Yeah the only real innocents in MW to me were children. But there were quite a few of them, so while I agree that it was justified to kill all of the other people, was the cost of taking those children’s lives right? That’s where wrestling with morality comes into play for me. How many innocent children’s lives are you willing to sacrifice for the greater good? Is there ever a point where the collateral damage of children dying is okay or justified? If there is, then how many is it okay?
Did they have a choice, though? That was the only weapon Clarke had. It was the innocent children or the innocent everyone else. Because the delinquents were ENTIRELY innocent. First they were kidnap victims. They were also held prisoner. And then they were tortured and killed.
So. If you want to talk about the cost of innocent lives, you have to then weigh the innocent lives of the delinquents with the innocent lives of children. Who DID actually take blood treatment even if they probably didn’t know what it meant.
Would sparing the children have been more righteous if it meant the innocent teenagers were tortured and killed and consumed????
And you know what? You don’t even seem to be considering that the delinquents are innocent victims of their captors. They’re almost all under 18, to boot.
And they WEREN’T collateral damage. They were the targeted victims. Also TORTURE.
Do you think it would be morally righteous to save children whose lives are dependent upon killing other people, but torturing and killing innocent older children in order to set those blood reliant children free? Thus supporting a society, a WHOLE SOCIETY, who thought it was their birthright to use other human beings like cattle?? The whole society was evil. And those children would then be brought up to support it.
Because that was the choice. Since Cage refused donations. Which would have saved everyone. And they could THEN have sorted out the “innocent” from the culpable, and worked to change the world for the better.
What were we supposed to do?
Die.
It’s CAGE who made the choice.
This was not a case of moral relativism, where everyone is the good guy when you look at it from their point of view. Cage’s point of view was I WANT TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND TORTURE PEOPLE WHILE I DO IT. For my people.
Bellarke’s pov was, I need to save my people from being tortured and killed and stop these people from torturing and killing any more people.
NOT THE SAME. NOT EQUAL. Good guys vs Bad guys. The good guys had to do bad things to stop worse things from happening. And it broke them. Killing all those grounders made most of MW think they had a right to do so.