Mohinder Sux

[pycer]

Originally posted by Mello Penelo
I think everyone is wearing their "hate blinders" because of how Thompson ran The Company. Bob is not the same kind of person and he's proved that.

When? When he was running experiments on his own daughter years ago? Or maybe tonight, when he told her her injuries and everything bad that happened was her fault? Oh, or maybe when he was keeping a very deadly virus locked away as a weapon instead of destroying it? Things are never as simple as 'good' and 'bad' here generally, particularly where the company is concerned.

[Who]

I don't know who is a bigger sap Mo or Peter honestly. I still like them both a lot though.

P.S. Then again Maya might be the biggest sap.

[Matro]

Originally posted by pycer
When? When he was running experiments on his own daughter years ago? Or maybe tonight, when he told her her injuries and everything bad that happened was her fault? Oh, or maybe when he was keeping a very deadly virus locked away as a weapon instead of destroying it? Things are never as simple as 'good' and 'bad' here generally, particularly where the company is concerned.

Yep, there was something strange about that conversation he had with her in the car. She was visibly upset but she said "yes Daddy" nice and chipper like, almost as if she new there would be consequences if she wasn't. I also thought it strange that Bob didn't heal his own daughter's gunshot wound with Claire's blood. Seemed like punishment or something.

I don't think Bob cares about anything but The Company. Just like Noah doesn't care about anything but Claire.

[Jaded Wolf]

I think Mohinder believes he is doing right but is being manipulated all around him. This type of thing always happens when someone is idealistic and morally trying to do what is right but then someone comes along and uses them to gain their own needs and goals.

[Theshadow129x]

the company is evil but mohinder is good. the company doesnt want to destroy the virus, just cure those you have it. yet bob also wanted to infect monica with the virus to see what effect the virus would have on her and her abilities. thats pretty dark if you ask me and mohinder did the right thing in refusing to put the virus in her and then also wanting to destroy the other strains that pose a possible threat. the company is bad.

[Mello Penelo]

I don't think The Company is bad. I just think they're all "ends justify the means" people.

[TheOriginalKal-el]

Originally posted by Who
I don't know who is a bigger sap Mo or Peter honestly. I still like them both a lot though.

P.S. Then again Maya might be the biggest sap.

I have to agree here. Then again, I might throw the nod to Hiro a bit. It seems all three of them forgot about the events of last season.

[Theshadow129x]

Originally posted by Mello Penelo
I don't think The Company is bad. I just think they're all "ends justify the means" people.

yeah. the ends justifies the means. thats the same thing lex believes in and if it means destroying peoples lives or even killing some along the way, then thats fine i guess. No, if you want to save the world you have to preserve all life not study on a few people here and there and then say i'll save the next million. its still bad. the world as a whole needs to be preserved not a few must fall for the many, its slow murder. surely you can see it like that Mello.

[flying_girl]

mo's blood is still needed. he said by mixing his blood with claire's he can combat the virus

[Barogrei]

So the ends can never justify the means? Well, I'd say that if it were determined that millions of lives not only could, but would be saved by doing experiments on a very few amount of people, than it would at least be worth considering, especially if you could get their consent to it. I mean, I'm not completely on like a utilitarian side of the board, saying that people should be able to kill you and harvest your organs if it could save two people, but rather that there is some very vague point at which the rights of one or two people can be weighed against the interests of many people. I do think that people have rights, it's just that they are prima facie. For example, if there were some crazy epidemic that was killing hundreds of people in a village, and the cure to that disease was found growing in farmer stan's fields, but he refused to share it with anyone, or allow any way for hundreds of people to be saved, he would still have the prima facie right to that cure. However, I would be morally justified in violating his right to his property, and stealing that cure for the purposes of distributing it, as saving the lives of hundreds would outweigh his individual right to his property. I know that this seems to be a slippery slope down to alot of ideologies that are not necessarily attractive, but consider the alternative: should we allow farmer stan to hold onto the cure, which is technically "his property", and allow hundreds to die? (Ayn Rand must be rolling in her grave, lol)

[pycer]

I am actually a big believer in the ends justify the means, most of the time. However, we don't even have the first concrete proof what ends the company is working for, thus far it has not been shown they come any where close to beneficial to anyone.

[RedPhoenix23]

Originally posted by Ginx
So, based upon Mohinder's actions - is he still a fav character or has he signed his death warrant since his blood is no longer a cure to the virus?

His blood is still the cure, it simply has to be combined with Claire's blood now to work on the super Shanti virus.

But considering this super Shanti virus devestates the world in less then a year and two characters are suspose to die in the next ep... then it might be a safe bet to say Mo' is gonna die.

Originally posted by kent_eh
He's a good person following his moral compass while all around him are manipulating him like a puppet.

He's the only one I trust to know what good is.

Unfortunately he never has all the facts to base his opinion on.

I agree with that.

[Barogrei]

I am actually a big believer in the ends justify the means, most of the time. However, we don't even have the first concrete proof what ends the company is working for, thus far it has not been shown they come any where close to beneficial to anyone.

Well, I actually think that both teleology (basically that there are some ends to which actions ought to aim at, regardless of what those actions actually are) and deontology (the nature of one's actions constitute moral worth, and not the ends that the agent sought to achieve) in their pure form cannot truly be morality. For example, I would not advocate a doctor lie to a terminally ill patient, even if it could make that patient happier. I think that the doctor treating the patient is morally obligated, in that instance, to tell his patient the truth, and deluding his patient would be impermissible regardless of whether or not the patient would be happy in his or her ignorance (deontological belief). I also cannot ignore the fact that in some instances I would prioritize an end, and at least partially ignore the nature of the action if that action was the only one to achieve that end. Surely you can sympathize with a father who told a lie to save his child, Pycer. I actually have an essay I wrote pertaining to this subject if anyone is interested in it, send me a pm.

[dizi]

Leave HRG alone, Mo...I hate him so much, I don't want him to die, I want him to suffer in the hands of HRG.