Forum - View topicMonster (TV) [Dub Broadcast].
|
Goto page Previous Next |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prede
 Posts: 388 |
|
|||||||||
LoL are you joking? People are not equal? Then whose life is worth the most? The least? That's silly talk. Everyone's life is equal. How is Eva right? She comes off to me as one of those elitists rich people, who don't care about the poor and feel rich people are way more important. They de-humanize the poor. I'd never want to side with a women like that. She needed a good slap from her father, but seeing what type of a guy he is, I guess we see why the princess never got any discipline. He's not exactly a very good person either. The apple doesn't drop fall from the tree I suppose. Also if the mayor is "such a nice guy" why is he dealing with terrible excuses for human beings like Eva's Father? He appeared to be making some almost-corrupt deals with him and the other doctors. Sure we can give him the benefit of the doubt that he was only trying to do the city some good by promising more money to the hospital, but so what? A half-way decent mayor has more value then an innocent child? I'm not sold on that. Hell I'm not sold on the President (as someone said) being worth saving over the boy. I even doubt he'd want that. What kind of a person wants to be saved at the loss of a young boy? Plus the boy was there first, Tenma was called in to work on the boy, and he was the only one who could save him. The choice is rather clear in my eyes. It was not even a choice of "which one, the boy or the mayor" but if he should abandon the boy or not. He was called in to save the boy, and that's what he did. Very simple. Also I know very little about this show too, exept that it's really good. I did however very recently read the first volume of the manga, but that's it, my knowledge of the series ends with that volume of the manga. It's all very interesting. Lots of morals are being thrown around, but not in a condisening way, nor is the plot suffering because of it. That's a sign of some real skill, and I like that. Someone who could do all that deserves some praise. Reminds me a little of the way the series Now and Then, Here and There dealt with morals. It was never forced, and always a major part of the very gripping story unfolding. Also that made me question my own set of morals more then once. That's good storytelling right there. I think I get why everyone praises Urasawa now. It's all very well put together, even though some small things feel forced, at least when I compare this series to Urasawa's 20th Century Boys (which I'm only on volume 4 btw). That title felt very natural, very free, and very personal. This he feels like he was trying a bit too hard. Although it is exellent so far, don't get me wrong. One thought: Not very suspenseful yet. I thought this was very thrilling. But it is a very good show so far, just lacking any and all suspense. It has some good drama, especially about the parts involving Tenma saving the little boy, Johan, and not the mayor, and what happens to him because of this. Also about children's innocence. Some people seem to feel that is a load of bull  . Children can be terrible terrible human beings at times. Real monsters. And everytime I think about it, I think he has a real point there. Gah so much to think about morally!
Last edited by Prede on Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:16 pm; edited 3 times in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Harrycombs
Posts: 17 |
|
|||||||||
If you had to choose between saving the life of a doctor and a worker, wouldn't the doctor's life be worth more since he could most likely help more people? I don't agree with that, but that's one way to look at it. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
arachneia
 Posts: 415 Location: On the wings of Bob Lennon |
|
|||||||||
When you want to argue something as complex as the idea of human life's worth with something more substantial than "the person who originally said it is a huge bitch," I'll be glad to respond. I'll assume that, between Hitler and Nelson Mandela, it'd be all the same to you who dies and who lives?
I don't know. I think that, at this point, Tenma is only beginning to grapple with the idea of people's equal worth and that his final conclusion spoiler[that he is right in this belief] is a product of what he has learned and lived through. At this point, I think he is rebelling against what Eva said without being able to fully conceptualize the opposite - after all, you see him raging in the hospital about how Heinemann should die, basically, which is not something that someone with those ideals firmly set in would say. To address what you said specifically, I don't know what it was that Tenma thought, apart from deciding not to repeat the mistake from the Turkish worker's case. I think that any sort of conscious ratiocination on the value of either's life would contradict his philosophy - which is not only that all lives are equal, but that another human being should not be entrusted with the decision of who dies and who lives. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Prede
Posts: 388 |
|
|||||||||
Huh? Well that wasn't my point on why it was wrong...I was just making a comment about Eva as a character... 
Hmm a choice between Hitler and Mandela seems quite easy, but 99.9% of the time your not picking between such extremes. "Evil people" are still people, despite what others believe, and I don't think it's really my place to go around chosing one life over another, despite whatever the hell I think of these people. Because I sure don't want others doing the same. Picking one person over another because they are "worth more". Why should what I think of a person matter? How do you judge what person is "better" then another person? My opinion? Or should we all vote who is worth more then whom? That doesn't seem fair either. So how do you judge a human being? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
arachneia
Posts: 415 Location: On the wings of Bob Lennon |
|
|||||||||
No one is really picking anything at all - this is a philosophical question. It may be a reality within Monster, but for the intents and purposes of our discussion, it is nothing more than an ideology. If you concede that one life is more preferable than another, you are conceding that life, in fact, is not equal. I don't care if it's Hitler or a drug lord or your local bookie or Mother Teresa - as soon as you make the choice, you've established that there is disparity in the worth of people, if only because of the paths in life the have taken and their influence, negative or positive, on others. I'm not saying that this discrimination is necessarily good, and I admire Tenma for sticking so closely to his principles, but I simply cannot agree that someone who helps others and someone who hurts others deserve life equally. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Prede
Posts: 388 |
|
|||||||||
|
But my main point is how do you know who helps others and who truly hurst others? I don't think so called "people who help others" should be worth more then the "people who hurt others". I think they both diserve life, because how do judge who is hurting who and who is helping who? People are not 1 dimensional, they usually both "hurt" and "help" people. Who helps out the MOST? You gata know that too, because that person should (by your logic) be worth saving over other people who "help" out, but not as much. How do you find that out? By voting? By someone's opinion? By what the media says? Also it's worth noting people change. Maybe someone hurting people now will go on to help a lot of people later. Then who was worth more? It's an odd sense of logic that I undersand, but I don't think I agree with it. Although you have some great points.
And your the one who gave me the choice between Hitler and Mandela. So I'm not the one who brought up choice here. This sort of reminds me of the idea that people who commit mass murder don't diserve a fair trial ("Just kill them already, who cares!" ) I can never and will never agree with that. Every person, no matter what should get a fair trial. But that topic is for another day... |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
arachneia
Posts: 415 Location: On the wings of Bob Lennon |
|
|||||||||
|
I understand what you're saying, and I do think that there is no way to be fair and pragmatic about it at the same time, but I am specifically talking about this as an ideology. In reality, I am against capital punishment and prisons in general, but if we're speaking in strictly ethical terms without implying any actual consequences, I cannot honestly say that I would not judge the objectively better person to deserve his life more than someone who is guilty of much and repentant of little.
Either way, I believe that Urasawa did not mean for anyone to go, "Ooh, I agree with Tenma" in a determined, inflexible way that rejects the alternative without even considering it. His goal was for us to examine whether Tenma or Eva - or neither - were right. This is why I wanted to leave the discussion for later on in the series, when it's clear that this form of extreme altruism can, and often does, have horrific and irreversible consequences. Somewhat ironically, the reason why I feel the way I do is largely Tenma himself - I do not believe that another human being within the series deserves to live as much as he does. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
KanjiiZ
 Posts: 661 Location: Central Coast |
|
|||||||||
|
I have the displeasure of watching this series and not remembering almost anything from the series. Hopefully the time slot doesn't kill it for me since I'm asleep around 10:00 and have to force myself to stay awake. Maybe that's how it was meant to be watched.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
rainbowcourage
 Posts: 1216 Location: what is commonly known as "hell week" |
|
|||||||||
I think the bigger question this series raises is who gets to judge--and obviously Tenma feels that he does not get to be a moral judge, which explains his later actions. That's why it's really a first come first serve basis in the hospital, and that's why Tenma was so spoiler[horrified when the opera singer got preferential treatment.] In terms of the "everyone's equal" argument, well, I don't think it matters if it's really true or not (and that argument's one for the ages), the fact is that as a society and a civilization we must hold to that principle to approach anything like justice. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
arachneia
Posts: 415 Location: On the wings of Bob Lennon |
|
|||||||||
Does the series actually evaluate who gets to judge? I don't really think so; I think it's established that humans should not usurp such a right, but whether it should be left to fate, chance, god, or whatever other concept is left unclear. All that is definitive is that the series speaks against the "eye for an eye" mentality, asserting that there is never a moral impetus to kill, even in revenge (or self-defense, when other means are possible). I think the series tackles a lot of huge issues, and one seems to be how far one can go until he reaches that point where these ideologies and altruistic sentiments simply cannot apply anymore; in other words, how far would spoiler[Johann] have to go in order to convince Tenma that some humans do need to be killed? Should our ideals, mercy, and forgiveness be limitless - and if they aren't, if they function only up to a certain point, does that negate them when applied elsewhere? Does it denote unfairness and hypocrisy?
Yes, but justice itself presumes to decide whether one gets to keep his "equality"; otherwise, would we punish crime by putting people away in order to "protect" the rest of the population? This itself makes the judgment of the innocent deserving more than the guilty, which is essentially what I am saying. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
batou37
 Posts: 455 |
|
|||||||||
|
(Let me preface this by stating that the 2 eps of Monster that have been broadcast so far are the only ones I've seen. I know the basic premise of the story but none of the specifics.)
Sorry to jump in on the conversation but i just was thinking that you could take it even a step further and state that while "justice" is a necessary aspect of society, it is our society that defines the framework of this "justice" thereby each partly creating and defining the other. As to the idea that all are created equal I think it is a great moral to strive towards, but in practice it is sometimes untenable or even detrimental. Take for instance A group of 10 people shipwrecked on an island. A doctor, 2 farmers, the ship captain, 3 carpenters/deckhands, a biology teacher, and a retired couple that were just passengers on the boat. Providing there is ample fresh water and land to cultivate with some seeds that washed up from the cargo this group has a good chance of extended survival until a hopeful rescue. Now consider a situation were a poisonous snake gets into the retired couples hut at night. they begin to scream and the doctor rushes to help. The old man is bitten first and then as the doctor rushes in he steps on the snake and is bitten as well. Unfortunately the doctor only has one antivenin treatment in his medical bag. So the question I pose is this; who gets to live? The old man because he was bitten first (which in the long run will probably sacrifice more lives because they would now have no doctor) or the doctor because he has more "situational value" -sorry I had to make up a phrase there to get across what I meant. What If one of the deckhands (who is a teenager) had been bitten instead of the doctor? Should he be saved instead because he has a longer life ahead of him and can also contribute more to the group...or are they all equal and since the old man was bitten first he gets the treatment? Please don't take this as any type of statement that I believe in a class based society. I merely propose it as a thought experiment. I agree that everyone should be afforded the same opportunities in all possible situations. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
daedelus
 Posts: 743 Location: Texas City, TX (ajd: 6/11/05) |
|
|||||||||
|
@batou37
While I do understand what your getting at, there is one flaw in your scenario. If the doctor is a tried-and-true, hippocratic oath following doctor, he would never allow himself to be saved at the expense of another. The only way I see it happening is if the other castaways decide to subdue him and forcibly administer the treatment. That, or the doctor is only out for himself, in which case the castaways would have a lot more to worry about. 
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
batou37
Posts: 455 |
|
|||||||||
|
yeah I guess i should have chosen another example because of that fact. how about the biologist instead of the doctor. I included him (or her) in order to make decisions about what is safe to eat, dangerous plants, animals, things found in the environment that could be useful for their health or well being (medicinal plants etc...)
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
rainbowcourage
Posts: 1216 Location: what is commonly known as "hell week" |
|
|||||||||
Wow, I'm in Theory of Knowledge all over again.
I agree with you actually, and I never asserted that the series evaluated who gets to judge, simply that it raises the fundamental question. The best part of Monster is that there are no good answers.
Then again, *end of series spoiler* spoiler[we don't know how Johan will choose to spend his life after he escapes from the hospital. I felt that he came to terms with certain things (i.e. his mother) in the final episode in a kind of weird way, so who knows what he'll be doing. We already know that Franz Bonaparta spent his life atoning for the wrongs he committed, so who's to say Johan can't? The point is that if the best outcome when dealing with a serial murderer is not capital punishment but rather a lifetime of atonement, then it's possible that, if he's not sorry, Johan might at least stop killing. The question is if his atonement can ever outweigh what he's done--which is probably not, but we don't have enough information to know.] The point is that without knowing a person's past or future, there's no way to be a "judge" and that's precisely Tenma's philosophy. It's also important to realize that someone like spoiler[Johan] is a very extreme example. Take, for instance, the scientist who finally discovers that love is the key ingredient to raising children. spoiler[His case is a lot more ambiguous because he did a lot of ill to a lot of children, but he's now raising a bunch of orphans]. Not all the cases are as lopsided as spoiler[Johan's].
Any way to rephrase this? I can't wrap my head around that last sentence. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Kelly
Posts: 868 Location: New York City |
|
|||||||||
|
I must say, I was quite impressed with the first two episodes. It's quite a change from the anime that usually airs on TV.
As for the moral question presented, the situation would have been a bit different if the director had said to Tenma "look, it's horrible, but we have to lean towards the mayor because he's going to get us funds to help the next 500 trauma victims that are carted in here". He didn't, and we're not dealing with the usual hospital financial woes of which debates over socializing health care are made. He was fully prepared to toss the boy out the window solely because he was no use to furthering the lining of his pockets. That's a whole different story, and was repulsive in the extreme. Eva was no better, and deserves to get hitched to a guy who looses everything in the stock market and stuck in a situation where she can't get divorced. Again, repulsive individual no better than her dear old dad. Interested in seeing what direction this series takes now. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group