?? why is it okay for Snow & PC to kill….

[nonnie]

?? Why is it okay for Snow & PC to kill random soldiers and minions when they went to war against KING GEORGE, REGINA when they fought for the kingdom and it is not okay for them to kill Cora, Regina or Hook et all? Is it because the soldiers are faceless and unknown personally by the good guys? JUST cannon fodder?

Or is it because they know and see Cora, Regina et all… They went to war against Regina and George so I assume the foot soldiers were killed during the battle. Why is it not okay to kill the generals / leaders? (maybe family) Just because we did not see SNOW kill anyone in battle did not mean she did not… she is accurate with her bow & arrow.

Any thoughts on this???
.
.

[spinninggold]

I’m so with you on this one, I actually mentioned it in Ponderings & Wonderings in the general forum. As she tries to free Charming from the castle I see her slash her sword to an innocent soldier (well, sorta…point is, they are people too, with families…well, fictional people).. And that is not murder, but killing Regina or Cora is?
Double standards if you ask me.

[jbwood5]

It’s different when it’s a kill or be killed situation. If they were engaged in a battle with Cora and killed her it wouldn’t be considered murder but survival. Which is kind of how snow is starting to few the entire war that is going on hence her determined to kill Cora.

[jolly roger]

I have been thinking the exact same thing since the last episode. I really don’t understand it either.
Jbwood5 – You make a good point. But killing is killing. Doesn’t matter the situation. And Charming and Snow are against murder (they’ve stated this multiple times).
They contradict themselves. It would be wiser to kill the leader (Cora, Regina etc.) rather than ordinary people. Once the leader is dead, their followers will step down. Therefore rather than killing many people, they only kill 1 or 2. If they were truly against murder, they would have done this in the first place, rather than run amok and let them kill innocent people.

I hope this makes sense, I don’t know how else to say it.

[Myril]

@Jolly Roger wrote:

I have been thinking the exact same thing since the last episode. I really don’t understand it either.
Jbwood5 – You make a good point. But killing is killing. Doesn’t matter the situation. And Charming and Snow are against murder (they’ve stated this multiple times).

Killing is not killing – unless we reduce it to a technical matter. Situation, context, motives do matter, make a difference. Of course, that is an ethical point of view, so changeable with history, society and convictions. As far as I know every society makes a distinction between justifiable and not justifiable killing, but what is defined as what can be different.

A good question if the use of violence, of deadly violence is in any case ever justifiable.

Although could turn the question around and ask, is there any use of violence, even of deadly violence which never could be justifiable? Should the question even ever be asked that way around? But maybe that would be more a discussion for a philosophy forum.

Who says that it wouldn’t be okay at all for Snow (or David, Emma …) to kill Cora or Regina or Hook or Rumple (yup, he is a bad guy too, isn’t he, he killed, and might attack Henry)? Don’t think that anyone says it is in general wrong without regards of circumstances and context. What is questioned, if it is okay to go after Cora, Regina or Hook or other “bad guys” as an act of either revenge or as a preemptive strike to stop them harming, killing in the future. This question includes the execution of Regina stopped last minute by Snow.

I don’t see any double standards here, I see conflicting views and ethical dilemma.

Can we agree, that basically killing someone is something that shouldn’t be done? Or in other words: As long as we ignore circumstances we all assume that killing a human is basically wrong.

(Before you start arguing, there are reasons justifying killing, let this basic assumption sink in, please)

That means: As long as we ignore circumstances killing a human being would be something that demands punishment.

(again, please, just let this statement sink in for a moment)

Killing a human being is basically wrong, but there are circumstances that can make a kill justifiable and make us pass on punishment or change the manner of punishment.

If there are circumstance making a kill justifiable, which circumstance are that?
Who defines which circumstance make a kill justifiable?

Now, I should point out that if I say something is justifiable I don’t mean per se that it makes something all right or good even, for me there is a difference. If something is justifiable it doesn’t make it for me automatically the right thing to do, but it changes how I will deal with it and its consequences. Justifiable is a matter of ethics and jurisdiction, if something is right is a matter of view and ethics, it’s more an opinion or believe than a fact.

So, back to Snow.

Is it okay that Snow probably killed soldiers in battle? No, but it is justifiable as something done in combat. If she would have met Regina there directly in combat, if Regina would have attacked her there face to face and Snow would have killed her that moment, then I doubt many would question if that is okay to go unpunished.

If Snow would have killed Regina or Cora there in the clock tower while Regina had Johanna’s heart in her hands, I think as well most people would have found that justifiable, and in this case many would call it even right, seeing it as an act of immediate defense.

Yes, it matters if something happens face to face and the very moment, or if the reasoning is based on something that has happened in the past or is speculated to eventually happen in the future.

When Snow on the cemetery after burying Johanna muses about what had happened and then states, she is going to kill Cora, the situation is judged differently. There is no face to face situation there, no immediate threat, no ongoing attack.

One can argue, it’s still about defense for Snow (is it?), it makes sense to stop Cora now before she does more harm, doesn’t it. Not killing her would make Snow even kinda responsible for all the future deaths Cora might cause, or not? So it is okay, it has to be done, and Snow should not feel any guilty. Do it, be done and have your happy ending.

Well, I would find Snow scary if she wouldn’t hesitate and feel bad about it and not go through the feelings of ethical dilemma here.

It’s the old question if assassinating a brutal, murderous despot is murder or not. Well, it is murder in my opinion, it’s not an act of immediate self-defense, but it can be justyfied, eventually.

But how far should it go? It seems simple as long as just the person in question, Cora or Regina, will be killed. But what if you can only accomplish that by killing someone else on the way? Or is it okay to trick them into a situation where you can single them out, but to get there you have to use other people, innocent people even, bring them eventually in harm’s way? What means does the end justify? If it would kill maybe 1 or 2 more or less innocent people but one can be safe to assume it will safe the lives of many other would that be as justifiable?

Right, was it really justifiable that David and Snow went into war against King Georg and Regina? And we’re back at Nonnie’s question. Why is one okay and the other not? No simple answers there, not in my view that is.

¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯

[kfchimera]

Mryill makes excellent points about a complicated, philosophical question. Bottom line is that civilized societies draw a distinction about the reasons people kill, and the methods they use.

They do kind of address the topic in the show though, in the scene where Snow and Charming talk a little about the difference between executing Regina (putting her on trial, and then in front of a firing squad), and assassinating her (when Charming stopped Snow from using an arrow in the woods).
Since the topic has come up before for them, I took Snow’s moral crisis moment to mean that she is willing to consider using methods that ordinarily, she would consider wrong, like that candle or other dark magic, or something else other than holding a trial and execution or waiting for the moment to defend herself, or an open declaration of war to remove an unjust, unfit ruler.

Of course, I’m still trying to square this moment of ethics for Snow with her earlier treatment of Mulan. Sure, Mulan sort of forced the issue by saying Snow would have to kill her to stop her from delivering the compass, but it certainly seemed like Snow was just about to go there when Aurora appeared. And that’s another odd question, because we know Cora was controlling Aurora. Didn’t Cora WANT to see Snow’s heart blackened?
So maybe in FTL, some of the killings that are “justified” are not entirely in line with what we think they are here (and even in our world, people draw those lines differently, country to country and even in the USA at least, state to state). But they do have lines, and up til now, Snow and Charming didn’t want to cross them. Now she seems to be saying “well, maybe I should, because playing by the rules is getting me nowhere.”

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[spinninggold]

No easy answers indeed, and that is what creates the problem, because OuaT seems to take a position that murder is bad and changes people, but forget that their character already killed and made a conscious choice in this.
Snow CHOSE to attack king Henry’s castle and so she chose the death of the soldiers she attacked. Anyways, Regina constantly attacks Snow so she has every right to kill her, and it might even be the smart thing to do.
Fact is killing changes people but Snow has already done so. It IS a moral question whether to kill someone or not, but I think the death Snow already caused is sweeped under the carpet too lightly. I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels this way.
I think the moral question Adam & Eddie want to raise is about redemption and what it means to take someone’s life, but they easily stepped around the concept what it means to kill in a war situation, which is just as traumatizing and changes people. I hope they will show later that they have thought about it, but right now it doesn’t look like it.
And that’s why at least I am a bit upset. Because there should not be a difference in killing Cora or a soldier. It’s a human life, and one is just as important as the other. That is the ONLY answer, as far as I am concerned. And I get the feeling it is overlooked, to create a storyline.
I sure hope I am wrong.

[jolly roger]

myril – That was a very long answer, but thank you.

I stick by what I said though. But as SpinningGold said, there are no easy answers.

Killing the leader is always wiser and they should have aimed at that in the first place. Think of historical people who had done very terrible things (I won’t name them specifically). When people realised how much damage they had done, they were forced to kill them – it was the only way.
This is what I mean. I’m not saying that it’s not alright to kill a soilder. If you must, you must. However rather than sit around and thinking about what to do while Regina or Cora becomes more powerful and causes more pain, they should’ve just planned to end them. Not only would it benefit them, it would benefit everyone.

So as I said before, if they were really against murder, they would’ve done this. Because they were murdering or causing pain to innocent victims (e.g. the hunstman, Hanstel and Gretels father etc.)

[surayya]

I’ve posted about this topic unwittingly in another thread where it came up- the difference between whether a character/s could or even should be called/considered Evil or Bad & bottom line is by definition ‘Killing’ & ‘Murder’ are 2 VERY different actions & so cant be considered mutually exclusive.

For the sake of clarity, I’m going to keep things as simple & boiled down as possible.
Killing = the act of causing death; slaying.

Murder = the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

& now I will introduce the 3rd facet (which covers Snow’s actions & killing in general)
Justifiable Homicide = the killing of a human being by another person.

Each of the above 3 actions all result in the death or ‘killing’ of a person- but not necessarily the ‘murder’ of a person.
Examples-
Killing encompasses taking the life of anything- from a flower to a person & for our purposes, covers the likes of battles/wars, where you have soldiers killing soldiers on the battle field- it is just that, ‘killing’. The soldiers do not necessarily ‘want’ to go out there & kill the enemy, but they will do so, if called upon to protect their country, people, rights etc
ie.
The killing is done out of duty, not a desire to kill.

Justifiable Homicide, considers the surrounding circumstances of killing a ‘person’. With this, the killing is not considered a criminal or socially ‘wrong’ act, but one which is commanded or authorized by law- such as, soldiers in a time of war, commanded to kill enemy soldiers (again), a public official carrying out a death sentence because the execution is commanded by state or federal law, people whom are authorized to kill others in self-defense or in the defense of others- if the person reasonably believes that the killing is absolutely necessary in order to prevent serious harm or death to him/herself or to others & police officers may use deadly force to stop or apprehend a fleeing felon, but only if the suspect is armed or has committed a crime that involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious injury or death.
ie.
Snow’s situation fits “Justified Homicide”, as it fit’s perfectly in the category of ‘people who are authorized (aka justified) to kill others in self-defense or in the defense of others- if said person reasonably believes that the killing is absolutely necessary in order to prevent serious harm or death to him/herself or to others- no one can doubt that Cora would have killed & in fact was already planning on killing at least one other person, when Snow made the decision to ‘go through’ with Rumple’s manipulation- I mean idea 😉
It covers all self defense & sanctioned killings- so a death took place but was unavoidable given the circumstances.

Murder is perhaps the single most serious criminal offense. It covers the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought- that is they have done one or many of the following, thought the killing through or planned the killing out (premeditation), holds malice for intended victim, has a level of intent or recklessness that separates the killing from other killings & so warrants stiffer punishment, these cover the 4 types of Murder (1) intentional murder; (2) Murder resulting from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) Murder resulting from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; (4) murder committed by an accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.
ie.
Cora murdering Snow’s mother, she intentionally sought to kill her, out of a depraved heart & recklessness. It was she who unlawfully thought of it, planned it (premeditation) & in cold blood instigated/caused her death.

I think it was during S1, i remember an interview with Genny & stated point blank in it, that Snow didn’t go for the kill in her rescue of Charming etc, as it didn’t fit the character profile. She talked to A&E about this & they agreed to have her go for the appendages/ non lethal blows & knock outs, rather than killings. I would have to go back & watch S2 to see if she actually ‘kill’s’ on the battle field, but as those events are supposed to have happened before they had Emma, the same rules should still apply.

Snow’s reaction to her causing Cora’s death (the women who Murdered her mother, murdered her childhood mother figure, had murdered her stepmothers ‘true love’, kidnapped Archie, attempted murder/heart ripping out of her own daughter & herself in FTL as well as intended harm/murder of Rumple), is because she is a good person at heart & cant come to terms with what she set in motion, while in the depths of her grief & anger, having just witnessed another loved one being murdered in front of her.
I think everyone else has moved on from what Snow did & see it as justifiable, problem is Snow doesn’t.

I do have a problem with how they have Snow having a blackened heart for it- that I personally feel they have failed on & it is just a gimmick to ‘make her more interesting’ (it’s assumed we don’t find a ‘good/pure heart’ed’ character compelling enough I guess 😕 ), as by their standards pretty much every-single character in FTL (aside from the children) have blackened hearts, after all, most of them will have fought for or against, one king or queen or another 😕 🙄

[surayya]

Oh gosh! I didn’t expect that post to be so long- sorry!!! 😳

[Author]

Posts