I seem to've hit a nerve.therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 1:52 amI said "it feels ethically wrong to me" to engage in a purely knee-jerk devaluation, and the "flexing our muscles of ethical evaluation" doesn't always mean that we are going to be perfectly even- we bring our own judgments, notions, and power dynamics (including yes, our invasive position as viewers) into the equation. This isn't a plea to sing Kumbaya around a fire for every character, but that films like this are aiming to be complex, and I was answering DarkImbecile's question with my own personal dismissal of the idea that someone (fictional or literal) should be easily dismissed as irredeemable. There's a difference to me between analyzing how killing off a character is unethical and the process by which we dismiss the worth of a central principal's humanity when there are opportunities to challenge ourselves to see deeper and peripherally, especially in a film like The Lost Daughter that is built around such a character study, and one I think is tragically devoid of richness. I believe such processes of looking down on these characters are detrimental to social engagement outside of fiction, and perhaps I have a personal stake in this, beyond professional codes of ethics, as someone who saw himself in "irredeemable" black-sheep characters growing up (in films clearly designed to feel a mix of empathy and judgment for them) and that shaped my sense of self, but my post was clearly about what I believe subjectively and not an objective analysis you seem to be drawing that reminds me of a puzzle from my college philosophy of logic class.
I normally wouldn't mind if something feels wrong to you, but you said it feels ethically wrong. But ethics are not a feeling; they're a systematized way of classifying behaviours as right and wrong. You can't claim someone's behaviour is unethical on a feeling. You have to justify it. This is pedantic, yeah, but important because it's not nothing to claim this or that is unethical. That word has a ton of weight. I don't think it applies here.
Whatever the difference is, it's not an ethical one. A character that does not exist cannot be hurt. Devaluing them has no direct consequences on another human being (and you can devalue a character as a way of devaluing a set of attitudes or values or actions that do have direct negative consequences in life, such as you find in satire). That is, unless you want to argue...therewillbeblus wrote:There's a difference to me between analyzing how killing off a character is unethical and the process by which we dismiss the worth of a central principal's humanity when there are opportunities to challenge ourselves to see deeper and peripherally
...this. And this could be true. But then perhaps the opposite is true: our social engagement determines how we look at fictional characters rather than vice versa. There's a correlation = causation problem here. Also, something that may make it more likely for you to behave unethically later is not therefore itself unethical. A. That's a slippery slope argument of a weird kind. B. That would make, say, a feeling like envy unethical, eg. liking your neighbours nice new car makes it more likely that you would steal said car than if you didn't like it, and therefore unethical because it is detrimental to our social etc. etc. Or, you know, anger. Being angry makes you more likely to do something hurtful than if you're not angry. Is anger therefore unethical? I doubt it.therewillbeblus wrote:I believe such processes of looking down on these characters are detrimental to social engagement outside of fiction
I guess I could always be more illogical in the future.therewillbeblus wrote:not an objective analysis you seem to be drawing that reminds me of a puzzle from my college philosophy of logic class.