Totenkindly
@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 50,192
- MBTI Type
- BELF
- Enneagram
- 594
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
I just finished watching this movie called "Gone, Baby, Gone," which ended up being profound and moving. (Interestingly, i think it was directed by Ben Affleck -- the guy is a mediocre actor, but has done a good job with directing translations of novels.)
If you haven't seen the movie, maybe you want to avoid this discussion since there are some reveals. I can Spoiler them I suppose, but the movie was a perfect example of competing truths and what is "right" to do.
So in this case we get a situation where there are competing values -- particularly, individual happiness of most of the people involved or at least the most "innocent" of the people involved, vs upholding a promise that one person made to another and reinforcing the established order of things, whether it is the social familial expectation or the legal process involved.
How does one actually compare these two things which are like apples and oranges? Such as a parent's claim to a child vs the happiness of the child? (I've seen this in other situations, where for example a foster kid is sent back to the bio parents despite the foster situation being FAR better for the child in the long term, at least in the most obvious ways.) Or perhaps expecting an older and not adept employee to retire so that someone younger and more knowledgeable could take their place, vs respecting someone's long commitment to a particular company? Or providing government medical care to an older but habitually ill person, vs providing financial relief to younger people who are footing the bill? (Or Social Security in the USA, for that matter?)
Is there any fair and rational way of proceeding where there are conflicting values, or do we simply have to prioritize one over the other?
If you haven't seen the movie, maybe you want to avoid this discussion since there are some reveals. I can Spoiler them I suppose, but the movie was a perfect example of competing truths and what is "right" to do.
A little girl disappears. A younger couple -- both private detectives who work together -- are asked by the aunt to find her. Her mother is a white trash coke whore and is obviously bad for her daughter, either neglecting her or dragging her off on drug runs and shit like that. They manage to investigate things to the point of suspecting that a local drug lord kidnapped her because the mom stole a lot of money from him during a bust, yet when they talk to the drug lord the scene plays in such a way that he really seems to not have done it. yet suddenly he calls into the police (the two detectives working the case) to set up a trade.
In the process of the trade, the drug lord is capped and the little girl supposedly drowns despite her body not being found. End of story?
A contact of the private detective contacts him about a family that was originally suspected of kidnapping kids, for abuse. He tells the police detectives; they raid the place; the one police detective is killed. The other gets drunk and dumps some stuff on the private dick that leads him to suspect the surviving police detective hasn't told the whole truth about the little girl either.
Turns out the entire thing was a setup. The drug lord was framed; the two detectives and the police chief (who retired after the little girl supposedly drowned) conspired with the girl's uncle to kidnap her and get her a better life, living with the police chief whose own daughter was murdered when she was 12.
The private dick figures this out and confronts the retired police chief at his house. The little girl is there and looking very very happy. They exchange words and make their cases -- it's a case of what is "more right"... kidnapping this little girl so that she can actually have a chance at a real life (and it really looks like she IS very happy with them), vs being with her bio mother who is neglectful and self-absorbed and will likely never change. Even the private dick's girlfriend, after seeing the girl, tells him that she's happy, they should leave her there, it's what is for the best, and that she doesn't want to hate him but feels like if he turns the guy in, they're over.
He turns in the police chief anyway, the girl goes back to her mom, the papers make a big story out of it, there's a lot of "happy bullshit" all over the news about the little girl being safely home, but the dick is still obviously turn. His girlfriend leaves him. He goes to the little girl's house and the white trash mom is going out on a date and is just leaving her little girl at home again in front of the TV. The dick says he'll watch her, and the mom leaves. The dick tries to connect with the little girl and notes the name of her doll -- and the little girl corrects him, which leaves him even more conflicted, because the mother didn't even know the right name of the girl's doll. In one alternate scene, there's an overdub with the dick saying he thinks he was wrong; in the actual release, the scene just lingers on the guy and the girl on the couch together, forcing us to wrestle with these competing truths without trying to tell us what was right vs wrong.
In the process of the trade, the drug lord is capped and the little girl supposedly drowns despite her body not being found. End of story?
A contact of the private detective contacts him about a family that was originally suspected of kidnapping kids, for abuse. He tells the police detectives; they raid the place; the one police detective is killed. The other gets drunk and dumps some stuff on the private dick that leads him to suspect the surviving police detective hasn't told the whole truth about the little girl either.
Turns out the entire thing was a setup. The drug lord was framed; the two detectives and the police chief (who retired after the little girl supposedly drowned) conspired with the girl's uncle to kidnap her and get her a better life, living with the police chief whose own daughter was murdered when she was 12.
The private dick figures this out and confronts the retired police chief at his house. The little girl is there and looking very very happy. They exchange words and make their cases -- it's a case of what is "more right"... kidnapping this little girl so that she can actually have a chance at a real life (and it really looks like she IS very happy with them), vs being with her bio mother who is neglectful and self-absorbed and will likely never change. Even the private dick's girlfriend, after seeing the girl, tells him that she's happy, they should leave her there, it's what is for the best, and that she doesn't want to hate him but feels like if he turns the guy in, they're over.
He turns in the police chief anyway, the girl goes back to her mom, the papers make a big story out of it, there's a lot of "happy bullshit" all over the news about the little girl being safely home, but the dick is still obviously turn. His girlfriend leaves him. He goes to the little girl's house and the white trash mom is going out on a date and is just leaving her little girl at home again in front of the TV. The dick says he'll watch her, and the mom leaves. The dick tries to connect with the little girl and notes the name of her doll -- and the little girl corrects him, which leaves him even more conflicted, because the mother didn't even know the right name of the girl's doll. In one alternate scene, there's an overdub with the dick saying he thinks he was wrong; in the actual release, the scene just lingers on the guy and the girl on the couch together, forcing us to wrestle with these competing truths without trying to tell us what was right vs wrong.
So in this case we get a situation where there are competing values -- particularly, individual happiness of most of the people involved or at least the most "innocent" of the people involved, vs upholding a promise that one person made to another and reinforcing the established order of things, whether it is the social familial expectation or the legal process involved.
How does one actually compare these two things which are like apples and oranges? Such as a parent's claim to a child vs the happiness of the child? (I've seen this in other situations, where for example a foster kid is sent back to the bio parents despite the foster situation being FAR better for the child in the long term, at least in the most obvious ways.) Or perhaps expecting an older and not adept employee to retire so that someone younger and more knowledgeable could take their place, vs respecting someone's long commitment to a particular company? Or providing government medical care to an older but habitually ill person, vs providing financial relief to younger people who are footing the bill? (Or Social Security in the USA, for that matter?)
Is there any fair and rational way of proceeding where there are conflicting values, or do we simply have to prioritize one over the other?