone else would agree with that path or not. It's all a matter of perspective.
I don't believe that. There are perhaps no unsympathetic people on the show. But I doubt that Ben thought he was "following the moral path" when he shot Locke. He didn't even try to defend his little genocide in moral terms. He just said he was doing it to make sure that he wasn't one of the ones who ended up in that ditch.
100%
What I hate is how Locke is being portrayed as "the murderer" now. Has everyone on the island forgotten that Kate is one herself. Everyone seems to like her. What about Sayid? He tortured people for a living! I'm not bashing Kate or Sayid,I like Kate and I love Sayid! Those are just 2 examples, cause I'm too lazy to keep typing! I'm just trying to say that everyone on the island has done something bad. Noone is a saint.
Every prophet must be misunderstood and persecuted by the people.

I firmly believe that what Ben has been doing all of his life is protecting the island, and it's in the best interest of everyone that the Island is protected.

Now Locke has taken over from Ben.


Neither Locke nor Ben are bad guys, they are doing it for the greater good - what they do, has to be done.

Locke knows the island better than any of the survivors. In season 1 Episode 5 Locke claims to Jack that he's "looked into the eye of the island" and that "what he saw, was beautiful".

This is after coming face to face with what we assume was Smokey in the previous episode.


Locke knows a lot that we, or the others, don't. He is also being directed by Walt. Do we believe Walt is evil?

Walt is presumably on the freighter with Michael and therefore knows something else we don't know - what the boat crew are up to (and perhaps why people are committing suicide).

If Walt knows something and Walt is the one directing John to do things like kill Naomi then I don't for a minute think that Walt and Locke are doing it for malicious reasons.

They're doing what has to be done.

Bernard : 3
Locke : 1

who's the murderer?

The difference between Locke and Bernard is Bernard killed when engaged in combat, Locke literfally stabbed someone in the back, pretty cowardly act.

Putting a grenade in Miles mouth when Miles is helplessly bound .... pretty cowardly act.

Pushing a bound Mikail into the security fence -- totally spineless.

Refusing to enact vengence on his father and gettng Sawyer to do it ---- and
then taking the credit for it --- pretty cowardly act.

Locke came to the Islands with a dmaged sdpine and has proven himself to be spineless

I firmly believe that what Ben has been doing all of his life is protecting the island, and it's in the best interest of everyone that the Island is protected.

Now Locke has taken over from Ben.


Neither Locke nor Ben are bad guys, they are doing it for the greater good - what they do, has to be done.

.....................

They're doing what has to be done.Protecting the island is in the best interest of everyone? or in the best interests of those who are currently benefiting from the island?
for the greater good? who gets to define the greater good? Ben or Widmore or the Lostees? or society in general?

Bernard : 3
Locke : 1

who's the murderer? In case you meant that as a real question instead of a rhetorical one I will answer,Locke
Locke has in my view a count of at least 2. He set up the murder of his father for personal gain and used Sawyer as his weapon. :cool:

As a character I prefer Locke to Bernard but Bernard was involved in an action designed to prevent hostiles from attacking his group in a conflict initiated by the Others so I would not call it murder.

The difference between Locke and Bernard is Bernatrd killed when engaged in combat, Locke literfally stabbed someone in the back, pretty cowardly act.

Putting a grenade in Miles mouth when Miles is helplessly bound .... pretty cowardly act.

Pushing a bound Mikail into the security fence -- totally spineless.

Refusing to enact vengence on his father and gettng Sawyer to do it ---- and
then taking the credit for it --- pretty cowardly act.

Locke came to the Islands with a dmaged sdpine and has proven himself to be spineless

All very good points. Locke's biggest problem is himself. He lets himself get taken advantage of time after time. I believe the island is conning him too. It's leading him down a road that can only lead to bad things and the only way he can stop himself is by finally thinking for himself.
100%
Also, like it has been said before Locke is about the only hope that everyone has to survive the island.

Locke believe in something, he figth for that and is in a difficult position. Bernard ?? He kill people in a tramp, but he doesnt believe in nothing.
I think the Jack group will have a bad time, and, will Jack be responsible?? NO, he is in a difficult position too.

Wait! Was there a time when Locke cared about more than himself? Was there a time when Locke was actually a good guy? I must have been watching a different show.

He made a baby crib for Claire didn't he? And umm...some other stuff, I think. :drowsy:

I do have to say that I miss the old Locke. His character is becoming quite the bad guy. It's a shame. I used to like him.

I think that of all the characters on Lost Locke is the hardest to make sense of and the writers want it that way. On the one hand he is incredibly appealing, the Lostie who was able to become one with the land in order to survive and thrive and, at times, help others like Charlie and Boone do so as well. The rugged individualist, can do kind of Locke. On the other hand you have the pathetic Locke who is INCREDIBLY gullible and who never fails to step into the trap whether it be set by Daddy, Eddie or Ben.

I think, ultimately, Locke is being set up as a tragic figure. A basically good man who but for his fatal flaw could have been a hero and done something good if not great. He's gullibility is going to sink him in the end and I think it will be sad. But I don't know that it's a matter of good or bad. Like the scorpion who stings the frog...Locke just can't help it.

Poor Locke. His character gets a little scarier each week, lately.

Locke set up Boone as a sacrifice to the island to get his ability to walk back. He sent Boone up to that plane, which in turn caused Boone's death. Locke even described the event as a sacrifice.

Locke interfered in the relationships between Michael & Walt and Charlie & Claire.

He encourages Jack to be the leader, then proceeds to undermine his authority - even becomes antagonistic.

He stabbed an unarmed woman in the back.

He blew up the submarine, which at the time was their best chance for rescue.

Hard to reconcile with the guy we've seen teach Walt backgammon, feed the survivors with wild boar, help Boone get over his obsession with Shannon, rescue Eko and help Charlie kick his drug habit.

His largest flaw by far is his gullibility, which is fueled by his need to feel special. This is a selfish need, which is why so much of what he has done has been viewed negatively. Is Locke acting as he does because he truly believes it is in the best interests of others - or is it because he needs to feed his needy ego and feel special?

How far will he go in the best interests of his island? Would he offer up another human sacrifice?

Jack tried to kill Locke, but the gun was empty.

Jack tried to kill Locke, but the gun was empty.


Okay, so everyone is evil, except maybe Claire and Rose. even Hurley ran over a guy.

Some are just more deranged than others. Locke is going to the top of the clas on that one. he is starting to make Sawyer look rational and comptemplative.

I'd just like to say that this thread speaks directly (and rather beautifully, I might add) to Locke's greatest asset as a character: the ambiguity of his allegiance.

Who does he serve above all else? Himself? A "higher power"/The Island? A fusion of the two? (If so, is it a variation on the standard "God complex"?) Or is he, perhaps, fundamentally anti-allegiant, making him arguably the least stuck-in-his-ways of all the central characters? Could that be classified as opportunistic? If so, might that have something to do with his current proximity to Ben and Sawyer, both of whom have what could, I think, be reasonably described as opportunistic streaks?

Personally, I'm not too happy with the way the writers have been treating the character lately; it's impossible to see him as being anything but stuck, once again, in "Locke Mode." It was okay the first couple of times, but it makes closing the chapter in his life called "Cooper" look a little pointless in retrospect. Even so, he remains far and away one of the most interesting, compelling characters on Lost -- seemingly simple, but paradoxically complex. To put it another way, the complexity of the character is largely derived from his simplicity, and vice-versa. It's a fascinating relationship that offers a ton of thematic and character-oriented possibilities. For that reason, I think pinning him as a "good guy" or a "bad guy" does not -- and hopefully never will -- do him any kind of justice.

I like to think the writers realize this, and that all of these straight-as-an-arrow condemnations of Locke we've been seeing this season (e.g. Jack pulling the trigger, Jacob disappearing, Bernard calling him a murderer) are meant to add a dimension to his crucible, rather than simply tell viewers, "Dude's bad news."

he's a complex fellow, and that's why he's the best character. is he good, is he bad? frankly, he could execute every person on the island and i'd still cheer him on :biggrin:

I only hope we find out that Naomi was really bad news, because otherwise there's really no way to justify him stabbing her in the back. It really made me wonder how far Locke will go to "protect" the Island.

Okay, so everyone is evil, except maybe Claire and Rose. even Hurley ran over a guy.

Some are just more deranged than others. Locke is going to the top of the clas on that one. he is starting to make Sawyer look rational and comptemplative.

Rose is a home despot

As a character I prefer Locke to Bernard but Bernard was involved in an action designed to prevent hostiles from attacking his group in a conflict initiated by the Others so I would not call it murder.
I don't agree with this. Killing a person is always murder, whatever the motive is.
Some reasons seem better than others but the end result is still the same.
100%


Locke is going to the top of the clas on that one. he is starting to make Sawyer look rational and comptemplative.
Perhaps this is because Sawyer is always fighting for himself. Locke is always fighting for a cause and that makes him much more dangerous and makes him look more crazy.

I don't agree with this. Killing a person is always murder, whatever the motive is.
Some reasons seem better than others but the end result is still the same.
100%



I do not agree here is the Definition of murder...Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries


I mean 1 we arnt in a county there fore no country= no laws. Locke showd afterthought though which can be the contradictary part. but he/we know why he acted in such manner
1) Naomi is Danger
2) She was already on the phone it wouldo nly take something drastic to stop her.

Locke therefore imho did not pre meditate the action but acted spontaneously. there is killing than there is murder . Locke Killed her he didnt murder her.


any ways on with the topic. Its obvious that locke is going to be made out to be a bad guy but i like locke. Idk maybe its because i started watching at the end of season 3 where Locke started to seem to make some sense...( yes ive watched the other seasons since then) and i know what he did. But i honostly believe he has the best intentions for EVERYONE with him. Hence he kicked kate out shes a rebel and wont live with laws. He took Claire and aaron in. I dont think he would take them in if he didnt have intentions of caring for them. He is mischivous forgive my spelling but i dont htink he would lead a mother and her new born to there death.

and i honostly beleive that by the end of the series Locke will be the only 1 alive / sane/ happy .. and/or not all of the above to each character

Jack/HUrley= Insane Locke= Sane| Charlie= Dead Locke = Still living| Sun= Miserable without Jin Locke= Will be happy.

He has a direction and will take care of those who chose to follow him they basically told him hey we want you to lead us. i dont htink he would just abandon them to go mingle with ben in some Ben Apprentice program

I don't agree with this. Killing a person is always murder, whatever the motive is.
So, anybody who kills in self-defense is a murderer? Any soldier who kills for his country is a murderer? Any surgeon whose patient dies on the operating table is a murderer? Are we really going to water down the word "murderer" that far in order to absolve Locke of the moral consequences of his actions?

As fas as I am concerned, a murder is someone who causes the death with the intent that the person actually die, and that a reasonable person in such a situation would believe is not acting to prevent imminent life-threatening injury to himself or others.

Hurley is not a murderer on that definition: he killed to save his friends being held hostage. Nor are Bernard, Jin, Juliet, Sun or Sayid. Obviously, neither are or were Libby, Walt, Claire or Rose. (Well, as far as we know.)

Sawyer is a murderer. Charlie was a murderer. Locke is a murderer. Kate is a murderer. Ben is a mass murderer. Eko was a murderer. Ana Lucia was a murderer.

Jack is an attempted murderer. Desmond committed manslaughter (he didn't intend for Inman to die)

To equate all acts causing death with murder renders a discussion of morality trivial.

Killing a person on purpose is murder. I am not changing my thoughts on that. Self defense or not. I'm not saying everyone that has done so is a bad person. I'm just stating how I feel.

Wait! Was there a time when Locke cared about more than himself? Was there a time when Locke was actually a good guy? I must have been watching a different show.

Since when is helping Charlie beat his heroin addiction and helping Claire make a craddle considered selfish?

Not saying he hasn't done some questionable things but that has been while DUIB (driving under the influence ben).

To me Locke is kind of like Ben in one way. Both have this same quality of not knowing week to week if their intentions are good or bad, to protect or do harm. Sometimes it is so hard to tell.

lostlocke,
If being a murderer isn't necessarily a bad thing, then what's the point of the label? And how do you distinguish the folks who are murderers for bad reasons like vengeance (say, Sawyer) and murderers for good reasons like saving lives (say, Hurley)
-marksman

lostlocke,
If being a murderer isn't necessarily a bad thing, then what's the point of the label? And how do you distinguish the folks who are murderers for bad reasons like vengeance (say, Sawyer) and murderers for good reasons like saving lives (say, Hurley)
-marksman
It's futile to point a finger at someone and say "you're a murderer" because they killed someone.

From a legal standpoint, what makes one a murderer is being convicted of it in a court of law. Was the action justified?

If we look at it in that context, who would likely be convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter?

Bernard? No
Hurley? No
Locke? Yes
Sawyer? Yes
Charlie? Yes
Jack? Attempted murder

Are we really going to water down the word "murderer" that far in order to absolve Locke of the moral consequences of his actions?










That's the last thing I have ever tried to do.
100%
lostlocke,
If being a murderer isn't necessarily a bad thing, then what's the point of the label? And how do you distinguish the folks who are murderers for bad reasons like vengeance (say, Sawyer) and murderers for good reasons like saving lives (say, Hurley)
-marksman
I didn't say that murder wasn't a bad thing. I said the people that have killed someone aren't necessarily bad or evil because they've had to take a life.

I didn't say that murder wasn't a bad thing. I said the people that have killed someone aren't necessarily bad or evil because they've had to take a life.

First of all, I said being a murderer is a bad thing, which it generally is in the English language. The problem that occurs when people make their own definitions of a word is that communication becomes very difficult.

I mean, I might decide my child should be referred to as a "tree", but that only means that when I shout bloody murder at someone who claims to chop down trees for a living, people are going to think I'm nuts.

Second, I can't figure out what the point is of redefining "murderer" to include people whose killing is eminently justified. All it does is cloud the moral issues surrounding the act of murder. The reason the English language makes distinctions between murderers and those who kill with justification is so we can discuss the moral issues without confusion. It seems to me that trying to blur these definitions only serve to make moral discussions more difficult and doesn't actually accomplish much.

So, can you clarify whether you think there's a moral distinction to be made between killing someone in defense of others (ala Hurley) and killing someone for vengeance (ala Sawyer)?
100%
If we look at it in that context, who would likely be convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter?

Bernard? No
Hurley? No
Locke? Yes
Sawyer? Yes
Charlie? Yes
Jack? Attempted murder
Agreed (assuming of course the court gets all the facts). Here's my list...
Justified: Bernard, Hurley, Juliet, Sayid, Sun (Eko [on-island])
Unjustified: Ben, Kate, Locke, Michael, Sawyer (Ana Lucia, Charlie, Eko [off-island])
Manslaughter: Desmond
Attempted: Jack

Agreed (assuming of course the court gets all the facts). Here's my list...
Justified: Bernard, Hurley, Juliet, Sayid, Sun (Eko [on-island])
Unjustified: Ben, Kate, Locke, Michael, Sawyer (Ana Lucia, Charlie, Eko [off-island])
Manslaughter: Desmond
Attempted: Jack[/quote]


If you want to get technical, Bernard and Sayid were not justifed. A self defense claim requires the person to make an attempt to flee if they can reasonably do so. Bernard and Sayid could have easily left with Jack and the other losties. Their self defense claims would not hold up in court. Sorry.

And, not for nothing, but we really seem to have gotten off topic. Remember....Locke

I have to agree with those stating that "murder" has it's own distinction from killing.

"Murder" is to kill with the intent to make a human being dead.

Example: In the heat of the moment/argument, someone grabs a knife at hand and stabs a person dead. This is murder. This is the kind of murder Michael committed -- his was a crime of opportunity. He would not have sought out and killed Ana Lucia and Libby -- they happened to be in the way of him breaking Ben out. He did not make a plan to kill these two woman as part of his breakout of Ben. That would have been premeditated murder.

But say a toddler walks into a road, causing an approaching car to swerve to miss him, yet the driver hits and kills someone else on the sidewalk. The driver did not murder anyone - they tried to NOT kill someone and blundered. The toddler, in his action being the catalyst of the death, was also not a murderer.

Language gives different words for the act of killing for a reason - so that one may make such distinctions in determining intent.

"Murder" is to kill with the intent to make a human being dead.

Example: In the heat of the moment/argument, someone grabs a knife at hand and stabs a person dead. This is murder. This is the kind of murder Michael committed -- his was a crime of opportunity. He would not have sought out and killed Ana Lucia and Libby -- they happened to be in the way of him breaking Ben out. He did not make a plan to kill these two woman as part of his breakout of Ben. That would have been premeditated murder.

But say a toddler walks into a road, causing an approaching car to swerve to miss him, yet the driver hits and kills someone else on the sidewalk. The driver did not murder anyone - they tried to NOT kill someone and blundered. The toddler, in his action being the catalyst of the death, was also not a murderer.

Language gives different words for the act of killing for a reason - so that one may make such distinctions in determining intent.

If you kill someone in the heat of an argument that would be manslaughter. Michael's acts would constitute murder. Premeditation does not require someone to sit down at a table and draw up a plan, legally it can be formed in as little as a second.

The swerve case is right on though. Just bad circumstances. Although someone may want to look into mom or dad's negligence (why exactly was the baby in the road) to see if that could sustatin charges.

Neither Locke nor Ben are bad guys, they are doing it for the greater good - what they do, has to be done.

This is where I disagree with a lot of folks. The only way I buy into a "the ends justify the means" philosophy is if, upon reaching the "end" people are held accountable for their "means." Some kind of penance - to self, or to society - is required for "bad" actions, no matter what the justification. Otherwise, how do you balance what means are acceptable to serving a particular end? There has to be a cost for action; if the price is worth it, then someone will be ready to pay.

I'm not sure what to make of Locke at this point. I don't agree with the decision to execute Cooper in cold blood simply because Ben said it was necessary. Nor do I trust Jacob, whose followers find it necessary to brainwash people into following his leadership. I think something is wrong with the people and the power on this island. But if the people Locke killed really needed to die to prevent a larger calamity, then Locke should be willing to pay some kind of price for his actions at the end of the series. Only then will I agree that he was a good man forced to do bad things.

I think the main argument here is whether taking the life of another person is always morally wrong, or whether it is morally justified, depending on the circumstances. However, the question of morality is probably a more important topic of debate. Does morality exist on an island where its inhabitants struggle for survival? Are these people in Hobbes's state of nature? Or does human reason overcome the instinctive impulses to do anything necessary to survive? Morality is a product of rational thought. However, can these people think and behave rationally when they are being constantly bombarded by irrational situations. Do you respect the natural rights of an unknown group of people attacking you? Or do you give into instinct and take action against the threat to ensure your survival? These are the questions that these characters face in the struggle for survival on the island.

man, Bernard (the most morally upright person on the island) layed into Locke tonite during the fishing session. "he's a murderer", etc. i think this is the beginning of Locke becoming a main antagonist on the show. also, it felt weird this week skipping the fiasco back at Locke's camp- what with Sawyer seeing Linus sauntering about...

I prefer to think it foreshadows an Bernard story. What do we know about him, and possibly more interestingly; how well does he know his wife?

His cut and dried, black & white, morality might be challenged soon. Bernie has been presented like a season 1 John for the past few episodes. Turning up in the nick of with heart warming tales and sage advice.

John doesn't need a PR period - his tale will be told - but excitingly; it looks like Bernie has got him some decent representation. :biggrin: Go Sam!