Lost Discussion Group: We're The Good Guys

I would say the "good people" are people who are easily influenced (children) or perhaps have ties to the real world. It seems to me that most of the main Losties are independent or have the only thing important to them on the island which might make them more difficult to influence.

This is going to be a bit to the side of your main question, but you bring up one of the biggest things that bugs me about the Others -- their relentless need to be deceitful and violently agressive. This was typified in the Season 3 opener, when as soon as the plane crashed, Ben was already dispatching Ethan and Goodwin to infiltrate the crash survivors and generate "lists" (of the good people?? No clue!). We now know that Ben had just recently found out that he had a tumor on his spine. Once he discovered through Other-Google that there was a spinal surgeon in the bunch, I don't see why he just didn't make friendly overtures to the Losties and eventually ask Jack (nicely!) to do him this little surgery as a favor. Much of the current animosity could have been avoided (although we wouldn't have had much of a TV show the past 2 seasons), if the Others has just invited everyone to a pig roast or something. Kidnapping Claire? Hanging Charlie? Kidnapping Walt? Shooting Sawyer in the process? Kidnapping Jack and Co.?? The list goes on. Not the best way to win friends and influence people. And Ben thinks they're the good guys!?!

"Now the less charitable way of looking at this is that the Others' ethical codes are simply invented whenever it's convenient for them...."

First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothin'. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome to our island, ye Losties.

ARGHHHHHH!!!

This is another example of what is good about Lost. Good vs Evil is one of the all time themes and is in some way in just about every story, legend, myth etc. Its been said many times that one of the things that made the 1st three star wars movies so resonant was the reworking of the classic good vs evil theme. Lost takes this and turns it on its ear and then twists it around a bit just for fun. Very rarely are you on firm moral ground with Lost. The main characters who we’ve all come to love or hate are, for the most part, not people you would describe as "good people." There are murderers, con artists, drug addicts, ex cons, liars and mental patients. Then there are the Others, who seem evil with the kidnappings and murders and all, but yet they seem to think they have the moral high ground and the finale sure made it look like something worse than the Others was on its way to the island. So I think the big question is: what is it that makes the Others think they are “good”?
Me, I have no idea what it is, but I hope it has something to do with the giant four toed foot.

I've always thought that "good," when used by the Others, is synonymous with blameless. Children--that's the easy one--are inherently good until the age of reason. Then they can go either way.

The only person among the Losties on the good list--and I know I'll be corrected if I'm mistaken--is Locke. Locke is completely blameless for the troubles in his life. He's a victim, a pure victim. Everyone else has done some not so good things to others, including Jack, despite his rep as a caring doctor.

But then there's Hurley. He did technically cause the death of others. Maybe that's a good enough reason not to be considered good.

Perhaps the island demands a special purity?

I think it is simply like J.P. said: the Others have a firm moral code that they are supposed to follow. The code may not necessarily be what they have been telling us, as Ben kills with impunity, but it could just be Ben that isn't following his own rules (some Others are more equal than others). The Others are apparently supposed to protect both "the innocent", i.e. children, which are treated well and, even when kicked out of the Others, left in the care of parents (Alex with Danielle, Walt with Michael), as well as "the good" (Cindy, various Tailies).

Now, what exactly decides "the goodness" of a person? No clue. I don't know if it is an outlier/plot device, but take a look at Hurley: after winning the lottery, the guy is charitable to everyone he knows, etc. His only bad act pre-Island appears to be being so "guilty" about some accidental deaths he was only tangentially involved with that he had a mental breakdown. (Not telling your friend the very day you win the lottery is not a sin in any belief system I've heard of.) And even this record isn't enough to get in the Others' good camp; sure, they don't kill him, but they don't care if he dies in the jungle either.

On the flip side, why are the Others so vicious towards the Losties? Personally, I don't believe their treatment is standard. Again, I think (and think Ben thinks) that the 815 crash was staged by Hanso. As a result, all the 815ers are, at best, passively helping Hanso by disrupting the Others' actions on the island. We know that the Others have (or have had) nerve gas and know that they have guns but don't take the safe route of simply killing the Losties on day one; therefore, the Others have to make some judgment on a person before they can "safely" kill them.

So what does this all mean? I don't know. It could be that the Others started as some 60s hippie subculture (with appropriate moral codes), and the payoff is that Ben has militarized/subverted them to the point that they are now little different from the Hansos they are supposed to be fighting against.

"Who or what are the 'good people' the Others are so concerned about, and what is it that makes them good?"

Interesting question. Parsing this closely, I'm fascinated to see what people think about the duality or hypocrisy of the Others in this regards.

To me, I think the "good people" are innocents, those who see people as an "end" and not as a "means." Hence, the children are "good" because they have not used others and taken away free will; same with Locke (who has been a victim, but never an aggressor in that sense). The "Losties" however, are, for the most part, "users" - they've taken lives, or free will, away from others. Jack betrayed his father, and used his wife as a means to his own salvation; Kate killed her father and used her friends for her means; Sayid tortured people and spied on his terrorist friends to find Nadia; Sawyer was a con-man; Charlie was a drug user and thief; Sun cheated on and lied to Jin, and Jin was a mafia-type enforcer; and Claire killed her mother and was trying to pass-the-buck in regards to her child by putting Aaron up for adoption.

The one outlier is Hurley - how was he not "good"? Not sure here, but remember, the Others chose him as the 4th person when they did their kidnapping, and he was the vessel they chose to deliver news of Jack/Kate/Sawyer's kidnapping back to the Others.

So I think the idea of being "good" is respecting the free will of others, and not being a "user" of people for selfish purposes. Which makes what the Others themselves do morally corrupt/hypocritical - yes, Jack saved Ben because he "wanted to", but his reasons for "wanting to" were entirely manipulated and created by Ben. Sure, he made the choices, but the choices were dictated by manipulation. So does that make the Others hypocrites? Or are they violating the moral "code" of the Island, leading to the Island's "revenge" in terms of killing pregnant women (leading to the extermination of the corrupted Others)?

Does any of this make sense?

Good thoughts all around. The one thing I'd add is that, while I still have no idea what the Others mean by "good," I would not assume that it has much relation at all to the term as most of us would define it. So I don't know how the Losties' various crimes and regrettable actions in flashback really affect this judgment. (As you all have noted above, Hurley would seem to meet most of our conventional definitions of "good," even very strict ones.)

In fact, come to think of it, for this reason I was kind of surprised by the judgmental tone the Others took toward Kate in revealing her past crimes to Locke. But I'm not sure if the reason there was that the Others themselves were revulsed by her, or if they simply thought that the revelation would make Locke revulsed at her. (In other words, I'm not sure if they were making a Good/Bad judgment here, a la the Lists, so much as simply trying to manipulate Locke.)

Chaddogg, I think you make a good point that Ben got Jack to save him "willingly" only in a technical sense. That seems to reflect that Ben is someone who maybe only follows the letter, but not the spirit, of his codes. It's the chicken-eating side of him showing through, as Locke would put it. And maybe this is a reason that Ben may have fallen out of favor with Jacob?

My husband recently told me about his theory that Locke is evil - that Locke may even be the evil-est person on the island. His reasoning is that Locke is such an extremely isolated, dogmatic individual - a person with an unyielding faith that dictates his actions, and a person who follows his faith to its given extreme without regard to its effect on others. As a result, he is supremely selfish, and acts unilaterally, out of pure self-interest. I'm not quite sure I buy it, but thought another perspective on Locke would be interesting. . .

It makes sense to me how the Others can actively cause another's death and still stay within a moral framework that condemns killing. Define killing as self-defense or an act of war and even the most moral among us can forgive it. Same might be true for the Others.

Jen,

That is an interesting take your husband has. I guess it depends on the lens one views faith thru. Looking at the actions of someone like a terrorist, I could see your husband's point. Looking at it thru a Judeo-Christian lens, I see it differently. Following an unyielding faith is an act of selflessness instead of selfishness and submitting to the devine revealed will of a deity is the opposite of pure self interest.

@Keith and Jen - well, if we want to talk about unyielding faith, or a bastardization of faith, how about the Others themselves?

In a sense, they are all about worshipping the island, but they live in houses with electricity, running water, and refridgeration. They speak of free will, but won't let people leave the island, and manipulate the Losties. They believe in being "good" yet murder and kidnap. They believe in honesty (supposedly) but yet they were playing a con all along with the wigs and rag-clothing.

In this scenario, aren't the Others akin to radical religious terrorists - i.e. they believe they are upholding a "faith" but they are actually upholding a bastardized creed that bears little semblance to their professed beliefs?

(Such a theme would be very appropriate for our present times - a reminder that talking the talk does not equal walking the walk, and that faith to anything - even a spiritually powerful island - can be abused by those who profess belief)

Chad,

Spot on. I see Locke's faith being more pure and honest. He has seen the light.....or smokey I guess. The Others have allowed a leader to pervert their faith like a bin Laden. We've seen what happens to an Other who raises questions. Locke's faith requires him to live and let live.

@Keith,

I'm not so sure that Locke's faith is any more "pure" - just not corrupted (if that makes sense).

This all fits into the black/white thing, too - Lost seems to discuss a lot of absolutes. Faith v. science. Black v. White. "Live together or die alone." Us vs. the Others. Good v. evil.

The real lesson, though, is that nothing is that absolute - Charlie was a druggie, but he was also capable of great sacrifice for others. Same with almost all of the other characters - moments of sin, with moments of redemption. No one is black or white, good or evil.

Furthermore, there is the "faith v. science" debate. Interesting for a show built on that tension that so many of the characters are named after philosophers who embraced (to varying degrees) humanism/deism, etc. Rousseau, Locke, etc. were people of BOTH tremendous faith AND tremendous appreciation for science. Suggests that neither Jack (man of science) nor Locke (man of faith) are entirely correct, and that a middle ground is the best path.

I think the quality that makes someone 'good' is the Tabula Rasa referenced in the very first episode about Locke. The clean slate. Children fit this bill because they haven't been corrupted yet. People like Locke and Rose have unshakable faith. This would explain also why those that the Others kidnap seem to come around so quickly to their new way of life. Looking on the bright side of life seems to ensure you'll end up on the Other's side of the island.

I don't think it's intent the Others are measuring. It's mental purity and willingness toward faith. Children believe in all kinds of things. Locke and Rose have obvious faith. As nice and innocent as Hurley is, I don't see him as particularly spiritual. He feels cursed, but other than that he isn't very introspective or in touch with his emotions.

What's interesting to me isn't that the Other's have a need for these qualities in those they accept, but moreso the inhumanity they feel toward those who don't meet the criteria. If you aren't on the list, then your life becomes meaningless, it would seem, at least to Ben. This vengeful violent nature seems to fly in the face of the 'clean slate' they require. This is what leads me to believe Ben has led the Others off course and will be punished in due time. Conversely, it might be a matter of good old fashioned prejudice. If the Others see themselves as that advanced, they might see those who don't met their standards as something sub-human. Maybe they've been reading Nietszche in addition to Stephen King in their reading circle.

The biggest difference between Ben and the other Others (as well as Locke and Rose) is that Ben NEEDS to be in power. He needs people to love him and follow him. Locke is a loner, Richard hasn't shown any of this Napolean complex yet, and Rose is content to just sit on the beach and not have cancer.