|
Post by Ela on Sept 14, 2018 20:20:10 GMT
Clickbait!!!!
Regards
mark687 You said it! Am off to find someone with more morals...Bernice here I come Hahahahaha! Which isn't to say she doesn't have morals. She and the Doctor (in all his incarnations) both do. But they both have faults aplenty.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,678
|
Post by shutupbanks on Sept 14, 2018 21:07:34 GMT
I rather liked Capaldi's "Am I a good man?" question because his previous incarnation was often morally dubious and occasionally let the end justify the means. However, I've always found the Doctor to be mostly someone to admire but they do occasionally let their worst sides out, rather like all of us, but they do also have the absolute best of intentions at hearts and - mostly - mostly strive to be better than they were previously or to not sink to the level of their enemies.
They don't always take a moral stance, though: in The Face Of Evil 4 listens to the Sevateem tell of how deadly the Horda is then he casually flicks one onto a tribesman who is being menacing towards Leela. A satisfying act, no doubt, but hardly moral. He's maimed a guy simply to prove that he's not to be trifled with. The various incarnation dislike guns but aren't afraid to use them when necessary. They dislike violence but are capable of being violent. That they prefers non-violent means is moral and worthy but they are quite okay with using their enemies weapons against them or even devising their own.
Like audity, I prefer my heroes to come from real life, but the fact that the Doctor can be ruthless (7), violent (6) and flawed (11) makes them a good role model because the circumstances in which the Doctor finds themselves often involve standing up to oppression and bullies and making a stand for something worthwhile. The Doctor has almost always tried to do that and, when it hasn't worked, or it has gone wrong (like The Waters Of Mars), they try their damnedest to fix things or to make up for it or to repent in some way. They also try to avoid being celebrated as a hero despite being quite vain about their intellect at times (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 12 pretty much personify this for me)
So yes, the Doctor is a good role model: flawed but always trying to do their best (11). Capable of violence but trying to avoid it when possible (5). Making mistakes but learning from them (10). Arrogant and proud but always open to viewpoints other than their own and willing to learn from other people (3). The Doctor has good intentions and tries to fix their mistakes and help others. That's admirable in any person, real or otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 22:17:35 GMT
Kissing people and falling in love are both morally reprehensible and I think it’s disgusting that Dr Who has been teaching children to admire this objectionable way of life.
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Sept 14, 2018 22:42:31 GMT
Kissing people and falling in love are both morally reprehensible and I think it’s disgusting that Dr Who has been teaching children to admire this objectionable way of life. Okay, that got a big laugh out of me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 23:00:19 GMT
I look up to Tom Baker for his attitude to life and I look up to Peter Capaldi for his kindness just as i looked up to David Bowie because of how he was unique and embraced his uniquness but i dont look up to the doctors not now anyway. I may have looked up to ten when i was a kid but then i was a cocky kid so i probably got that of him, which might answer the question 😂 i dont think the doctor, in most his forms has been a real role model at least not as a whole. Hartnell had good traits but bad ones too and it was his companions that made up for any stuboness or shortcomings. So, to answer the question, i would probably say the show doctor who teaches children good lessons even if the doctor isnt necessarily a good role model wholly, hes just a part of the message
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Sept 14, 2018 23:10:16 GMT
Jamie. Eveything a friend could be. Brave, courageous, charming, polite. Unlike that bloke he travels with Completely unlike the bloke that got married 3 times in 15 years, and had an unhealthy love relationship with a child.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 0:00:47 GMT
I'm personally not a fan of the concept of a role model being pure as the driven snow. For one thing, human beings are not perfect and idolising someone who is supposed to be perfect is just setting yourself and that person up for a fall. In humans, we call that infatuation (or puppy love) and it never ends particularly well.
One of my favourite role models is Robert McCall from The Equalizer television series. Someone who is driven to champion the wounded and the defenceless against whatever terrible thing life decides to throw at them. But he's not someone whose footsteps you'd directly follow in. He's made a lot of mistakes over his lifetime and his past is a wretched parade of complicity that consistently comes back to haunt him. Yet he never stops trying to make these people's lives better. Strangers. Individuals who have no relevance to his personal life. That is what makes him laudable, not his shadowy past.
That might just be my approach to life, but I always try to take on the better aspects of the people I see around me. Mimicking anyone wholesale is 1) impossible, and; 2) disingenuous to your own self. You've as much reason to exist in your own right as the next person.
For the Doctor... Well, there are aspects in all his incarnations that are worthwhile. At random... The First Doctor's story arc (up to The Dalek Invasion of Earth) is all about making that deliberate choice to stand up for the rights of others; the Third Doctor is all about learning to take pleasure in the world around you ("The daisiest daisy"); the Sixth Doctor demonstrates that someone's flaws are only a part of who they are, not the whole (or don't judge a book by its eyescrapingly-loud cover); the Eighth Doctor proves that you are never too old to revitalise that glee for life ("That's why we're here, that's what it means to be alive!"), and so on it goes. The word "model" means a description of a complex entity or process and if you don't have a role model that stands up to the complexities of life -- that you can fail by doing nothing wrong, that you can disappoint yourself, among other things -- then they aren't going to last very long beyond that initial infatuation.
Your mileage may vary, though.
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Sept 15, 2018 1:19:24 GMT
I'm personally not a fan of the concept of a role model being pure as the driven snow. For one thing, human beings are not perfect and idolising someone who is supposed to be perfect is just setting yourself and that person up for a fall. In humans, we call that infatuation (or puppy love) and it never ends particularly well. One of my favourite role models is Robert McCall from The Equalizer television series. Someone who is driven to champion the wounded and the defenceless against whatever terrible thing life decides to throw at them. But he's not someone whose footsteps you'd directly follow in. He's made a lot of mistakes over his lifetime and his past is a wretched parade of complicity that consistently comes back to haunt him. Yet he never stops trying to make these people's lives better. Strangers. Individuals who have no relevance to his personal life. That is what makes him laudable, not his shadowy past. That might just be my approach to life, but I always try to take on the better aspects of the people I see around me. Mimicking anyone wholesale is 1) impossible, and; 2) disingenuous to your own self. You've as much reason to exist in your own right as the next person. For the Doctor... Well, there are aspects in all his incarnations that are worthwhile. At random... The First Doctor's story arc (up to The Dalek Invasion of Earth) is all about making that deliberate choice to stand up for the rights of others; the Third Doctor is all about learning to take pleasure in the world around you ("The daisiest daisy"); the Sixth Doctor demonstrates that someone's flaws are only a part of who they are, not the whole (or don't judge a book by its eyescrapingly-loud cover); the Eighth Doctor proves that you are never too old to revitalise that glee for life ("That's why we're here, that's what it means to be alive!"), and so on it goes. The word "model" means a description of a complex entity or process and if you don't have a role model that stands up to the complexities of life -- that you can fail by doing nothing wrong, that you can disappoint yourself, among other things -- then they aren't going to last very long beyond that initial infatuation. Your mileage may vary, though.
So... an "Equalizer" series now please Big Finish?
How good would that be
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 2:55:20 GMT
I'm personally not a fan of the concept of a role model being pure as the driven snow. For one thing, human beings are not perfect and idolising someone who is supposed to be perfect is just setting yourself and that person up for a fall. In humans, we call that infatuation (or puppy love) and it never ends particularly well. One of my favourite role models is Robert McCall from The Equalizer television series. Someone who is driven to champion the wounded and the defenceless against whatever terrible thing life decides to throw at them. But he's not someone whose footsteps you'd directly follow in. He's made a lot of mistakes over his lifetime and his past is a wretched parade of complicity that consistently comes back to haunt him. Yet he never stops trying to make these people's lives better. Strangers. Individuals who have no relevance to his personal life. That is what makes him laudable, not his shadowy past. That might just be my approach to life, but I always try to take on the better aspects of the people I see around me. Mimicking anyone wholesale is 1) impossible, and; 2) disingenuous to your own self. You've as much reason to exist in your own right as the next person. For the Doctor... Well, there are aspects in all his incarnations that are worthwhile. At random... The First Doctor's story arc (up to The Dalek Invasion of Earth) is all about making that deliberate choice to stand up for the rights of others; the Third Doctor is all about learning to take pleasure in the world around you ("The daisiest daisy"); the Sixth Doctor demonstrates that someone's flaws are only a part of who they are, not the whole (or don't judge a book by its eyescrapingly-loud cover); the Eighth Doctor proves that you are never too old to revitalise that glee for life ("That's why we're here, that's what it means to be alive!"), and so on it goes. The word "model" means a description of a complex entity or process and if you don't have a role model that stands up to the complexities of life -- that you can fail by doing nothing wrong, that you can disappoint yourself, among other things -- then they aren't going to last very long beyond that initial infatuation. Your mileage may vary, though. So... an "Equalizer" series now please Big Finish? How good would that be Yesss~That'd be amazing. Going from the DVDs, Keith Szarabajka (who played Mickey Kostmeyer) seemed really eager to revisit it and has popped up all over the place as a voice actor since then, so who knows? Recast, original cast or something in between, it'd be loads of fun to see.
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Sept 15, 2018 4:26:54 GMT
Tough question.
I haven't committed double genocide, but then again, I didn't have to weigh committing that crime against destruction of the existence of .... existence.
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Sept 15, 2018 4:34:11 GMT
Tough question. I haven't committed double genocide, but then again, I didn't have to weigh committing that crime against destruction of the existence of .... existence. I feel like that comes back to what Twelve said towards the end of Mummy on the Orient Express: "Sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones, but you still have to choose." (or something like that) The argument here probably falls more towards a debate on the lesser of two evils, but that's a whole different topic
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Sept 15, 2018 5:56:50 GMT
The important thing is to not judge anyone if they Have to make a choice on "the lesser of 2 evils" lest the decision be made for them.
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Sept 15, 2018 6:01:59 GMT
I feel like that comes back to what Twelve said towards the end of Mummy on the Orient Express: "Sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones, but you still have to choose." (or something like that) The argument here probably falls more towards a debate on the lesser of two evils, but that's a whole different topic It certainly is...the choosing of any evil and is there really a lesser evil? I believe there is a lesser evil, but only under particular circumstances. For example, I grew up with quite a horrible step-dad, and I had the choice to keep visiting my Mum, and thus him, or moving in permanently with my Dad. To choose to move in with Dad would have been completely unfair on my Mum as she wasn't doing anything wrong, but that meant I had to deal with the unpleasantness that was my step-dad. Neither option was 'good' for me, but I had to make a decision, so I maintained the 'some time with Mum, some time with Dad' way of living, because I would have felt worse for hurting my Mum. (Not necessarily 'evil' choices in this scenario, I grant you, but the principle is similar. It's why I think there is sometimes a lesser evil, but not necessarily in all situations)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 6:04:14 GMT
I feel like that comes back to what Twelve said towards the end of Mummy on the Orient Express: "Sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones, but you still have to choose." (or something like that) The argument here probably falls more towards a debate on the lesser of two evils, but that's a whole different topic It certainly is...the choosing of any evil and is there really a lesser evil? Certainly a difficult question to answer. I think it ultimately depends on where you stand in proportion to the decision. Take Earthshock, for example. Not only is it ethically wrong for the Doctor to kill the Cyberleader, it also conflicts with his own personal morals to do so. However, if he doesn't, his three friends will die, which is also morally and ethically objectionable. In that particular case, it comes down to numbers and also to the intent and actions of those involved in the quandary. The Leader will immediately go on to do more harm, his friends however will not. It's the thing I really like about the Doctor's overall character. Even when put squarely into situations where there is no right answer, he nearly consistently insists that killing is wrong. The action taken may be necessary, but it's never considered "correct" or "just". It's never considered lightly.
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Sept 15, 2018 6:11:18 GMT
It certainly is...the choosing of any evil and is there really a lesser evil? Certainly a difficult question to answer. I think it ultimately depends on where you stand in proportion to the decision. Take Earthshock, for example. Not only is it ethically wrong for the Doctor to kill the Cyberleader, it also conflicts with his own personal morals to do so. However, if he doesn't, his three friends will die, which is also morally and ethically objectionable. In that particular case, it comes down to numbers and also to the intent and actions of those involved in the quandary. The Leader will immediately go on to do more harm, his friends however will not. It's the thing I really like about the Doctor's overall character. Even when put squarely into situations where there is no right answer, he nearly consistently insists that killing is wrong. The action taken may be necessary, but it's never considered "correct" or "just". It's never considered lightly. I'd like this more than once if I could Beautifully explained!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 6:14:42 GMT
Certainly a difficult question to answer. I think it ultimately depends on where you stand in proportion to the decision. Take Earthshock, for example. Not only is it ethically wrong for the Doctor to kill the Cyberleader, it also conflicts with his own personal morals to do so. However, if he doesn't, his three friends will die, which is also morally and ethically objectionable. In that particular case, it comes down to numbers and also to the intent and actions of those involved in the quandary. The Leader will immediately go on to do more harm, his friends however will not. It's the thing I really like about the Doctor's overall character. Even when put squarely into situations where there is no right answer, he nearly consistently insists that killing is wrong. The action taken may be necessary, but it's never considered "correct" or "just". It's never considered lightly. I'd like this more than once if I could Beautifully explained! Thanks! And well done with your own personal quandary. Great to see an act of compassion shine through in a difficult personal situation.
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Sept 15, 2018 6:31:46 GMT
I'd like this more than once if I could Beautifully explained! Thanks! And well done with your own personal quandary. Great to see an act of compassion shine through in a difficult personal situation. Thank you People were telling me at the time that I should put my own feelings first, but I'm just not that sort of person. (I did suffer for it, but I think it was worth it ) I'd like this more than once if I could Beautifully explained! I think it is also dependent in what incarnation we have how he reacts. Perhaps it would be better taking each individual incarnation and working it out who the real role model out of them all is the most moral 😁 You have a very good point there. You can hardly compare the morality of the Seventh Doctor with that of the Second, can you? Two would do everything he could to make sure everyone made it out alive, whereas Seven would be prepared to sacrifice the odd life if it saved a few more...
|
|
|
Post by masterdoctor on Sept 15, 2018 6:35:20 GMT
Thanks! And well done with your own personal quandary. Great to see an act of compassion shine through in a difficult personal situation. Thank you People were telling me at the time that I should put my own feelings first, but I'm just not that sort of person. (I did suffer for it, but I think it was worth it ) I think it is also dependent in what incarnation we have how he reacts. Perhaps it would be better taking each individual incarnation and working it out who the real role model out of them all is the most moral 😁 You have a very good point there. You can hardly compare the morality of the Seventh Doctor with that of the Second, can you? Two would do everything he could to make sure everyone made it out alive, whereas Seven would be prepared to sacrifice the odd life if it saved a few more... But even then can we say that sacrificing one life to save more is less moral etc. it is all a very interesting discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2018 6:36:07 GMT
Thanks! And well done with your own personal quandary. Great to see an act of compassion shine through in a difficult personal situation. Thank you People were telling me at the time that I should put my own feelings first, but I'm just not that sort of person. (I did suffer for it, but I think it was worth it ) I think it is also dependent in what incarnation we have how he reacts. Perhaps it would be better taking each individual incarnation and working it out who the real role model out of them all is the most moral 😁 You have a very good point there. You can hardly compare the morality of the Seventh Doctor with that of the Second, can you? Two would do everything he could to make sure everyone made it out alive, whereas Seven would be prepared to sacrifice the odd life if it saved a few more... Yeah, and yet Two was the one who tried to engineer the genocide of the Daleks in Evil (an act which disgusted Jamie). Paradoxes and complexities. It's very tricky. For a more traditionally recognised code of ethics (less pragmatism, more idealism)... Instinctively, I want to say Three or Five? They both seem largely unshakeable, morally speaking. The Third Doctor rejects the Master's proposal for joint domination of the universe out-of-hand in Colony in Space because he doesn't understand it, even from an academic point of view and having the Fifth Doctor be corrupted by the Mara in Cradle of the Snake is actually really shocking.
|
|
|
Post by Whovitt on Sept 15, 2018 6:40:53 GMT
Thank you People were telling me at the time that I should put my own feelings first, but I'm just not that sort of person. (I did suffer for it, but I think it was worth it ) You have a very good point there. You can hardly compare the morality of the Seventh Doctor with that of the Second, can you? Two would do everything he could to make sure everyone made it out alive, whereas Seven would be prepared to sacrifice the odd life if it saved a few more... Yeah, and yet Two was the one who tried to engineer the genocide of the Daleks in Evil (an act which disgusted Jamie). Paradoxes and complexities. It's very tricky. For a more traditionally recognised code of ethics (less pragmatism, more idealism)... Instinctively, I want to say Three or Five? They both seem largely unshakeable, morally speaking. The Third Doctor rejects the Master's proposal for joint domination of the universe out-of-hand in Colony in Space because he doesn't understand it, even from an academic point of view and having the Fifth Doctor be corrupted by the Mara in Cradle of the Snake is actually really shocking. Three did gun down an Ogron in Day of the Daleks though, having fought off others in hand-to-hand combat. Is that action justifiable? As for Five, yeah, I think he probably has the lowest record for 'questionable actions'. I feel like I'm heading down a rabbit hole of philosophy that I'm not fully equipped to deal with
|
|