(no subject)

I just read an essay on Daleks and the human allies they corrupt. It was very interesting. As far as it went. It had interesting things to say about the changing nature of evil as portrayed over three different decades. I liked the starting point, where they talk about the pedagogical function of fairytales, teaching good and evil to the littles. But then they stop talking about good, except for in the never defined phrase 'good people' as in 'good people can do evil things', which is a phrase which tramples right across several things I find obvious. Like, there's no such thing as good people, there's just acts that can be interpreted as good and evil, and you really need to define your terms in advance. Since they've just defined evil as things that society says you shouldn't ought to then good presumably means doing like society says is good. Otherwise we're getting into essentialism, which ties up to racism around the edges and a lot of other nasty isms. But they don't say. They also stop talking about the Doctor, who one could see as the moral focus of the show across most all of the run. But then they mention him again at the end... where 7 has become Dalek ally by doing exterminating. Which the new series mentions and circles around a lot. So that's interesting. But without discussing what good actually is then all that discussing about evil seems to miss the point of it being Doctor Who, and not some other depressing horror story. There's good and optimism to counterbalance all the other stuff.

That bit about exterminating Daleks being evil is debatable too. If they're not free willed entities, if they never change their minds because they cannot, if the comparison to a deadly disease brought up in Genesis is valid, then surely treating the disease and getting rid of it is a reasonable thing to do? But then again, as in New Series, there's some that *are* free willed... which brings the Doctor up short, so instead of sending them all to hell that time he offers second chances. So it's a key distinction. If they can change their minds then their minds must be changed. If they cannot... what are the options? Universal extermination, or exterminate the Daleks. 4 didn't believe it because he believed other species could team up and handle it. 7... maybe knows how that works out? Maybe knows the war and the Time Lord's predicted future of a Dalek universe? Doesn't believe talk will work. In which case, sitting back and not stopping Daleks becomes... still the good guy thing to do? Not so much.

I like arguing morality with DW quotes. Is much colorful.

Oh, the other thing about the essay is it consistently uses amoral in a way that the dictionaries I've checked do not agree with. They use amoral to mean evil, whereas a philosophy dictionary says "having no implications for morality". Methinks they mean immoral? Doing things that are not moral. Amoral says the code doesn't apply. I can almost see how it might fit, but they don't seem to be using it that way. They mean going against the moral code, which is im, not a.

I think. I studied up on philosophy last a long time ago, and only from one really big book. *shrugs*

So, anyway: I have quotes I can use in a presentation or essay, for looking at Daleks as embodiment of evil and teaching strategy. I can also turn that around and see what the good guys look like and what they teach. The whole thing where they're saying 'being evil gets you killed' runs into considerable trouble when you notice that 'killing good people is being evil' and therefore that quite often in DW 'being good gets you killed'.

Of course with the Doctor or Jack this is not a long term difficulty... which I can also prove off the chosen episode, so yaays.

Being good gets you resurrected... now where have I heard that before... /sarcasm

Doctor Who

I did not so much like that. ( Read more... )

There's a lot of bits I could-should like. I'll watch it again later and decide if it's actually the story or if I'm grumbly. Didn't much like the confidential either, it mostly told us stuff we already knew and have on DVD. Which, er, it does often. Oh, did you notice who was also in a bunch of clips even if he didn't get named? Nice. Eh. I can only hope all everything that got mentioned will shortly prove to be relevant, cause that could be cool.