Board Thread:General Grimm Discussion/@comment-25875828-20150512091124/@comment-174.92.12.114-20150513034117

Clearly you have never taken an ethics/morality course in college, syscrash, because your grasp of the complexities of moralityis remarkably tenuous.

Why do we forgive Adalind, Sean and Nick but not Juliette?

Lets examine the logic here.

For a start, I do not forgive Adalind, or think her a worthy mother. Some people are easily moved to sympathy and Adalinds current circumstances may cause some to forget her previous wrongdoings. I do not, nor do I forget the ease of which she changes sides. I will not defend her. That being said, I will say that it weakens your argument terribly to have so much of it depend on the Juliette-Adalind comparison when most people to do not think adalind is worthy of Forgivness. Without Adalind, your assertations with regards to Sean and Nick fall flat.

Here is why.

Sean is worthy of forgiveness because he has earned it (even if his worthyness of our trust is up for debate). Since coming clean with Nick, he has increasingly become more reserved in the use of questionable tactics; his worst offences were definatly in the first season. Furthermore, he has been increasingly valuable for fighting the good fight, using his skills and assets to help out the scooby gang deal with supernatural threats. The most important considerations for considering someone worthy of forgiveness is discontiuing previous behaviour and making efforts to improve and Sean has fulfilled both of these criteria.

"But sean Killed his brother!"

The killing of his brother was justified. Do not forget, syscrash, of the person his brother was. Eric was a sadist with no regard for life or loyalty (he exposed a loyal bodyguard of many years to Baron samdeis toxin simply because he wanted to see the Toxin in action. if you say that the toxin would not kill him, I hasten to point out that the toxin would have put him into a situation where death was very probable, either at the hands of police or the other infected once Baron skipped town). Sean could not let the kidnapping of Nick go without a response either; putting aside the motive of retribution, He could not allow his brother to make another attempt or get at him in some other fashion. He could not arrest or negotiate with his brother, therfore the only response that Sean could make was to issue a Death warrent. Harsh, but Sean is at war with the Families and his Brother is an enemy combatent and is thus fair game.

As for Nick, anything you would call a wrongdoing on his part, I dismiss by pointing out limiting circumstances. Keeping the truth from Wu? He was trying his best to keep Wu sane (Remember all the times we have been told that people who find out about wesen tend to go crazy? Nick remembers, and thus only informs them when it is 100% certain that they are too deep in wesen world for them to safly remain ignorant). Linus and Stacy? Nick had no choice; Linus had to pay for his crime and if he could become stacy he could simply walk out of jail. Supressing Stacy was thus the only way to get Linus (She was complicit in the guys death anyway; she wasn't exactly demanding that Linus turn both of them in, and she tried to attack Nick and Hank when they came to arrest her (yes, they would have darted her anyway, but she didn't know that)). I do not have the time to refute every alleged offence of Nicks that you can come up with, but if you provide a condenced list of what you think qualifies, I can come up with an equally quick series of justifications for each of them. Frankly, Utilitarianism or social contract theory would exuse all of Nicks willful actions.

As for Nick "Abandoning Juliette", this makes no sense at all. I can think of not think of a single instance of Nick doing anything other than what he thought was in her best interest. The closest I can come to is his refusal to bail Juliette out of Jail, which was fine with everybody watching (would you let the increasingly violent Hexenbiest out?)

What Juliette is doing is worse because she acting immoral for no good reason. Even Adalind Might offer up the Defence of "I was Coerced" for some of her offences (though I myself do not really buy this excuse). Juliette is getting innocent people killed (Her neighbours and Nicks [admittedly-less-innocent -but-not-innocent-murdering] mother) and attempting to kill other innocents (Monroe [who she DEFINATLY tried to kill, given her reaction to the near miss] and Nicks kid). Far worse is her repeaded indulgence in this behavior; she admits enjoying using her power to hurt others. Who is worse; the murderer who kills only to achieve specific aims, or the one who kills because they like it? Make no mistake, Juliette is headed down the path of the sadistic thrill killer. Bring up her "remorse" during kellys Murder, but she did nothing to stop it, though she could have, and felt nothing at all over the death of her neighbours (who she presumably knew for years). She is worse because there is no heading back into the light for her, which means the only path forward is further into the darkness.