Paul and Madeline

[swatkat]

Since we were talking about harshness - are we, the Michael/Nikita fans, too harsh when it comes to Paul and Madeline? Even those of us who actually like and admire them (including myself)? We're always going on about their cruelty and how Michael or Nikita (Nikita for me *g*) would've done a better job as Operations - why is that so? Now that we know all about Oversight and Centre, wasn't what Paul and Madeline did for their own survival, just like the way Michael and Nikita fought to survive in Section? And what is the guarantee that Michael and Nikita wouldn't do the exact same things when they got the power? Your thoughts here. *g*

Nell, tell me why Nikita wouldn't fall in the same trap as Paul in order to survive.

Comments

P2

[mscyanide.livejournal.com]

"Besides – my point was I think Madeline and Paul could have worked out a deception. Bauer’s only ‘proof’ that his gassing worked was a few hands feebly trying to break some windows, and presumably the sight of the rescue workers and later press reports…"

A lot of assuming. We don't know what kind of sources Bauer had access to, so we don't know if a Section deception would have worked. I prefer to assume that there was a chance such a deception would not have worked and Section decided not to take such a risk.

"Certainly, when Nikita rushed out to let him know the plan, the expression on Walter’s face suggested his conviction that Operations wouldn’t even try."

Perhaps because Walter knew it wasn't possible?

"Paul and Madeline didn’t appear to raise a hand to stop the later second public gas attack and then they ‘green listed’ Bauer. Which "many," exactly, were saved as a result of the actual lives lost in the office building?"

This highlights our differing POV's of Madeline, Paul and Section itself. Perhaps - I can't believe I'm going to say this - I'm more of an optimist than you are and more am therefore more inclined - in regards to Madeline, Paul and Section - to give them the benefit of the doubt.

"First, I think Nikita ‘got it’ – it isn’t that difficult to ‘get’ – but she neither agreed with it nor accepted it. After all, it isn’t as though it is a universally accepted moral, ethical or philosophical position – rather it remains an intensely debated one, and a good deal of the New Testament as well as various Buddhist theologies – to mention just two examples I’m familiar with -- reject that proposition altogether. Personally, I'm on the fence still on that one."

I'll avoid the religious references. I'm not on the fence on this issue. The most common 'test' question asked is this: "if you could cure cancer, but had to kill one innocent child in order to do it, would you?" I would, but if possible I would rather exchange my life for their's.

Then you have the whole if a terrorist is using someone as a shield would you shoot the hostage to prevent them from escaping situation. Again, I would, and if I was the hostage I would expect to be shot - I would prefer to be shot.

"I don’t remember that she ever recklessly endangered the lives ‘of her own team’ in her efforts to protect bystanders. If you mean the operatives she killed to prevent the bombing of The Hague? Whatever that was, it wasn’t a result of ‘recklessness’ on her part."

Every time she broke posistion she endangered the lives of her own team, and how many times did she do that?

Well - then perhaps I'm less on the fence than I thought -

[nell65.livejournal.com]

The most common 'test' question asked is this: "if you could cure cancer, but had to kill one innocent child in order to do it, would you?" I would, but if possible I would rather exchange my life for their's.

This one is easy for me. I would not murder a child or an adult to cure cancer. Nor do I have the right, in my view, to saddle every person ever to be saved by that particular 'cure' with the responsiblity and guilt of that murder - which in my view they would indeed participate in. Some it wouldn't bother, others it would quite literally destroy - compounding the original murder exponentially.

Then you have the whole if a terrorist is using someone as a shield would you shoot the hostage to prevent them from escaping situation. Again, I would, and if I was the hostage I would expect to be shot - I would prefer to be shot.

No. I would not shoot the hostage - assuming the hostage is truly an otherwise uninvolved bystander - if the hostage were a cop or soldier or a spy, yes, I would.

When I said I was on the fence I was thinking of, for me, more difficult questions: like - you have a rapidly mutating infectious disease spreading rapidly through a population. You must throw up quarintine cordon to protect the rest of the population - but the area is large enough that you will trap many who do not yet have the disease - condeming them to catching it. Should you take the extra effort to let out those not yet infected? How do you weigh that against the time factor? Is there a difference to be split?

Or: There are three too many people for the life boat. How do you decide which three will die to save the rest? Should you, or should they all die? I think you should save the rest, and I could propose a rubric with which to make the choice...but what if they are all of the same age, gender and equally healthy? How do you choose, and choose quickly? Who gets to choose? Why?

In both these cases I do think the few do have to suffer and or die to save the many.

So - I am still on the fence, I think.