Blue and Orange Morality: Difference between revisions
De-pothole and some tweaks
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (replace redirects) |
(De-pothole and some tweaks) |
||
Line 435:
** Lemongrab could count as this. While he's definitely not evil, he is not a good guy (as in a hero or a nice person.) He sends everyone to the dungeon for committing petty crimes. Sometimes it's justified, and the sentence is like a reasonable time-out; only a few hours. Other times, it's a horrible case of [[Disproportionate Retribution]], and then it becomes obvious that he hasn't got all his marbles together.
* Dinobot in ''[[Beast Wars]]'': "I have honour, but it is PREDACON honour!"
*
** It is likely that Discord,
** The villains from Season 2's finale, {{spoiler|Changelings and their queen, Chrysalis, are 'evil' because to them, love is a '''food'''.}}
** It should be noted that while both of the above two examples merely provide a motive, they do ''not'' explain the outright sadism both exhibit. That seems to be a personality trait completely separate from this.
Line 482 ⟶ 481:
* James Bowman in ''Honor: A History'' traces the [[Honor Before Reason|honor codes]] of various times and civilizations and points out that they have universal similarities and striking differences. He also believes that the old style honor code is becoming Blue and Orange Morality to a number of modern people.
** An example he gives was of a [[Intrepid Reporter|Obviously Not Intrepid Reporter]] (whom he mercifully refuses to name) he heard of in Iraq who persuaded a female soldier to ride in his car to "use their chauvinism against them" so that no insurgents would shoot at him. The author points out that the honor code of Middle Eastern terrorists is not quite that of a [[Quintessential British Gentleman]], the differences are as complex as the similarities, and in general they would have no problems shooting at a female soldier.
* Take two people completely opposed on some issue. Chances are, they will find themselves literally unable to comprehend the other's point of view even when they (think they) start from the same data. This is increasingly the case in the Internet age, where it is easier than ever for both to get their news and other media from sources dedicated to their own viewpoint with little to no (unbiased) coverage of the other side, and so may not even have the same idea of the basic facts, much less any idea what the opposing argument really is beyond a strawman built by cherrypicking the most absurd and extreme representatives of the opposition.
* A literal example from Cold War days. Two power blocs that found it pretty difficult to understand each other's particular ethics and moralities - the capitalist and communist - were facing each other down over a divided German border for over forty years. When NATO had its annual manoevres and field exercises in West Germany, rather than risk offence to the Russians by denoting the "invading from the East" faction the Red Army, and making it obvious by calling the "defending from the West" side the white Army, the convention evolved that called the two sides in NATO wargames "Blue" and "Orange". A whole generation of NATO officers passed through their countries' armed forces thinking of the Warsaw Pact as "Orange Army" and their own side as "Blue Army"...
** Watergate is the perfect example: The Russians couldn't believe Nixon, a powerful and effective national leader, was really brought down by the kind of things that were a matter of course in the USSR.
| |||