Repost of my 'Good vs Bad' theory for discussion

[gracefaith]

Wow, I've been searching for these old posts of mine all morning.

Here was my theory on who is good or bad and why. Feel free to discuss, post your own version, etc.

I'm thinking maybe the Others are operating on some sort of false assumption about where they are, what's going on in the world and who else is out there. I think they think they are protecting themselves from someone - the survivors maybe. Let's face it, the survivors have killed a few of their people (and vice versa.) It's like everyone's been plunked in the middle of a war and are fighting based entirely on the assumption that they are right and good and need to fight for their lives against the other side that is evil and wrong. The question is: which side is which? Maybe they're both neither.

Obviously, the Others DO know what's going on in the outside world, at least somewhat. Though I suppose it is possible that whomever is feeding them the info might be twisting or spinning it.

Later, I said

BTW I just had a (possible) REVELATION.

If the Others think they are fighting a war against the Survivors because the Survivors are bad and the Survivors are fighting a war against the Others because they think the Others are bad, maybe they're both wrong and the whole "good vs bad, black vs white" concept is brought up ironically. IE there is no good/bad, black/white. It's more muddled than that. The Dharma ying/yang sort of reminds me of it because of the concept of a little darkness in light and a little light in darkness.

Maybe Dharma was trying to see how far people would go based entirely on assumption or vague suggestion. They have people watching each other and thinking certain things. Maybe they even have people fighting each other because they've been led to think certain things.

Anyway, what do you think the whole good and bad thing is about?

 

[2lplvr]

I think it's all relative

No really I think it is more about how right and wrong become situation and and truth itself is realtive to circumstance.

Taking the children (for a greater good) was the "right" choice.
End justifiying the means. Locke does that alot as does Sayid, Michael and Ana Lucia did also
Whereas Jack is very concrete and truth and right never change.

I think the Others want to find out if they can take someone who has a very concrete worldview and change them and what circumstances would require that. They want to challenge truth.

 

[FatBurger]

You know, Benry being on the island his whole life sort of lends credibility to that. He (and everyone else, for all we know) could have a very twisted view of the world.Who knows, maybe they think they're the survivors of a world-wide catastrophe, and the only people left outside the island have fallen into complete post-apocalyptic anarchy. Therefore anyone new to the island is looked upon as being a part of that.

 

[snoochface]

I think we don't know enough yet about the Others' view of the world to really know yet. They think they are "the good guys", they make lists of "good people", they don't have a problem with killing "bad people", they say they aren't their enemies but if Sun shoots they will be. It all seems completely situational and relative, but we don't know what the situation is yet, and we don't know relative to what yet.

I have to not think about it too much or I get frustrated. I don't ever want to get frustrated with Lost!