I think he'd be better served as an advocate, you know? Agreed, definitely. My admiration for him (romantic befuddlement notwithstanding) doesn't really admit his superiority as a military man--in fact, it kind of runs contrary to it, as you pointed out. Whereas J and I differed because he seemed to think that Lee's priorities made him a bad man, as opposed to a bad soldier. Or that the two were synonomous.
I think it bears remembering, too, that the stakes are so incredibly frigging high in the BSG universe that the characters and viewers must constantly revise their criteria for what makes a "good" soldier--or a "good" president, a "good" scientist, etc. In our reality, we all generally agree that a good soldier follows orders above all; there may be casualties as a result, unnecessary injuries, even mass destruction. Superior officers are capable of errors in judgment, but we agree that maintaining the integrity of the whole trumps individual objections because isolated incidents, however bloody, are preferable to anarchy.
But what happens when your margin for error shrinks to about 1%...that is to say, when one really bad mistake may lead directly to the end of humanity? Does a "good" soldier's moral imperative change when he believes that an order may be not just disastrous, but apocalyptic? What possible use can it be to maintain the integrity of the military chain of command if there's no humanity left for the military to protect?
But then, J would argue that it's in situations like that that the chain of command is MOST worth observing, and that if humanity has any shot at surviving then order has to be maintained on every level.
I don't know, I really don't know. That's what I love about this show. It's structured like a Greek tragedy (the pantheism and hubris and suggestions of a universe in which the laws of the Gods supercede the laws of man), but is otherwise totally modern in its treatment of men and women as flawed, loveable creatures with opposing instincts and free will to act on them. I like that there are so few easy answers.
Right, that's more than enough rambling about that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: damnit, should reupload fat!lee icon :-w
Date: 2007-07-07 03:48 pm (UTC)Agreed, definitely. My admiration for him (romantic befuddlement notwithstanding) doesn't really admit his superiority as a military man--in fact, it kind of runs contrary to it, as you pointed out. Whereas J and I differed because he seemed to think that Lee's priorities made him a bad man, as opposed to a bad soldier. Or that the two were synonomous.
I think it bears remembering, too, that the stakes are so incredibly frigging high in the BSG universe that the characters and viewers must constantly revise their criteria for what makes a "good" soldier--or a "good" president, a "good" scientist, etc. In our reality, we all generally agree that a good soldier follows orders above all; there may be casualties as a result, unnecessary injuries, even mass destruction. Superior officers are capable of errors in judgment, but we agree that maintaining the integrity of the whole trumps individual objections because isolated incidents, however bloody, are preferable to anarchy.
But what happens when your margin for error shrinks to about 1%...that is to say, when one really bad mistake may lead directly to the end of humanity? Does a "good" soldier's moral imperative change when he believes that an order may be not just disastrous, but apocalyptic? What possible use can it be to maintain the integrity of the military chain of command if there's no humanity left for the military to protect?
But then, J would argue that it's in situations like that that the chain of command is MOST worth observing, and that if humanity has any shot at surviving then order has to be maintained on every level.
I don't know, I really don't know. That's what I love about this show. It's structured like a Greek tragedy (the pantheism and hubris and suggestions of a universe in which the laws of the Gods supercede the laws of man), but is otherwise totally modern in its treatment of men and women as flawed, loveable creatures with opposing instincts and free will to act on them. I like that there are so few easy answers.
Right, that's more than enough rambling about that.