I think the intention of the creators of the film was to show indeed that killing someone is always a terrible thing - and we can tell anythng but that Sherlock takes this decision lightly. On the other hand, it was obviously implied that killing Magnussen is the only way to stop him. And, frankly, I don't get why some people think that M. didn't do anything really "terrible": he drove lady Smallwood husband to suicide and caused another member of the comssion, John Garvie being arrested. Not such a big deal? But why he did it? Because he was being interrogated about his meddling with British politics and he didn't want to be disturbed in whatever dirty manipulation he was involved. He said he wanted to "own" Mycroft. Why? Obviously, because Mycroft = Government. When he flicked John's face he said "I do it to whole countries". And he said quite clearly that Sherlock's mistake in judgment will "destroy the lives of everone he loves and holds dear". In short, Magnussen is shown as an incarnation of the evil of our modern world (related to the power of media, show's reccurent motive), the most repugnant and dangerous "dragon" to by slayed.   

I have a certain amount of respect for anarchism...some of my personal friends are anarchists!
I just always worry the poor and vulnerable would suffer in a lawless society, these are the people the law is supposed to protect.
Incidentally, I am normally a ' the law is an ass' kind of person.
But I am rarely satisfied with executions.
miriel68@Really?
You thin CAM is worse than a tin pot dictator or a mass murderer or a paediohile or a rapist?
@RavenMorganLeigh Yep.

Last edited by besleybean (January 16, 2014 9:06 pm)

besleybean wrote:

I have a certain amount of respect for anarchism...some of my personal friends are anarchists!
I just always worry the poor and vulnerable would suffer in a lawless society, these are the people the law is supposed to protect.
Incidentally, I am normally a ' the law is an ass' kind of person.
But I am rarely satisfied with executions.
miriel68@Really?
You thin CAM is worse than a tin pot dictator or a mass murderer or a paediohile or a rapist?
@RavenMorganLeigh Yep.

If anything, he's worse. This isn't like Wikileaks, CAM isn't doing this out of altruism, or the conviction that we must live in a transparent society. His motive is enjoying and expoiting the power he has over everyone else.  
And don't forget that truth has nothing to do with it. He's not using pressure points to gain more freedom for  human beings poor or rich. He's a predator that couldn't be held accountable. Again, not saying that excecution is "right". I actually am anti-death penalty, by the way. However, CAM really left Sherlock no choice, if he wanted to save John and Mary. 

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (January 16, 2014 9:36 pm)

From an utilitarian perspective, killing CAM was most definately the most ethical choice. And it seems pretty obvious that Sherlock and particularly Mycroft are utilitarians most of the time. However, our brains are not really wired that way and they are not perfect utilitarians either. 

BTW, did any of you ever follow a course on ethics philosophy? There's no one theory that's always right. People don't really understand ethics, we partly reason and partly just feel them. 

besleybean wrote:

I think he is a monster.
But I prefer: charges, arrest, couurt, judgement and punishment, but no deathh penalty.

On what charge? The was no proof. And this is a guy who had leverage with the Prime Minister. Whole countries were under his pressure points. If it were that easy, George Bush and co. would all be in jail.

So now I'm gonna have to defend bloody Bush!  Tee Hee.
He was the leader of a nation recognised by the UN and decided to go to war.  Whatever you think of that, it's allowed.
All CAM did was be clever enough not to be caught, hardly his fault!

anjaH_alias wrote:

Hanka wrote:

miriel68, you're not really contradicting me here. I'm okay with people murdering others on TV, it happens, it should be shown on TV/in literature. I am just very unhappy with the way it is dealt with: not at all. Sherlock kills somebody, then there's about a minute of people being shocked, and then, surprise, three minutes later, Sherlock just comes back to solve yet another crime. Mycroft is over it. John is over it. Nobody even implies that this is wrong, a murderer not facing justice because he is oh so intelligent and needed (why? He just 'solved' a problem in the worst possible way). The characters are joking again already, and apparently ready to go 'back to business'.

I actually don´t get what you feel here, but I can tell you what I feel since Sunday: I feel a huge cramp around and in my breast whenever I am thinking about that scene. It´s so dark, really dark. I see that child crying, which brought himself into that hopeless dead end situation. I understand it and I see and feel how it suffers, how everybody around him is suffering. The jokes I hear are bitter gallows humour, grim, not funny at all. Sardonic. I am really touched and feel sad.
I can´t understand what you read in that scene, I don´t see what you see. It´s one of the most striking, impressing, tragic and thinkworthy scenes which I saw since ages. It makes me think about that matter, I am asking myself questions - what if or if not? -, and this is much more moving and deep as any of that morally clotted, political correct blab of so many other films I saw. I really salute to Stephen Moffat here - what he made is courageous and profound.
And so I can´t understand how anybody can watch this with his/her everyday point of view, doesn´t see the beauty of that scene and is resistant to that tragedy. Is it self protection or am I too romantic?

 I'm with you here, I did like that scene, it was very well done. I think I spoke too harshly when I said the murder was not dealt with at all - it was. However, only incredibly short so, and, as I expressed, the scene on the plane - Sherlock talking to Mycroft, the two of them as well as John joking again already - redeems the scene right after the murder for me. They should've cut that thing with Moriarty and Sherlock coming back out - I would've been better off with a cliffhanger rather than a nice, short wrap-up telling us that everything's okay. And as some of you mentioned, I do hope and expect, obviously, that this murder will be dealt with in the next series, but I was very disappointed in the way it has been dealt with by now.

besleybean wrote:

All CAM did was be clever enough not to be caught, hardly his fault!

 I give up!
 

belis wrote:

silverblaze wrote:

BTW, did any of you ever follow a course on ethics philosophy? There's no one theory that's always right. People don't really understand ethics, we partly reason and partly just feel them. 

There is a good evidence that we feel more than reason actually. If you put people in the scanner and ask them to solve ethical problems the main part of the brain that lights up is the one that deals with emotional processing, not rational thoughts.

At the risk of going a bit off topic, there are some interesting psychological experiments that demonstrate the same thing too. The railway experiment is pretty famous. Whether you're somehow involved with someone or something, whether it has a face to you, is often more important than weighing the costs and benefits. You actually see that in the scene too, I doubt Sherlock would have killed CAM for an abstract client, Mycroft doesn't even understand why he's bothered at all. 
 

Agreed. And he still has lost John in a way even if he likes Mary and wishes them to stay together.