I would suggest that there's an issue of semmantics to be considered in Mr.Eick's answer to the baby killing question. No where does he defend the morality of killing babies. The fact is, evil is a product of intent, not action. Evil is a human construct that we apply to things, often to things outside ourselves that can not be labelled as such. If an animal finds an unprotected litre and proceeds to kill the babies, that is not an act of evil. The question to be asked is, what was the intent behind 6's action. Cylon's are not human, and as such, applying our morality to them is much like applying it to an animal. The difference being that the Cylons are aware of our conceptions of what encompasses good and evil. So, did 6 kill the baby as an act of evil, or was it something else. Was it curiousity about the strength of the childs neck? Was it a mercy killing to spare the child the pain of nuclear incineration? There's much to be made of the pained expression on 6's face after having done the deed. Why is it there and what is she thinking?
What it comes down to is Eick is not defending killing babies, nor arguing that killing babies is not wrong. He is saying that it was not neccessarily an evil act on the part of the cylon. When we put a dog down, that's not evil, and the mentality behind this for 6 could be much the same.
I don't care for the scene myself, it makes me uncomfortable, but it's there, and I think it's definitely getting a lot more attention than it trully deserves.
|
