I’m reminded of something we talked about in one of my film classes that my teaching mentor told me about. See, we were studying this film theorist who believed in personalism. My teacher described it in a film way by describing Kirk and Spock in Star Trek. In Star Trek, Kirk would always risk the lives of a lot to save someone else, Spock would always disagree, the classic line “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” But Kirk would always do something to save both. Some would even say that’s the philosophy of the Jedi in Star Wars. The Jedi wouldn’t risk the lives of everyone to save one or few lives.
Take Luke for example in Empire Strikes Back, Luke risked his own life, his training, and the potential to defeat the Empire to save his friends. Fact, if Luke had stayed behind, Lando would’ve saved Leia, Chewie, and 3P0 and they could’ve rescued Han later. And of course Luke didn’t come out on top. Or take the prequels for example, Anakin basically killed off all the Jedi to save Padme from dying, and we all know how that turned out. I also watched this game my brother played, Last of Us, where the only way to save the world from a bad infection was to sacrifice a little girl, so the main character saved her and lied to her to keep her alive. That also goes back to the age old question, of whether you can sacrifice few to save others, like in Watchmen or Cabin in the Woods.
Messed up philosophy. What’s your take on this?