Needing a reprieve from my usual daily tasks, I decided to pop in a DVD and relax. Scanning through my collection, I came across Season 3 of Bones. Ah yes, Bones. Every person has his/her television vice, that one program that they just have to watch. For me, Bones is that vice. It's unfortunate that I don't have cable, which severely limits my ability to indulge in this visual addiction...but I digress.
For those who are familiar with the series, I'm sure they remember the naive, but brilliant Zack Addy. He's one of those characters that has the intelligence of Freud, Einstein, and Hawking, times ten, but lacks any social skills and is completely clueless as to the nuances of human behavior and interaction, aside from what he reads in books. (Actually, he's the male version of the female lead character.) As he says in the episode The Man In the Fallout Shelter from Season 1 (when asked about his religious affiliations): "Hey, I'm a rational empiricist all the way! Unless you ask my mother...then I'm Lutheran." He became one of my favorite characters, and as is usually the case when I like a character, he was taken off the show in the end of Season 3, aside from a couple guest appearances. The means of his departure from the show, however, presented a conflict that I think many people struggle with at some time in their lives, though maybe not to the extent that Zack did.
First, a quick background. During Season 3, the forensics team in Bones is faced with a series of murders perpetrated by a cannibalistic killer who is aptly nicknamed Gormogon. The killer targets members of secret societies. It is discovered in the last episode of Season 3, The Pain In the Heart, that Zack has been recruited by this sadistic madman. While Zack never participates in his cannibalistic activities and doesn't condone them, he is convinced that Gormogon's reasoning is acceptable - attacking members of secret societies to eliminate their supposed detrimental effect on the human existence. During the episode, he and his lab partner, Hodgins, create an experiment to recreate one of the murder scenes. Though Hodgins insists on being the main person to conduct the experiment, Zack refuses to let him do so. The ensuing experiment is actually a setup concocted by Zack and Gormogon. Zack is injured during the experiment, and in the subsequent investigation, he is caught by the members of his own forensics team.
I've watched this episode repeatedly, but only after watching it today did I realize why I'm so drawn to this one. Zack presents a very serious and confusing issue. Though the methods of his actions are certainly unacceptable, what about this ethical intent? During the last conversation between Bones and Zack, Bones uses logic (since that is really the only thing to which Zack responds) to derive Zack's purpose: He believed that eliminating members of secret societies "would have an ameliorating effect" on human beings. Zack understood, perhaps incorrectly, that secret societies were trouble. (I say incorrectly because who really knows the intentions and activities of "secret" societies.) Both Zack's friend Hodgins' incessant paranoid scenarios and Gormogon's reasoning convinced him even more of this fact. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the debate really takes place. Zack committed a serious crime...but is he necessarily a bad person, especially since his actions didn't include the grotesquery of cannibalism? (In which case, I would likely have a much different opinion.) His actions were detestable, but his reasoning wasn't the destruction of life (as was Gormogon's, in my opinion) - it was the preservation of humanity. So, was he in the same boat as the murderer he was assisting, especially since he eventually helped catch the killer?
Another issue is this: What are we as individuals willing to die for, and what would we kill for? In moments of self-defense or the defense of those we love, I think for many of us, it's a no-brainer. I certainly wouldn't let someone injure me, nor would I stand by idly as someone I care about is being hurt. Those who know me are well aware that I'm almost ferally protective of my friends and family. But does this mentality extend to ideals? People are tangible, interactive parts of our lives - individuals with whom we share a personal bond and are able to have that bond reciprocated. Our beliefs, however, are not the same. You can't talk to a belief. You can't bond with it, laugh with it, cry with it, or go out drinking with it. Therefore, are ideals and beliefs as important as real human beings, and do they carry the same weight when faced with life or death situations? In the episode, even Zack realizes the flaw in his reasoning when Bones reminds him: "Yet you risked it all so you wouldn't hurt Hodgins," referring to their experiment. For Zack, despite his firm, and in his opinion, logical belief of what he was doing, he couldn't risk hurting someone he cared about. Where would each of us be willing to draw that line? And is Zack a better person than us for being willing to do what he thought was necessary, or worse because of his specific actions?
As a human being, I would never condone or commit murder, so don't misconstrue my argument. My point is this: Where do we form the template and division between ethics and legality? Do bad actions necessarily mean a bad person? Is there really any belief that is worth the cost of a human life? It probably seems strange that a simple episode from television could encourage such intense thinking and debate...but you know me. I spend a lot of my time thinking. :)
Well, that's my thought for the day, for whatever it's worth. I think I'll go back to my routine which I've so brilliantly avoided with this blog. After all this contemplation, perhaps I should find another puddle to jump in.
No comments:
Post a Comment