Hard to find a “happy faced” Ben Linus.
Ben is a “good guy,” in respect to the overall good. Whether Ben is trying to protect the Island, or protect the world FROM the Island, he is working for the good of the future.
Ben didn’t want John to die, Ben wasn’t sure that John had to die. But Ben would have known Jin, in the 70’s, as part of Dharma. As soon as Ben found out that Jin was alive, on the Island, some pieces of the puzzle feel into place in his head, and he had to “kill” John.
Considering the comings and goings to the Island in the past, Ben would have to have know Mrs. Hawking. Hearing John mention her name did not trigger Ben to kill John, but it told Ben that Widmore had his fingers in the pie again. Ben knew that the only way that John could have know about Mrs. Hawking and her location in LA., would have been through Widmore.
And why didn’t Widmore just go to Hawking in the past to find the Island location. well, first off, I don’t think they are on speaking terms anymore. I believe they were married and the parents of Faraday. Other wise, there would be no need for him to have gone through all the trouble with the freighter and the mecernaries and the science team. No, Hawking is not on Widmore’s side.
If anything, the greater good for Ben would be to eliminate Widmore’s “spy,” who in this case was technically John. This accomplished two things. thwarting Widmore’s plan, and fulfilling the what Alpert told John, that he must die.
For what ever reason, Ben, Widmore, Hawking, Faraday seem to know the “rules,” but they don’t always believe that the “rules” are immobile. What ever their ultimate purpose is, they feel that they have some control over it. And everyone else are pieces on the game board.
43 Responses to “Doggone It, People Like Me!”
Leave a Reply
This site utilizes the Global Avatar standard developed by Gravatar. To set your avatar, click on the logo to the left.Return To Top
Loading ...
Microsoft Store
but…Locke knew about Hawking via island-apparition-Jacob-spokesman Christian Shepard…
agreed…
and i think ben was just waiting to find the way back.
notice how he says i dont know what to do when we get them…
and john says i do, we go to hawking……..
and then john is dead.
ben just wanted a name on who knew how to get back,
thats my take on it anyway…..
now why he insists on bringing johns body along…. i havent a clue.
I think Ben knew he wasn’t killing John. He kept his body. He knows smth we don’t yet
Relativism is the logic of the
Delusional – Ben is bad
Bad Ben
Don’t think so, and I am certainly not talking relativism. We can’t always compare our way of dealing with events in the same way as characters with in the frame of a fictional story would. We have to understand morals in “their world.”
And even so, in the real world, we make decisions that sometimes compromise morals for the greater good. War itself is certainly a simple example. Innocents will get hurt or killed during a war, but, there are moral reasons to engage in war.
With in the world of LOST, and because we as the viewer do not have the whole story arc as of yet, we cannot assume that it’s impossible for Ben to be a good guy.
Especially since we have already seen how the writers of this series can so expertly change our perception of who’s good and who’s not good.
WLN: “Don’t think so, and I am certainly not talking relativism. We can’t always compare our way of dealing with events in the same way as characters with in the frame of a fictional story would. We have to understand morals in “their world.”
That is relativism!!! That is saying there is no right and wrong. That is saying right and wrong is based on perspective.
From Ben’s perspective it’s not murder!?!
Doesn’t fly. While I don’t doubt that the Lost creators are probably from the Left side of the fence and perhaps relativists, your argument definitely relativistic.
WLN: “And even so, in the real world, we make decisions that sometimes compromise morals for the greater good. War itself is certainly a simple example. Innocents will get hurt or killed during a war, but, there are moral reasons to engage in war.”
Relativism, ditto! Engaging in a “necessary evil” is not necessarily compromising morals, sorry. War is actual a poor argument, although it is arguable whether or not there are necessary or unnecessary wars.
WLN: “With in the world of LOST, and because we as the viewer do not have the whole story arc as of yet, we cannot assume that it’s impossible for Ben to be a good guy.”
Ben is not a good guy. He is a sociopath. Murder is inexcusable.
The only we’ve-not-seen-enough-yet character is actually Widmore. Yes, he knew he was hiring extremely competent mercenaries, but could he have foreseen that one would murder an innocent girl or those on the ship that were rebelling? All we know for sure is that Ben was the target. The explosives could well have been intended to be used to destroy the poison gas that Daniel neutralized.
WLN: “Especially since we have already seen how the writers of this series can so expertly change our perception of who’s good and who’s not good.”
They can only change the perspective of the characters/story. They cannot change my perceptions.
perception |pərˈsep sh ən|
noun
the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses : the normal limits to human perception.
• the state of being or process of becoming aware of something in such a way : the perception of pain.
• a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression : Hollywood’s perception of the tastes of the American public | we need to challenge many popular perceptions of old age.
• intuitive understanding and insight :
MY perceptions are based on what I can detect and then what I can determine from prior knowledge. Therefore, if the writers limit or toggle my perspective then so too are my perceptions.
One thing the writers cannot do is convert me to relativism. If they create a monster like Ben and then make him the savior of the world in some way, they are only creating an argument for relativism.
That is an argument I reject.
I stand by my statement: Relativism is an argument for the delusional.
But what about Utilitarianism? If you are caught between two possible, inescapable outcomes, and one outcome protects a larger amount of lives, you go with that one no matter what you have to do to bring it about. Morals don’t figure into it one bit. Just ask Jack Bauer. And Smitty, you knew what WLN meant when she spoke about perceptions. That’s an extremely common twist of vernacular and WLN didn’t invent it. No need to get snitty, Smitty.
Snitty Smitty! I like it!
Eh, just what is that again?
Seriously, if one inescapable outcome is evil and the other good, then I will chose the later even if it causes more harm than good to others. Giving in to base needs instead of aspiring for a greater understanding is always a mistake.
Or like Christian said, “Why do you think it’s called a sacrifice?”
But can’t choosing to “cause more harm than good to others” be considered evil? I don’t think it’s always as cut and dry as good vs. evil. Aren’t there any situations that are bad vs. worse and then wouldn’t choosing “bad” be the moral/right thing to do?
There are a lot of scenarios where Ben could be redeemed, but I’m on the ben is bad side of the argument. Now, why he is bad could be infinitely more interesting. The suggestion that Ben has been living within a time loop, getting to live his life over and over, is interesting. (It would apply to everyone as well). Then his actions are still bad, but it accounts for his indifference. Everyone around him is a player in his game. It doesn’t matter if they die, because its all about him getting another at-bat to try to save mommy.
That would be an awful simple plot resolution to what will be over 110 episodes of an award wining TV series. No, if this is all Ben all the time, then I would be terribly disappointed in such a narrow focus, a narrow and selfish focus on/for one character.
I don’t think he is indifferent. I think there is a sliver of possibilities that the “rules” can be changed. He’s being practical. If he manages to change them, then it will be for the good of something (IMHO). If he doesn’t, then no one is further hurt, harmed or damaged, no more than their destiny called for.
I don’t think that type of plot resolution is in the cards for a simple reason: LOST’s writers didn’t initially intend for Ben to play as big of a role as he ended up playing. From what I remember in the press Michael Emerson was only supposed to be in a few episodes, but his performance was spectacular enough that the writer’s extended his arc (a lot) further. This might be an overly simplistic way of looking at this, but it makes sense to me.
Ben was always in the story, just not as Ben and not as Michal Emerson. The character was always part of the show, Emerson just happened to fit the bill so they moved him into it.
As for it being simple, I’d have to disagree with that. I think it would be far more simple to have a catch-all “I knew all along that ________” denounment retrofitted to a character’s actions to skew their intentions towards one side of the moral compass, than to reveal that the characters have been living in a cycle perpetuated by their own bad decisions. Of course, even the simplest concept can become as complex as you want it to be when it comes to working it out narratively.
Keep in mind as well, as my comment states, this wouldn’t be a narrow focus “all ben all the time,” the ‘rule’ would have to apply to each character.
Ben HAS been indifferent since the beginning. There was a glimmer of ‘what have I done?’ in the purge when he came upon Horace, but on Ajira 316 he baldly stated that he didn’t care what happened to the other people on board. Ditto on the freighter.
What I’m getting at is this: maybe there is a morally gray area there because he has already missed his mark, so everything he does now is focused on getting his second chance – which is, incidentally, a second chance for everyone else as well. He doesn’t care who dies because if he succeeds – and he always does – than all of that death (and paralysis, and cancer…) will be cosmically undone.
Doc, I love you. You say the things that my booze and drug riddled brains cannot articulate. So what you are saying is that Ben may be pulling a Bishop? <3
That’s a heart, for you.
I am also on the Ben is Bad Boat, but I will say that the question of Ben’s alignment has bugged the hell out of me since the first episode that he appeared in. I definitely think on it more than any other mystery on the show. Weird thing is? I really hope that Ben IS the good guy and that he and Locke team up to kick all kinds of crazy ass.
I’m with you, WLN – Ben is is on the side of ‘good’, but does bad things to accomplish his goals because he does not feel empathy and because he always does the most expedient thing that will get him what wants. Most of us shirk at such efficiency because we feel for other people. Ben is the extreme of “the end justifies the means.”
I think Ben is working for a Good End. I hope that we’re right about this because if this whole thing has been a setup for 2 very bad men (Ben and Widmore) to be duking it out for no reason that we care about, I will be very very disappointed in writers who haven’t disappointed me yet.
I want to mention to HandsomeSmitty that it’s all about Relativism in Lost. Almost every one on the show has done bad things, and some of them without remorse. No one can throw stones. Ben is just the most extreme case.
Almost every one on the show has done bad things, and some of them without remorse.
Exactly, but being the good guy isn’t judged by how much us fans enjoy the character – or whether someone is serving the greater good. Incidents like “The Purge”, and Ben’s killing of everyone on the freighter in favor of his own need for revenge, are pretty hard to write off as collateral damage. UNLESS, as I said – there is a device that makes these deaths not deaths. It’s about much more that Locke, Ben has committed mass murder twice that we know of. And I know the thinking is that it was really Keamy who killed the freighter folks, but Ben was responsible in that he knew the function of the dead mans trigger and chose to kill Keamy anyway.
I don’t think Ben was responsible for the Purge. He went along with it, because, paraphrasing him, he was smart enough to not end up on the wrong side of the pit. He may have even given the access code to the Others. But I believed him when he told Hurley that it wasn’t his decision. He was not the leader of the Others at that time. Besides, he was with his father when the gas was released. And yeah, I know that he killed his father, but Kate killed hers just as cold-bloodedly. As for Keamy – don’t forget how Keamy was taunting him just then – “Remember how your daughter looked with her blood running into the dirt” – I’m not sure I can hold that one against Ben, innocent bystanders or no.
I do take your point about being good not the same as enjoying the character. And I may be employing a whole lot of wishful thinking. And I wish for Ben to find redemption before the end.
Some have done bad things with remorse, or at least with accepting the fact that their actions may be immoral. That is the opposite of relativism. These characters are capable of moral reasoning that is based on something outside of themselves.
Ben is not. Whether born or manufactured, Ben is a sociopath. His “Good End” is what benefits him, not others.
Now, if somehow all the people Ben has murdered or manipulated into miserable suffering somehow find themselves resurrected and happy at the end of Lost then Ben is not bad or good – BEN IS GOD!
Ain’t happening.
Ben bad Bad Ben.
Ben knew John had had contact with Widmore since John was traveling with Abaddon. Damon and Carlton ultimately (albeit indirectly) answered the question of Ben’s badness when Damon asked whether a stormtrooper who slaughtered innocent Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru (Star Wars) knew that slaughtering innocent people was a good thing. Ben may, and certainly does, justify all his actions with his perception of the greater good, but so did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. It’s what real bad guys do, as opposed to cartoon bad guys who are evil for evil’s sake. A truly evil person rationalizes via an “end justifies the means” mentality. Look at his attitude toward the people on the freighter facing imminent death: “So?” And toward the people on Flight 316: “Who cares?” Not even, “Well, Jack, they may have to die for the greater good.” He’s evil.
Hey!! Don’t bash me like that! I’m a good guy!
Didn’t you see the strained expression on my face while I was choking the miserable life out of John? Couldn’t you tell I was trying really hard to hide my remorse? (Now that’s what I call acting… take that M. Fox)
I think the strained expression was from trying not to burst into a stereotypical “bwa-ha-ha!”
*busted*
Glad to see someone else grasped that Locke mentioning “Jin” was the trigger for Locke’s death, not “Hawking.”
Keamy killed Alex. “He changed the rules.” From that point onward, Ben’s cockiness was gone. He acknowledged Locke as the new leader. He was ready to be the one to move the island in order to leave the island. He was ok with the O6 leaving the island. Game up. What was left was bedeviling Widmore as best he could in the real world. The Oceanic 6 might be useful to him in that capacity, as Sayid was for a time. Maybe when he burst in on Locke, he thought he could turn him against Widmore.
But then… Jin is alive? The rules were changed, but if Jin survived the Freighter long enough to travel back in time to live his Dharma life (a life Ben was very familiar with, even though we haven’t seen this yet), then the game is not up. The timeline favored by Ben is still salvagable. Why Locke’s resurrection is necessary for that timeline is anyone’s guess, though.
So based on Ben knowing our losties during the DHARMA time, are we to assume that all of them died in the “pruge”?
From my perspective it is clear “Hawking” set Ben off. I don’t completely understand why: After all, Hawking seemed unfazed by his presence and knew enough about him to ask Jack why would he believe Ben.
It appears Sawyer and Juliet are also working at Dharma, not just Jin.
I agree. I think Hawking pushed him over the edge but Jin nudged him too.
Makes sense, Zonker
Why does every reviewer keep getting it wrong?
Christian told Locke to go see Ms. Hawking, not Widmore.
It seems to me that Ben murdered Locke the second he realized Hawking was the contact to get back to the Island and definitely wasn’t planning on bring his body back to the island. (I never believe a word Ben says but when he says he’s really gonna miss Locke after killing him, he obviously plans on never seeing him again, I mean nobodys around for him to lie to at that point other than himself)
Now the big question is, What happens from the point of Locke’s death to the point when Ben starts taking care of Locke’s body? I guess Hawking plays Ben and tells him he can’t return with the rest unless he brings Locke’s body knowing Locke will resurrect.
If that’s correct then looking back at 316 now, Ben was actually The Doubting Thomas.
Anyone noticed the link between Ben’s situation with his mother dying at birth and the mysterious situation on the island with mothers dying at birth??? He obviously went to great lengths to try and solve the problem, ( with recruiting Juliet etc.. Do you think that his overall plan could be as simple as to get a cure/ way of stopping mothers dying on the island, and then turning the donkey wheel to travel back in time and save his mother??? What if his father wasn’t the man he killed in the purge, and he only found out when the ghost of his mother visited him on the island and told him that she lived on and conceived him on that island with a different man???
Ben says alot of things that we think are complete lies, but there always seems to be some truth, he just tends to bend it slightly to fit his needs. All this time he has said that he was born on the island and we know this to be a lie because of the flash back. I think that Ben was conceived on the island!!! Like Suns daughter!!
Good point about Ben’s mother. But you can’t change the past.
Do we know for sure Ben and John’s father are not the same man? I don’t think so. I always figured that Locke’s supposed father, because if the kidney donation, could well have been Ben’s as well.
And poetic justice if Sawyer terminates Ben, huh.
Well, we’ve seen Ben’s dad, and we saw Emily Linus die in his arms in Portland. We saw Ben come to the island as an older child, and it was pretty obvious that his dad had never been on the island before then, so I don’t understand the thinking that Ben could have eben conceived on the island, or that Ben’s dad wasn’t his biological father. At least, if he weren’t, that would have meant that Locke’s dad had had an affair with Emily Linus and been in Portland 8 months prior to the roadside birth scene. Although, I suppose that if Ben’s father had the notion Ben weren’t his biological child, this could be part of the reason he loathed him so much; however, I don’t think this is a realistic scenario.
We don’t know that the man with Emily was necessarily the father of the child, is what i am saying. Your suggestion of an affair with a grifter would be one suggestion and the hatred for young Linus another. I think it very realistic. IF it is the case then I am sure that will be shown eventually.
With in the world of LOST, and because we as the viewer do not have the whole story arc as of yet, we cannot assume that it’s impossible for Ben to be a good guy.
It really pains me to say this…. but I don’t see how some of his actions can be justified as “good.” Maybe in his head, everything is justified… but the audience can’t help but apply some ethical judgments on his actions.
Trust me. I want to think he’s a good guy… or at least not the megalomania-driven evil bastard the rest of the characters (and most of the viewing audience) see him as. I cross my fingers that there will be some backstory that explains further some of his life and actions. BUT… with so few episodes left, I don’t know that I’ll get it.
It’s possible the writers don’t have the good taste to be as obsessed with Ben as I am.
I think the question is, why would Ben just keep Locke alive knowing all the 06 and locke and ben could travel back to the island together by Ajira Airlines? The answer: they needed to replicate Christians dead body. But why not replicate John being on the plane? Well, because he is the key; and doing that would change his destiny.
gotta love how yet another person incorrectly states that Widmore sent Locke to Hawking. I always thought these featured posters were subject matter experts, but that’s two recent posts now that have made some incorrect assessments.
Without knowing any additional information, and just based on what has been revealed to us, I think Ben is a villain in the story. He is a complex villain, however. I can see how Sayid, John, Richard Alpert, or even the viewing audience might be inclined to temporarily fall under his conniving spell or fall for the carrots he dangles. And I always want to believe Ben is a “stand up kind of guy”. But then, I think about some of the very despicable things he’s done or said (snickering), and he goes right back into the villain pile for me.
Watching him kill, yet again, particularly when the someone was John Locke (my favorite character), was the real deal breaker for me. Of course maybe Ben knew this might be the only way John could be resurrected or bring back the O6. But it remains to be seen!
And I laughed my head off when Ben called Jack from the marina and he was all roughed up! Or when a resurrected John stood over a helpless Ben at the end of the show! I can’t imagine this show without Ben. No way, no how. But not because I think Ben is a good guy…
I agree with you, Ben is the guy we want to be good but can never be sure of! And Locke is my fave character too. I don’t think that Richard was fooled though- I think there’s protocol on the island regarding leadership… and Richard doesn’t have the power to get the leader off the bench… unless he finds a replacement (like John)…
then why did ben eat all the “dark” meat?
Charlie’s Ghost said: ” gotta love how yet another person incorrectly states that Widmore sent Locke to Hawking.”
Yes, you are correct, that was my mistake. I was making notes right after the episode, and I may have gotten that information from an early summary of the episode on another LOST blog. And after posting, the mistake was pointed out to me.
So, my apology.
Now, on another note. If you would like to try you hand at developing Doc Arzt front page articles, then please, email Doc and I suspect he would be glad to give you a shot at it.
Charlie, people do make mistakes, at least I do and have, and I suspect that I will at times again. If you are such a person that doesn’t make a mistake, then you are very lucky, and the more power to you.
i think we might be forgetting something…
remember Michael trying to kill himself? didn’t work. Jack trying to jump off the bridge? didn’t work. Maybe suicide wouldn’t have worked for Locke either, and Ben knew that.
Now, that does NOT excuse Ben or make him a good guy, and I am now a big fan of Snitty Smitty for not only his talk on relativism, but for correcting the usage of “perception”, because I’m an English major and believe in that sort of correction.
Ben is BAD. BAD Ben. no excuse. but I don’t think Locke would’ve been able to kill himself. someone else had to take him out…
I don’t think that Widmore and Hawking are/were married. In ‘Jughead’ young Hawking ( Ellie ) makes a sarcastic comment to young Widmore. And he replies “Shut up Ellie.” in a childish way. So I think they are brother and sister.
This is a great debate! Lots of great points on all sides.
Widmore & Hawking brother & sister makes a LOT of sense to me!