What they discover is that these "look-alikes" are actually clones, and that the real Jarti has been dead for an extended period. However, the team decides not to reveal this information to the public, nor do they arrest the clones. They allow the clones of Marcelo Jarti to continue to exist in order to continue to carry out revolutions in other nations.
Why did they do this? Why let a false being with ties to the criminal underworld continue to act? As Major Kusanagi put it, it was because he was the people's hero. The consequences of removing someone who had instilled faith in millions of people were far more dire than the consequences of letting a criminal keep committing crimes. Perhaps one could say that Major Kusanagi is a Romantic for having these beliefs.
Romantics flock to this mentality that a hero be a great liberator of their time, challenging the totalitarian regimes that hold people in chains. However, this does not mean that a hero need do what is good and proper by any particular individual's standards. Therefore, the spirit of the Romantic hero is tied to one's alignment in the context of Nationalism, even when no official nation is in place.
It's textbook 'Robin Hood Syndrome' where someone's misdeeds are overlooked because of their noble acts. In this example, one could defend the drug trafficking if the money which came from it was used to fuel the revolutions. Ends justifying the means, as they say.
In the real world, we look to groups like Anonymous who proclaim themselves the protectors of the internet, standing up to corrupt governments by damaging government infrastructure and securing top secret information to release to the public. All of these acts have negative repercussions in the long run, but the citizens idolize Anonymous and feel that the government deserves the damages. Thus the actions continue.
It is important for us as a society to question just how far well-intentioned extremism can be allowed to go. Josef Stalin, the former leader of the USSR, was decreed a hero by his people until he began to rack up more kills than Adolf Hitler. Hitler too, was a hero to many (he was, after all, elected into power); at least until he began a genocide campaign.
Romanticism allows evil to persist, but brings about results. How does one argue for or against it?
It's textbook 'Robin Hood Syndrome' where someone's misdeeds are overlooked because of their noble acts. In this example, one could defend the drug trafficking if the money which came from it was used to fuel the revolutions. Ends justifying the means, as they say.
In the real world, we look to groups like Anonymous who proclaim themselves the protectors of the internet, standing up to corrupt governments by damaging government infrastructure and securing top secret information to release to the public. All of these acts have negative repercussions in the long run, but the citizens idolize Anonymous and feel that the government deserves the damages. Thus the actions continue.
It is important for us as a society to question just how far well-intentioned extremism can be allowed to go. Josef Stalin, the former leader of the USSR, was decreed a hero by his people until he began to rack up more kills than Adolf Hitler. Hitler too, was a hero to many (he was, after all, elected into power); at least until he began a genocide campaign.
Romanticism allows evil to persist, but brings about results. How does one argue for or against it?
No comments:
Post a Comment