I do not believe that Sherlock would ever have killed Magnussen if not for the threat to Mary and by extension to John. This would be a complete perversion of everything Sherlock Holmes has ever stood for. He is not a person who kills people just because he feels repelled by them. If we believe that, Kitty Riley would have been dead as well. 

We have to agree to disagree on the TRF sacrifice, I suppose. Sherlock explicitly states that he does not want to play the game anymore. And he assumes that Moriarty is dead, sniper or no snipers. I do not see him faking his death in order to continue the game. 
 

Sherlock asks if caring for people would help to save them. This is a legitimate question and it shows that he is indeed trying to save them. He believes that he works better when he distances himself from feelings. One might argue that saving somone you do not care for is even more selfless than saving someone you do care for personally. 

Last edited by SusiGo (April 8, 2015 8:20 pm)

SusiGo wrote:

Sherlock asks if caring for people would help to save them. This is a legitimate question and it shows that he is indeed trying to save them. He believes that he works better when he distances himself from feelings. One might argue that saving somone you do not care for is even more selfless than saving someone you do care for personally. 

And he says " not caring is easy for me". Distancing himself is not an effort for him, it's the way he is. I don't say it's selfish, I say the notion of selfish/selfless isn't taken into account.

nakahara wrote:

In the scene you are refering to, Sherlock continued to try to find the solution of the case after stating that he does not care about people - which resulted in the life of a small boy being saved.
John, who was giving him a tantrum, on the other hand, was prepared to stop helping Sherlock - his "care" would result in a boy´s death.
What matters here is an actual result, not mere words.

 but, if the question is : "are SH's actions benefic to people?" then, the answer is definitly "yes". To the question, is SH selfish or selfless, the answer has to be, IMHO, more balanced.
 

A very good point, Liberty. 

NatureNoHumansNo wrote:

 but, if the question is : "are SH's actions benefic to people?" then, the answer is definitly "yes". To the question, is SH selfish or selfless, the answer has to be, IMHO, more balanced.
 

I think it depends on the way you would define selfishness.
In my opinion, rudeness or even disregard for people because of apathy or misanthropy is not the same thing as selfishness. In my eyes, selfishness is the willfull disregard for others with the aim of obtaining some gain for yourself at their expense. And even in his worst moments, Sherlock can be hardly accused of that.
 

Nice definition! 

nakahara wrote:

NatureNoHumansNo wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

Sherlock asks if caring for people would help to save them. This is a legitimate question and it shows that he is indeed trying to save them. He believes that he works better when he distances himself from feelings. One might argue that saving somone you do not care for is even more selfless than saving someone you do care for personally. 

And he says " not caring is easy for me". Distancing himself is not an effort for him, it's the way he is. I don't say it's selfish, I say the notion of selfish/selfless isn't taken into account.

In the scene you are refering to, Sherlock continued to try to find the solution of the case after stating that he does not care about people - which resulted in the life of a small boy being saved.
John, who was giving him a tantrum, on the other hand, was prepared to stop helping Sherlock - his "care" would result in a boy´s death.
What matters here is an actual result, not mere words.

Tantrum? Being concerned about other human beings is tantrum? When was John prepared to stop helping Sherlock? 

We have two different men here, one who reacts more emotionally (John) and one who learned to react more rational (Sherlock). None of these way is selfish. Is being human and different. 

I think it is safe to say that Sherlock is rude, for him the end of the road is more important than how is the way, he doesn't spend too many thoughts about morality. I think that he is more amoral, not immoral like Moriarty, and here comes John as his conductor of light, to translate for him the emotions in words - that helps Sherlock to evolve and we see that like a red thread from S1 to S3. Not because Sherlock doesn't have emotions but because he doesn't understand them easy. I think that come oft to people who develops too quickly in the rational (IQ) but normal or slower in the emotional part, they tend to think that the emotions meands weakness. Lots of genius kids are easy cynical if they are not guided well in the period of missmatch between the two evolving parts. 

I see Sherlock very seldom as selfish (for example when he makes Molly compliments to get his way). I see more him lacking in empaty (from which John has a lot, even when is not nice to everybody, when someone suffers, i see how John suffers too). I see him lacking in morality (like i said, more amoral and not immoral). Both doesn't means that he is selfish, IMO. 

Also I don't see John as selfish. He is guarded because , i suppose, he is very easy to be wounded and he knows that he is very emotional. We see when he is in an emotional crisis he has problems to let the rationality to reign his brain. In the Baker Street scene of confrontation with Mary he is over emotional, he cannot think rational anymore, so much that he doesn't see how ill Sherlock is - and this is not selfish, because he doesn't choose his emotions over the well being of Sherlock (we see how he looks when he realized how ill is Sherlock and how he gets instantly in caring modus). The whole discusion between Sherlock and John is exactlyy the inverse of TGG scene about caring: here is Sherlock trying to make John to see the problems in a rational way and Sherlock takes is very rational, even when he was the one who was wounded he deosn't hate MAry like he didn't hate Irene for being played and betrayed to Moriarty. Being an adrenaline junkie, doesn't negate John's caring part. We see loads of people being adrenaline junkies and choosing to jump with paraschutes or driving fast or  extreme sports. John choosed none of these, he choose two professions about caring and protecting: doctor and soldier.  These both professions shapes him as well:. the love for order, his tendence to be very private (those living in small places with many other people, like life in army and on the front is, tend to do that). I don't know where his trust issues come, but his reaction to Sherlock transgressing his privacy by taking his laptop without asking is in line with this (and a very good touch in characterization from the Mofftiss, i would have wondered if John would have been ok with Sherlock lack of boundaries towards him). 

Sherlock and John are like ying and yang, two parts of an whole, helping each other to overcome their shortcomings. None is perfect, none is better than the other, one is better in a part, the other in the other one (that is way i hate when people in fandom tries to proove one is better by making the other one down). They complete each other perfectly. 



 

nakahara wrote:

NatureNoHumansNo wrote:

But does he solve crimes because he cares about people, or because it keeps his mind busy.

And does John save lives because he cares about people, or because he is an adrenaline junkie who gets off the blood?

And do mothers love their children because they care about them, or do they only fullfil their own craving and maternal instincts with that?

If we questioned people´s motives like that, absolutely everybody would be categorised as selfish.

What matters here is the personal gain, IMHO - and we can see that other people profit from Sherlock´s actions, not Sherlock himself.
 

Very well put.

I might over-romanticise Sherlock...

But I think he hides under the 'selfish' layer to hide himself his vulnerable sides. It's his armour and how he wards off the feelings which I suppose he must have been hurt by in the past. (He had to learn that caring is not an advantage... it's not just something you wake up one day and decide).

I do think he can be selfless, but he needs to continue his facade and it consumes him sometimes... he becomes a bit (read. very) extreme in his approach. 

He is cold, cynical and logical in his approach with people and I suppose he sometimes can forget that people still have emotions and don't just bottle them up the way he is capable of. 

I also think that during the progress of the show there has come cracks in Sherlock's facade as per the acts towards John i S3 that has already been discussed.
 

No, Sherlock in not totally amoral and we also see that he evolves in time. He is mere like a child in his amorality. 

But i disagree with Magnussen being amoral, he is very creepy immoral IMO. The way he choose to use sexual assault (even when small, i will still count them as such) to distraught his victims and gain power over them, show me an immoral person. He knows very well what he is doing there.He knows when he taunts his victims and loves to do it. He loves his psychological games and knows how to use his power, which for me shows a great deal of immorality. 

I think that an amoral person would do bad because he cannot imagine the repercussion of his acts, but Magnussen plans and knows which buton to push to get what he wants. He is very aware about morality when he blackmails Lady Smallwood.