Hail Hydra! Ethical questions from the Winter Solider

Riceball said:

Yet you think that Hydra would be any different? That's, more or less, exactly the kind of regime that would be imposed if they were to take over for real. There would be no due process of law, there would be (at best) only show trials where the verdict has already been pre-determined and the actual trial would be a mere formality. They've already shown that they have no problems with killing hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents if it means that they get the guilty and for them the guilty is anyone their matrix determines is a possible or potential threat of some kind at some point down the line. How is this different from Krull's ideals now?

Click to expand...

Again, not supporting Hydra's particular approach to getting the job done, only that they are trying to get a job done.

It certainly does make one wonder how that scenario would play out and if you would eventually kill off all your most valuable people until you had no one left.

Art Andrews said:

Again, not supporting Hydra's particular approach to getting the job done, only that they are trying to get a job done.

It certainly does make one wonder how that scenario would play out and if you would eventually kill off all your most valuable people until you had no one left.

Click to expand...

I think X-men Days of Future Past will attempt to answer that question.

Art Andrews said:

Again, not supporting Hydra's particular approach to getting the job done, only that they are trying to get a job done.

It certainly does make one wonder how that scenario would play out and if you would eventually kill off all your most valuable people until you had no one left.

Click to expand...

But it's not like you could separate what they represent and what they do from what good they might do, in others you can't take the good without taking the bad as well. Sure, they represent order and they try to get a job done but is it worth the cost, is it worth the bad that they bring along with their good?

Riceball said:

But it's not like you could separate what they represent and what they do from what good they might do, in others you can't take the good without taking the bad as well. Sure, they represent order and they try to get a job done but is it worth the cost, is it worth the bad that they bring along with their good?

Click to expand...

Which is why this entire topic is interesting to me and interesting to hear different people's POV. Where is the line at which it is ok? How much is willing to be sacrificed? And the primary question in my mind; what does "freedom" really mean and represent and would you actually want it if you could have it?

Art Andrews said:

Which is why this entire topic is interesting to me and interesting to hear different people's POV. Where is the line at which it is ok? How much is willing to be sacrificed? And the primary question in my mind; what does "freedom" really mean and represent and would you actually want it if you could have it?

Click to expand...

To me its all about who get to decide what is "bad." Be careful what laws you create, what precedents you set, and how much power you give someone to wipe out something you consider "bad," because one day something you value may be considered "bad." You may currently be the majority, but one day the crosshairs may be pointed at you when trends change.

rodneyfaile said:

To me its all about who get to decide what is "bad." Be careful what laws you create, what precedents you set, and how much power you give someone to wipe out something you consider "bad," because one day something you value may be considered "bad." You may currently be the majority, but one day the crosshairs may be pointed at you when trends change.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the crux on the story of Star Wars?

Kevin Gossett said:

That's... disturbing.

Click to expand...

Only because you were raised in the modern way,you were taught the value of safety and softness....

Art Andrews said:

I don't know that you can sustain a society that way and that type of approach is definitely not what I am advocating. I am most definitely for law and order, but killing off your citizens for any offense seems like you are eventually going to cripple yourself through attrition.

Click to expand...

Nothing is perfect,the thing with my ideal is that it's really easily abused,but if you think of it what weighs things down is all the laws we have and in some amusing way it's also what's both killing us and enslaving us.

As far as attrition...well if you went at it willy nilly sure,but I'd only enforce it for the truly guilty people who show no remorse or have no thought but their own selves,if there's remorse or they know they did wrong then it's possible to work it out in some fashion.

Just a slight turn but that's why I'm sorta for and sorta against the death penalty because if you are 100% sure of guilt and that the act was done for no good reason then kill them,if however if there is any doubt whatsoever no matter how small then I'm against it and for life in prison as we may have the wrong person.

That's just my opinion because you asked for it.

And I do make people nervous when they talk to me of such,I loved how Vlad the Impaler worked somethings out-like mass burnings of criminals and their families.

Now I've said my peace and I'll go back to movies,interesting topic Art.

In the interest of preserving the integrity of our society we must recognize exactly what it is we are truly preserving. A society isn't just a mass of people. A nation isn't just a piece of land.
A nation of people is defined by the principles on which it was founded. As we violate our founding principles, even in the interest of self-preservation, we risk our national identity eroding to meaninglessness.

There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" - of 'survival'. A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient - to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.

Click to expand...

- Judgement at Nuremberg (1961)

First this is a great read there are a lot of great perspectives out there and I knew this forum had some talented people but the amount of intelligent points was a good surprise. If I may add fuel to the fire...

With freedom, you are allowed to make your own choices and if those choices hinder the society, country you are punished. With hydras form of control you aren't given that choice. You are struck down before you ever pick up a rock. I'll give a example... My daughter was born with a Simian line on her left hand. This is a marker for downs syndrome. In a controlled society I don't want to even think of what would have happened to my child which I love more then life itself. In China, North Korea, Nazi Germany.. I wouldn't have my amazing kid because you can't really tell if your kid is going to have downs for like 6 months. My kid (she's 4) has a tested IQ higher then the 99 percentile. In fact Einstein, Ali, Hilary Clinton, Tony Blair all have this "marker" so all those people who probably never exist in a controlled environment. Ask a parent of a special needs child how they would feel about their child born in any of the above mentioned places and see the look on their face. That's the difference.

Also just because someone has potential to a criminal doesn't mean they will. They could also cure cancer or something else that's amazing and advances our society.

Freedom isn't free and it isn't perfect but the potential for greatness is there. To you Art I would say this....

On here the RPF some of the greatest discoveries have come from members that have since been banned. Would the RPF be better off is those people never joined? I think would we as a group be lacking those members value additions to the hobby. It was only after they broke a rule (exercised their choice) that you or another moderator banned them. We all make our own choices and sometimes there is a cost to those choices but that is our individual burden. No one should have a right to make that choice for us. To borrow from the intro to Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights "


I guess to me it all comes down to choice and the ability to choose

SithLord822 said:

To you Art I would say this....

On here the RPF some of the greatest discoveries have come from members that have since been banned. Would the RPF be better off is those people never joined? I think would we as a group be lacking those members value additions to the hobby. It was only after they broke a rule (exercised their choice) that you or another moderator banned them. We all make our own choices and sometimes there is a cost to those choices but that is our individual burden. No one should have a right to make that choice for us. To borrow from the intro to Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights "


I guess to me it all comes down to choice and the ability to choose

Click to expand...

That is a very interesting response. I have been pondering it over the weekend. I do, very much like the idea of law and order (as I have now said many times), but I have to agree that you have to let people make their mistakes, and if there is value they can add to the community before those mistakes are made, well then, all the better. I am very torn on this idea, because I WANT to see the best in people, but time and experience is wearying me on that notion. To carry out the Captain America 2 theme, I too have an "algorithm" and that algorithm is called Montagar. We have been working together for almost 5 years now and I can't tell you how many times he will tell me "member X is going to be a problem." For as much as certain people like to think of me in a negative light, I am endlessly the one who says "no, let's give them a chance." You know what I have come to find? In EVERY case, he ends up being right and I end up being wrong. I don't know if he is just that good at predicting the future based on the present or he has just seen the same things happen again and again and again, but sooner or later, the people he tells me are going to be problems ARE problems, and he calls it over and over again BEFORE they are major problems. Do we preemptively ban them? No. We take the soft approach. Should we? That is a little harder to say, because ultimately, it is all of you, the community, who suffer for our leniency towards these type of people. Do some of them add to the community before they suicide? Some do. Most don't.

So, while I certainly understand where you are coming from and my actions reflect your beliefs, as the years go on, it becomes harder and harder for my mind to follow. There are only so many paths and future troublemakers take the same ones again and again and again.

One thing that no one really touches on is the maturity, ethical level or moral level of the society to be ruled. And yes, every society has to be ruled to some extent, anarchy will not function.
Our founding fathers here in America noted, we have given you a republic, now lets see if you can keep it and America was called The Great Experiment. I think at that time in world history, people had evolved to be able to create a more freedom based society and has since evolved/devolved due to the numbers of people and the changing morals in society.

You can have a great society with a great dictator or a bad society with a terrible one. A defining difference is when you can choose the leadership and the leadership continues to mirror the values of the people, or when no such relationship exist and the leadership does what it wants with impunity. As well, the ethical makeup of a society can determine if there is no choice but to have a dictatorial power or if they are mature enough to live with the responsibilities of freedom.

You cannot choose just one part of that equation without the ability for potential conflict between leadership and the citizens ruled. Given the continual changing environment, it just adds to the manner in which a societies moral change.
Ethics are unchanging values, you know it is not right to murder in an unjustified manner.
Morals are changing to the mass values, that there is a line that justifies when you can and should kill someone.

Without a high moral and ethical code, societies will fail, something else our US forefathers recognized. I am in the freedom camp myself, but I also recognized there are times when laws need to be applied because society cannot make that determination themselves any longer. It is a reality that we are imperfect beings, trying to draw that line of how and when balances on your core beliefs and the society at large.

Stan got it right, with great power (freedom) comes great responsibility.

Generally in societies that have some freedoms, the reason laws and rules are made are either for creating a power base or moral failure of those ruled.

I keep coming back to read this thread because, as you say, Art, TWS is "deeper" than other comic book movies, which is part of the reason it's my new favorite. Not to derail the discussion--maybe we could consider this a side track--but during the Fury chase, the ethical question that came to my mind (and actually sort of bothered me while I was watching) was: Why is it OK for Nick Fury to put citizens in danger by trying to escape Hydra? Just like in Iraq, where US military convoys (and private military contractors as well) are given carte blanche to damage other people's property (shoving cars out of the way with Humvees) in order to complete the mission--even if the mission is just to get people from one place to another. Why is the collateral damage OK? Why is one government employee's life worth potentially risking the lives of any number of innocent bystanders?

They kept it neat on the surface: Maybe nobody got run over, and maybe Fury's rounds didn't overpenetrate and shred a bunch of people in the deli across the street, and the Helicarriers very conveniently didn't crash into the suburbs, but how many citizens are we willing to sacrifice to save the director of SHIELD?

^Totally got that.

With that minigun i was thinking... if anyone is in those buildings, they are goners.

One other note, when comparing national interest or something else like an online forum is that there is a goal for each and a defined mission within that structure of what the responsibilities are from the leadership to the members of the organization.
The US set itself up as being lead by public servants with checks and balances placed in. The public monitored those and is suppose to be the final point of power to control those servants from becoming rulers over them.
With any organization, there should be an organization chart with defined job duties and mission. If ever there is a time that something comes to question as it is not defined, the organization should have a defined manner of addressing such. Checks and balances should be in place as well. For smaller organizations, the lack of responsibilities and consequences may not call for too organized of a structure while in larger or more responsible cases it is needed. And when it is question if needed, you should look at the goal and mission of the organization.

I think the latest Captain America film resonates so well is because we see a break down of the check and balances around us, a huge complex world and the questions of when and why does a society or organization take action and in what direction do they go. What are the justifications and what defines us on a whole? When Captain America goes to the Smithsonian, I think he is looking at what society was his values and now what has society turned into as well his role in that society. Is he outdated or do the people going there to the exhibit value what he does? The very debate he has with Fury DESCENDING into the depths of Shield. Is the constitution a living breathing document ever changing; or is it an ethical bedrock with the ability making new laws the manner in which we adjust to new moral values?

That is a question all of the people that want or make in impact in society should be asking but I think today in the US culture, people have gotten lazy and forgotten their own responsibilities. The movie directors also noted that with what is happening with the NSA and other factors in the US today, they wanted to make a statement about such.

It is no coincidence our founders placed the freedom of speech as the first amendment and the right to own a gun second. These were meant number one and two as the most important factors is a society to protect itself from government. Because every society in history over time that has tried to exist with freedom eventually has to fight for them from within itself. Form over function or function over form, the reason to be constantly aware of what the goals and mission are and what you are trying to achieve and a society or organization that values that form they function within as well the leadership and how they see their own roles.

Kind of interesting when the perspective of those "ruled" come into perspective suddenly the question of Hydra leadership does not look all that good given the fascist view, the discussion slows down.

Winter soldier was not the first Avenger film to bring this up. The Avengers with Loki talking to the crowd in Germany and then lectured by Thor on the mountain top talks about this as well. Loki points out that he can bring peace and that Thor who is suppose to be watching over this realm is not doing a good job given the warfare in the world.

Perspective is an interesting things, especially when you look from the top down. Leadership to a point has to have characteristics of narcissism and ego in order to make decisions and tho follow through "knowing" you are correct in the decision process. It usually debates the fine lines of right and wrong, ethics versus moral authority, Friedman management over Carroll management and ultimately directs the culture of societies. Without a lack of humility and perspective from the other point of view, it is easier to forget what the mission or goal is and who serves who. I thought it interesting that Thor for a moment was articulating such to Loki and how delusional Loki was in his response, which is indicative to such a leadership mentality that abuses it's power.

Winter soldier I think laid it out with parralells to what is happening in our nation now and frankly it made for a great film with social context. But it scares me a bit as I have also heard elsewhere some saying maybe the hydra leadership might have it right. It is telling oof how far our society is sliding away from freedom and past values.

tripoli said:

Winter soldier was not the first Avenger film to bring this up. The Avengers with Loki talking to the crowd in Germany and then lectured by Thor on the mountain top talks about this as well. Loki points out that he can bring peace and that Thor who is suppose to be watching over this realm is not doing a good job given the warfare in the world.

Click to expand...

It definitely isn't the first to bring it up, but I think it really smacked us in the face, while previous movies somewhat danced around it and painted a more black and white picture in which it was very easy to see who was the bad guy and who was not.

tripoli said:

Perspective is an interesting things, especially when you look from the top down. Leadership to a point has to have characteristics of narcissism and ego in order to make decisions and tho follow through "knowing" you are correct in the decision process. It usually debates the fine lines of right and wrong, ethics versus moral authority, Friedman management over Carroll management and ultimately directs the culture of societies. Without a lack of humility and perspective from the other point of view, it is easier to forget what the mission or goal is and who serves who.

Click to expand...

Interesting points and something that resonates deeply with me, since I am in that position in a very small way. Let's face, it, running a tiny forum in the vast sea of the internet is no Hydra, but I take my responsibility to this community very seriously, which is why I feel that this movie struck me as strongly as it did. The toughest thing in the world is making decisions you believe to be right but that you know aren't going to be received well. We have had to do it again and again and again here and in many cases, we have had to "sacrifice" people in order to do it, but at the end of the day, I believe it serves the community as a whole. Those are never easy things to do.

People don't want a ruler, they want a leader.

What makes people WANT to follow a leader? It's not because of WHAT they do, its because of WHY they do it.

This is a great video for so many reasons. It may change the way you interact with other people.


Simon Sinek discusses the principal behind every successful person and business. A simple but powerful model for how leaders inspire action, starting with a golden circle and the question, "Why?"

As I mentioned earlier, for me it has a lot to do with WHO has the power, and WHY they want it. Like the security council member said, "Not if it's your switch." He didn't like Pierces "WHY."

rodneyfaile,

Funny you should mention Simon Sinek.

Check this out:

Art Andrews | props, web management, and life

Recognize those three boxes?