Moral logic

[beccaelizabeth]

Sometimes people's Watsonian analysis of texts pure *worries* me.

They're like, okay, Angsty White Guy did an evil and betrayed everyone
but look
results!
Clearly since he saved the world
he did the right thing!

And I'm just like
Doylist
analysis
needed:

Why does some guy with a typewriter want you to see it that way?

Why does some guy typing somehow always make it okay when
that guy
we know which guy
always that guy
does a violence and ignores the laws?

What are they selling
and why are we buying it?




I realise I watch a lot of shows where people use violence For Great Justice
and I have had Things To Say about, basically, the bad guys, and how also they have a point

so I'm sure I've done this
I'm sure I've worried others

what am I selling?


I am not liking the logic on
the argument that goes
but it works, look at the results!

when every result is because
some guy typed that.



Bad guy plans never work for long:
good guy plans always do in the appropriate act
after setbacks, so it dont seem too easy.

So who is designating good and bad here
and why?



Ends justify the means is not a moral to the story I want.