This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Stealing From Pirates launched as Pay Evil unto Evil: From YKTTW
Working Title: Evil Unto Evil: From YKTTW
Kizor: Conversation In The Main Page. Could someone who's familiar with the Sword of Truth series integrate this?
- Actually, it's framed as both, and described as the only way the protagonists can have a hope of ending the war favorably; in fact, Richard says explicitly that they shouldn't kill civilians if they don't absolutely have to. Besides, whether the soldiers are brainwashed or not, they're still soldiers and they're still invading with the full intention of wiping out the "good" people. You really can't fault a commander for ordering his army to kill enemy soldiers, can you?
The Colour of Heartache: I think this page could do with a little work to make it clear that this justification isn't always flimsy and stupid but rather a complex ethical question that is always unique to every event: For example Batman killing the Joker is probably justified because no prison can hold him and the shear number of lives it would save in the long run, Robin Hood killing to get the gold and return it to the poor is probably not.
fleb: This doesn't seem right. The morality of the people they kill doesn't come into play, it's pure 'whatever has to be done.' They just end up bumping into nothing but the seedy elements of society all the time for plot purposes. The high school buddies only seem safe because they don't have an evidence trail that leads to them, and through them, to the Connors.
- In the Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, most of the witnesses murdered by Cameron and Derek for being in the wrong place at the wrong time are either assholes or petty criminals of one sort or another. Sure, in many cases they were unarmed and nonthreatening, but, hell, killing a few dirtbags is a small price to pay to ensure the survival of mankind's savior. Cameron and Derek notably never kill any of John Connor's high school buddies (yet), despite the fact they're just as much a security risk.
- Hell, Cameron and Derek have commited WAY more murders (if by murders you mean the execution of unarmed noncombatants) than the actual Terminator, Cromartie, who seems to generally avoid wasting bullets on noncombatants.
Bogus: I'm not sure the Burn Notice example fits. If killing antagonists for being bad counts as Evil Unto Evil, wouldn't virtually every non-childrens show ever made qualify as this trope?
Eric DVH: Hmm… Gnoman, you're absolutely right. If someone is backed into a binary choice of either allowing an illegal murder to occur or attempting to incapacitate the assailant, and ends up killing the assailant to prevent the murder, I literally can't think of a single court in all human history that would punish them for it. Rewrote the following:
- Truth in Television: most Western governments recognize situations in which typically evil things such as murder or theft are instead lawful or, in rare cases, morally obligated. Lethal force in self-defense or the defense-of-others would be the most obvious, although it's on the decline outside of the United States.
- This is ridiculous. Of all the moral codes ever produced by mankind, less than 10% would regard killing in self defense in any way "evil." In many codes, NOT killing to defend the lifes of others, assuming you have the ability to intervene, is worse than killing the innocents yourself.
- Only western countries? Do you really think that absolutely no Middle-Eastern, Near-Eastern, or Far-Eastern countries were ever involved in those kinds of atrocities? It's a human nature thing.
- Except for that little thing called "war" that nearly every country gets around to sooner or later.
- Actually, the initiation of war is a “crime against peace” under a number of statutes, most notably the United Nations charter, and was used against the axis powers at the end of World War Two. Anyone carrying out an aggressive war of conquest is a thus a criminal. Unfortunately, while such acts are crimes, and are in theory punishable by the ICC under the Rome Statute, the ICC can't actually prosecute such cases because none of the U.N. member states have as yet agreed upon a definition of crimes of aggression in legal terms.
- Also, the original meaning of “outlaw” was a status inflicted on criminals (by means of a “Writ of Outlawry”), which allowed anybody to do whatever they wanted on them, as they were "no longer protected by law".
Wanderhome: Erm, call me a Bowdlerizer, but isn't it a tad extreme to have a page image showings someone partially disembowelled, with their intestines looped around tree limbs?
codenamehunterwolf: You're a Bowdlerizer. Here's another image from the same series, not quite as extreme but certainly gets it's point across.
