Arrow Arrow Season 4 Episode 4- "Beyond Redemption"

What you are not understanding is death is death. Which is one of the things Christopher Nolan was saying in that boat scene in TDK. Killing the guilty doesn't put you on a higher moral ground. Sparing the innocent while killing hundreds of people doesn't buy you any tickets to heaven.

The lives of innocent people are more important, is not the same. I'm not saying all the bad ones should die, but if a vigilante like Oliver only kills criminals, he's not as evil as one that kills anyone like Helena did. Now, I believe everyone has the potential to be redeemable if the person really changes its ways, which seems to be Helena's arc after the last conversation she had with Ollie.
 
The lives of innocent people are more important, is not the same. I'm not saying all the bad ones should die, but if a vigilante like Oliver only kills criminals, he's not as evil as one that kills anyone like Helena did. Now, I believe everyone has the potential to be redeemable if the person really changes its ways, which seems to be Helena's arc after the last conversation she had with Ollie.

Being a criminal doesn't make you an evil person just like being an "innocent" doesn't make you a good person. Life isn't that black and white there are far more shades of grey. There is no moral high ground in murder once you've killed you've killed.
 
Being a criminal doesn't make you an evil person just like being an "innocent" doesn't make you a good person. Life isn't that black and white there are far more shades of grey. There is no moral high ground in murder once you've killed you've killed.

This comment is fabulous. You open by expressing the (IMO) correct assertion that there are shades of grey in everything, but you then follow it with a moral absolutism. Of course there is a moral high ground in 'murder'.

If you are talking purely about killing, not necessarily 'malicious killing' (i.e. murder) there are plenty of examples of killing that are clearly better or worse, but even if we limit ourselves to the strict definition of 'murder' as a premeditated unlawful killing I would still argue that all murder is not equal.

Between the following two (purposefully extreme) examples, would you seriously claim that both are equivalent acts?

1. Killer slashes the throat of the first person he encounters while out on a stroll purely to experience the thrill it gives him.

2. Rape victim kills her rapist after he is acquitted and has mocked her with his intention to go after her sister next.

Both of the above are murder, but just because both people have killed does not put them on the same moral level. I can't be sure how you feel, but your comments suggest that you view these as equivalent because 'once you've killed, you've killed'.
 
This comment is fabulous. You open by expressing the (IMO) correct assertion that there are shades of grey in everything, but you then follow it with a moral absolutism. Of course there is a moral high ground in 'murder'.

If you are talking purely about killing, not necessarily 'malicious killing' (i.e. murder) there are plenty of examples of killing that are clearly better or worse, but even if we limit ourselves to the strict definition of 'murder' as a premeditated unlawful killing I would still argue that all murder is not equal.

Between the following two (purposefully extreme) examples, would you seriously claim that both are equivalent acts?

1. Killer slashes the throat of the first person he encounters while out on a stroll purely to experience the thrill it gives him.

2. Rape victim kills her rapist after he is acquitted and has mocked her with his intention to go after her sister next.

Both of the above are murder, but just because both people have killed does not put them on the same moral level. I can't be sure how you feel, but your comments suggest that you view these as equivalent because 'once you've killed, you've killed'.

Let me ask you this do you believe a serial killer has a higher moral ground than a mass murderer? I'm not arguing which motivation is more righteous which is what your asking me. I'm saying if someone killed one person they are no better than someone who killed five. Nobody would even attempt to try to make a distinction between rapist but somehow murder is debatable
 
Last edited:
This comment is fabulous. You open by expressing the (IMO) correct assertion that there are shades of grey in everything, but you then follow it with a moral absolutism. Of course there is a moral high ground in 'murder'.

If you are talking purely about killing, not necessarily 'malicious killing' (i.e. murder) there are plenty of examples of killing that are clearly better or worse, but even if we limit ourselves to the strict definition of 'murder' as a premeditated unlawful killing I would still argue that all murder is not equal.

Exactly, killing a dangerous criminal to save lives is less evil than killing innocent people, to pretend both are the same is not seeing those shades of grey.
 
Watching it since first episode, even i am fond of watching it and the season 4 is awesome Stephen always be a great hero who is dressed up very well.
 
The episode was fine, the scenes between Ollie and Lance were really good, specially the fight in Lance's apartment, the stunts were good and IMO it was great to have an episode without H.I.V.E. as the villains.

The new lair is amazing, love the design and how much light it has compared to the club's factory, but the location is less than ideal. An office full of people all day long with a secret elevator located in a room that has crystal on the walls and that Ollie and the rest won't have a reason to visit once the election is over.

Also, and I know this may seem weird, but as someone who lives in an apartment, how come Laurel has her own basement? Maybe I'm wrong, but apartments do not have usually have basements. I know is not really important, but is the kind of detail that annoys me and takes me out of the story. In general I'm not a big fan of how they handling Sara's resurrection, is a huge deal, and they are rushing through it, giving it the least amount of scenes possible. Which is a shame, because the plot itself is interesting and could be great if they had given enough time to breathe, instead trying to get it out of the way ASAP in order to explain Sara's presence in Legends of Tomorrow.

Still, this season so far is better than season 3
 
Laurel doesn't have her own basement. She was keeping Sara in the building's basement.
 
And for some reason Laurel is the only one who ever went down there.
 
Laurel doesn't have her own basement. She was keeping Sara in the building's basement.

Ah, I see. I was just confused then. But then Nathan is right, it was very convenient no one besides Laurel and her dad went in there.
 
Let me ask you this do you believe a serial killer has a higher moral ground than a mass murderer? I'm not arguing which motivation is more righteous which is what your asking me. I'm saying if someone killed one person they are no better than someone who killed five. Nobody would even attempt to try to make a distinction between rapist but somehow murder is debatable

Honestly, I don't think there is a difference between the kill count, but my whole point is about intent. If all that matters is whether or not you kill someone, then a driver who loses control of his vehicle and hits a pedestrian is on the same level as the guy killing his wife for an insurance payout. Hell, a person killing in self defence is the same as the Zodiac killer.

Every comment you make implies that all that matters is whether or not a person has by direct action ended the life of another, regardless of circumstance or intent. If that's all that matters to you, then I'm not going to bother answering again since our morals are too diametrically opposed for us to come to any agreement.
 
Honestly, I don't think there is a difference between the kill count, but my whole point is about intent. If all that matters is whether or not you kill someone, then a driver who loses control of his vehicle and hits a pedestrian is on the same level as the guy killing his wife for an insurance payout. Hell, a person killing in self defence is the same as the Zodiac killer.

Every comment you make implies that all that matters is whether or not a person has by direct action ended the life of another, regardless of circumstance or intent. If that's all that matters to you, then I'm not going to bother answering again since our morals are too diametrically opposed for us to come to any agreement.

I am talking about murder not killing someone in a accident or self defense of you or another, not being a soldier and killing enemy combatants, or a trained officer killing in the line of duty. Vigilantism like the examples I provided however that ends in someones death is always going to be murder to me.
 
Good episode.

Just like the previous one, I felt this one had vibes of season one, which was a good thing. Blackthorne was amazing in his breakdown and his interactions with Laurel and Ollie were well done. Amell held his own in the apartment scenes too about looking for Lance's approval and showing him that he can be somebody.

When everyone no sold Ollie telling him that he was running for mayor, I was laughing my ass off. "Wait, you're serious?" Good stuff.

The thing about the Vigilante Task Force was interesting in their mindset of why they're doing what they need to.

The new lair looks awesome.

Agreed, this definitely had season one vibes throughout, which is a very good thing, this season has been strong so far, but this was the best episode yet.

Amell's acting in the first apartment scene was great, and I loved him giving Lance both barrels for once rather than the other way around. It was great seeing them both come to common ground as well by the end. Really hope this season keeps up the quality.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"