- This topic has 57 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just something I’ve been pondering. When a “hero” does something good, is it still good when they either deny or refuse someone else their personal rights or even break the law? For Example:
Example 1.) Ursula The Sea Witch (Disney on Broadway version):
In the Broadway version of Disney’s The Little Mermaid, Ursula is the sister of King Triton, both the children of the deceased Poseidon, who on his death bed, split his power in two, giving Triton the Magic Trident, and Ursula his Magic Shell. The kingdom was split into two and Queen Ursula ruled one half and King Trident ruled the other. Two separate kingdoms.
Triton, however, took Ursula’s crown, banished her, and took over the entire sea for himself. True, Ursula was eating her subjects and using dark magic, BUT it was HER kingdom. Not his. She could rule it in anyway she saw fit. Girl’s gotta eat >>
So is it wrong that she wanted her rightful crown back? She used her power to get back her crown, and BANISH Triton (not kill him). Why is she considered the villain when he did the first wrong?
In some way, Ursula did what Snow White did: She (attempted) take back her kingdom.
Example 2.) The Wicked Witch of the West (1939 Version)
This is probably a better example. In the 1939 movie, the witches of the east and west are sisters. When the east witch dies, The West Witch shows up to investigate. She’s not so wrong right there is she? Evil or not, one deserves to know about and mourn the death of close family.
Anyway, the witch notices her sisters shoes are missing, the ones that should know be passed on to her. And of course that old Sneaky Glinda (see my other post: https://oncepodcast.com/forums/topic/glinda-the-wicked-witch-of-oz/) refuses the west witch the only remains of her dead sister. So of course the movie is about two chicks fighting over shoes. Shoes that rightfully belong to the West Witch.
“Wait, wait, wait, Watcher! If you read the books, you’d know the witch was trying to take over Oz with the power of those shoes!” Indeed, I know this. But my answer to you is: So? Those shoes were hers the moment Dorothy landed onto her sister. That’s theft on top of murder for Dorothy. Not too mention stealing some guys Scarecrow >>
Example 3.) Rumpelstiltskin 😀
Rumpel gave Cinderella a (presumably) legal contract that he would send her to the ball in exchange for her first baby… yet they act as if he is the villain, forgetting that Cinderella signed a contract that basically spelled everything out for her and then got made that the conditions weren’t what she wanted. Why is Rumpel locked up for this? He should have gotten that baby because she AGREED to the terms. Her fault was not reading the contract. Atleast Cora was smart enough to change the deal to fit what she wanted >> Rumpel was wrongly incarcerated for a crime that Cinderella commited. She broke her contract v.v
But still, my overall question is: Sometimes people have to react in a certain way when they have been wronged. Ursula wanted her crown back and Wicked Witch wanted HER shoes and both of these things were taken wrongfully from them. Are you still a villain if that is the case? Is that considered good to deny a “villain” something when they are WITHIN their rights?
[adrotate group="5"]"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICDoes moral imperative trump “rights?” Because in the first case of Ursula, she was infringing on the rights of others: eating them for instance. And in the second case, the Wicket Witch wanted to overtake Oz. And with Dorothy, those shoes were hers by right of conquest, more or less. In both instances the “good” guys had a moral imperative to protect the “underlings” from impending evil.
And without getting too far into politics or trying to lay down a moral judgement on the US, but how many times does America enter into a country because citizens are being abused, killed, ect.
At some point do “villains” forsake their rights when the rights of the collective whole are being abused?
Regina was mass murdering her subjects for her revenge. When offered the choice of running off with Charming in 302, Snow stayed because she thought it was better for her subjects to not have to live under what she deemed an immoral ruler.
EDIT
Think about John Locke and his “Second Treatise” and the idea of the social contract. There Locke spells out that government gets its right to rule from the goverened and that it cannot infringe on the natural rights of its citizens. (If someone has a better explanation, give it cause The Enlightenment is about 1600 years AFTER my area of expertise). I would say being eaten takes away my natural right to live.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"But still, my overall question is: Sometimes people have to react in a certain way when they have been wronged. Ursula wanted her crown back and Wicked Witch wanted HER shoes and both of these things were taken wrongfully from them. Are you still a villain if that is the case? Is that considered good to deny a “villain” something when they are WITHIN their rights?
Was Adolf Hitler within his “rights” when he invaded the Rhineland, which under the Treaty of Versailles of 1918, was off-limits to Germany following its loss in WWI? Hitler claimed that Germany had a right to the Rhineland after it was forced to concede the territory in an armistice after losing the Great War, a long 4-years bloodbath, which it has instigated. Part of Hitler’s entire campaign was to “reunite” all the German-speaking peoples of Europe to rebuild the great fatherland of Germany. That was his stated rationale when German troops deliberately went against the peace treaty, and the rest of Europe appeased Hitler, rationalizing that surely that would be enough to placate his greed for land and power and for hear of sparking another war. Hitler saw it a sign of weakness amongst the other leaders of Europe and not only went ahead with the German occupation of the Rhineland, but also proceeded to take over Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, etc…One by one, the great powers of Europe fell like dominos to German rule, except for England and the USSR. Millions of innocent people died in concentration camps because they didn’t fit the German ideal. If England, the USSR, the US and other allies had not fought back to the defend Europe’s freedom, the world would look a lot different today.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
Was Rumple within his rights to try and take Cinderella’s baby? It was stated in the contract that Cinderella signed willingly without reading it. Assuming it was the same contract with Cora, the first born trade was specified within the first couple of lines.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixWas Rumple within his rights to try and take Cinderella’s baby? It was stated in the contract that Cinderella signed willingly without reading it. Assuming it was the same contract with Cora, the first born trade was specified within the first couple of lines.
Ah, but Rumple never truly wanted the baby. He wanted to be locked up to await the Curse. Yes he terrified Ella and Thomas into thinking that he wanted their child, but he never did.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Was Rumple within his rights to try and take Cinderella’s baby? It was stated in the contract that Cinderella signed willingly without reading it. Assuming it was the same contract with Cora, the first born trade was specified within the first couple of lines.
If the contract was legal, he was right to take the baby. Not his fault she didn’t read it. Cora had enough sense to read something before signing it.
Does moral imperative trump “rights?” Because in the first case of Ursula, she was infringing on the rights of others: eating them for instance.
Ursula only ate the animals. She talks about eating caviar before it hatched and shellfish. If she is evil for eating animals then are we?
And in the second case, the Wicket Witch wanted to overtake Oz. And with Dorothy, those shoes were hers by right of conquest, more or less. In both instances the “good” guys had a moral imperative to protect the “underlings” from impending evil.
The witch had only taken over the Winkie country. Other than that was she really “that” evil?? Glinda and Tattypoo fought her off before, giving her the shoes wouldn’t give her THAT much power sense the witch of the east wasn’t doing much. If she got out of hand, cast a rain spell. Either way, giving the witch her shoes would be giving a pair shoes to a mourning sister in my opinion. There was no reason to deny her them.
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICTrue and it was his intention to be locked up but he still had the contract. Rumple has operated baby deals before (James went to George in order to save the Charming farm) Who’s to say Rumple wouldn’t have found some loving parents for Cinderella’s baby.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixTrue and it was his intention to be locked up but he still had the contract. Rumple has operated baby deals before (James went to George in order to save the Charming farm) Who’s to say Rumple wouldn’t have found some loving parents for Cinderella’s baby.
Or eat It like in the original. But Rumpel wasn’t wrong if he had a legal contract. Who knows what he wanted with it. Maybe if she read the contract she would know. Maybe he planned on giving it away to a couple in exchange for something
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICThink about John Locke and his “Second Treatise” and the idea of the social contract. There Locke spells out that government gets its right to rule from the goverened and that it cannot infringe on the natural rights of its citizens. (If someone has a better explanation, give it cause The Enlightenment is about 1600 years AFTER my area of expertise). I would say being eaten takes away my natural right to live.
The idea of a social contract is pretty much as you describe. A government agrees to protect the human rights of its citizens while those citizens abide by the country’s laws. So while every citizen has certain rights (e.g. the Bill of Rights), those same citizens cannot go around infringing on the rights of others (e.g. it is illegal to kill another citizen unless in self defense). So, citizens give up certain liberties (like not having to pay taxes), but in exchange are guaranteed to have certain rights protected. If, however, the government fails to protect the agreed upon rights, or if its laws infringe upon those rights already established in the written constitution, then the people have the right to dissolve that government (leave the social contract) in favor of a new one.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
The topic ‘Can You Deny A Villain Their "Rights"?’ is closed to new replies.