(no subject)
So I was just watching Charmed today and saw this (and the previous episode).
Leo=good guy
Zankou=demon who would be a bad guy normally
Avatars=magical people who want to bring peace on earth.
While the Charmed Ones enjoy their new conflict-free world, Leo learns that in order for the Avatars to protect their Utopian world, they also control everyone's destiny by deciding who lives and dies. Wanting to stop the Avatars, Leo joins forces with Zankou to undo the change. Unable to convince Piper, Phoebe and Paige that the Avatars kill innocent people, Leo gives his life, causing the sisters' to join forces with Zankou to reverse time and return the world to the way it was. Finally, Paige receives a special surprise and Leo's fate relies on the Elders.
(http://rmcat13.tripod.com/id19.html)
Okay so basicly this is the somewhat standard distopia that must be undone. This was also done in Angel Season 4, though this was more beign.
A better example would probally be Star Trek's Next Gen's episode Justice (Summery here: http://stng.36el.com/st-tng/episodes/109.html)
This distopia changed the hearts and minds of everyone to basicly be good and to avoid conflict. The issue is that the Avatars remove (read: kill, though in a peaceful way) people who are disruptive. The avators even go so far as to say that less people will die this way. Let's assume this is true.
Our heros make them turn it back on the basis that people are no longer in control of their destinies and people no longer feel how they should. I.e. grief, sadness, depression etc. In fact once everything is turned back to normal again the heros admit that they have never been so happy to hear people argue (even to the point of violence) once again.
I feel that there are two issues here: 1. Element of control of the Utopia. 2. Who deicideds which world should exist.
I would like to deal with point 2 first. Our heros seem to be allowed to make the determaination by themselves. Now one might agure that they are in the right, but this goes back to the question of self deception. Some of you may have read Fried's work on this. Is it correct to decieve yourself if it will make you happy? Most people I have talked to will say no, though some do say yes. We can expand this to say what would you give up to have pease on earth. I think this might be compatable with the Christian view of the world to come. Non-good people stay dead, everyone else comes back to life, and worships and bows down to god and his choices and morals. This brings the idea back to the real world connection, which makes the choice to reject these utopias decidedly anti-christian. The suggestion is that a good world is something we have to strive for and we can't hope for a magical solution.
This we can now tie back into point 1. Is control by the few the only way to creature a utopia/distopia? Even Plato has what is good to be deicded upon by the eleet. What is the alternative? Is it a democracy? Where the majority get to decided what is right and wrong (in theory) and therefore instead of terriny of the few we have terriny of the many. Since there is so much decention on what is right/wrong good/bad we wind up with a compromse system which we have in the U.S. now. Remember a compromise is where neither side get's what they want. This can easily lead to war, in which the victor (the stronger) wins and then can rule over the losers (or themselves as the case may be). So what is the different between the Avitars coming to power and a british controlled america? What if britians control was acceptable to the majority of the people? Would that then be okay? What's that you say? The majority of americans didn't care the the british ruled them only a handful of rag-tag richmen? Oh yeah that's right i forgot, only small few rebelled, won, and created their own system of government.
I think this points very strongly to justice being the will of the strong.
Comments? Suggestions?
Leo=good guy
Zankou=demon who would be a bad guy normally
Avatars=magical people who want to bring peace on earth.
While the Charmed Ones enjoy their new conflict-free world, Leo learns that in order for the Avatars to protect their Utopian world, they also control everyone's destiny by deciding who lives and dies. Wanting to stop the Avatars, Leo joins forces with Zankou to undo the change. Unable to convince Piper, Phoebe and Paige that the Avatars kill innocent people, Leo gives his life, causing the sisters' to join forces with Zankou to reverse time and return the world to the way it was. Finally, Paige receives a special surprise and Leo's fate relies on the Elders.
(http://rmcat13.tripod.com/id19.html)
Okay so basicly this is the somewhat standard distopia that must be undone. This was also done in Angel Season 4, though this was more beign.
A better example would probally be Star Trek's Next Gen's episode Justice (Summery here: http://stng.36el.com/st-tng/episodes/109.html)
This distopia changed the hearts and minds of everyone to basicly be good and to avoid conflict. The issue is that the Avatars remove (read: kill, though in a peaceful way) people who are disruptive. The avators even go so far as to say that less people will die this way. Let's assume this is true.
Our heros make them turn it back on the basis that people are no longer in control of their destinies and people no longer feel how they should. I.e. grief, sadness, depression etc. In fact once everything is turned back to normal again the heros admit that they have never been so happy to hear people argue (even to the point of violence) once again.
I feel that there are two issues here: 1. Element of control of the Utopia. 2. Who deicideds which world should exist.
I would like to deal with point 2 first. Our heros seem to be allowed to make the determaination by themselves. Now one might agure that they are in the right, but this goes back to the question of self deception. Some of you may have read Fried's work on this. Is it correct to decieve yourself if it will make you happy? Most people I have talked to will say no, though some do say yes. We can expand this to say what would you give up to have pease on earth. I think this might be compatable with the Christian view of the world to come. Non-good people stay dead, everyone else comes back to life, and worships and bows down to god and his choices and morals. This brings the idea back to the real world connection, which makes the choice to reject these utopias decidedly anti-christian. The suggestion is that a good world is something we have to strive for and we can't hope for a magical solution.
This we can now tie back into point 1. Is control by the few the only way to creature a utopia/distopia? Even Plato has what is good to be deicded upon by the eleet. What is the alternative? Is it a democracy? Where the majority get to decided what is right and wrong (in theory) and therefore instead of terriny of the few we have terriny of the many. Since there is so much decention on what is right/wrong good/bad we wind up with a compromse system which we have in the U.S. now. Remember a compromise is where neither side get's what they want. This can easily lead to war, in which the victor (the stronger) wins and then can rule over the losers (or themselves as the case may be). So what is the different between the Avitars coming to power and a british controlled america? What if britians control was acceptable to the majority of the people? Would that then be okay? What's that you say? The majority of americans didn't care the the british ruled them only a handful of rag-tag richmen? Oh yeah that's right i forgot, only small few rebelled, won, and created their own system of government.
I think this points very strongly to justice being the will of the strong.
Comments? Suggestions?