Cruel Logic Discussion
What is missing from both of the worldviews presented in “Cruel Logic”?
What is missing in the arguments presented by the two parties is an alternative worldview. The two people arguing about whether or not to kill the captor are using the naturalist-evolutionist perspective. Inclusion of different worldviews such as Christianity or Marxism would bring a fresh perspective into the conversation. For instance, the different beliefs stipulate that killing is a sin and thus releasing the captive is the best way forward. According to some theories the powerful can do anything to the weak person. The captor is thus looking for the best argument to determine whether to kill the captive or not.
How do you think the film would be different if a Christian, a Marxist, or a pantheist were included in the dialogue?
Including a Christian, a Marxist, and a Pantheist in the dialogue would present diverse views about releasing the captive or killing him. For instance, a Christian perspective would indicate that ‘you shall not kill’ is a commandment from God. Christians have a belief that life is precious and only the divine being who gives life should take it away. The argument would trigger a new perspective that killing the captive would result in an offense against the divine being. On the other hand, a Pantheist would argue that killing the captive is a way of demeaning the natural laws. A Marxist would support the killing of a person held captive. The reason is that Marxists believe that a powerful person has the right to oppress a weaker one. The conflicting arguments can present an endless conversation about whether to set the person free or kill him.

Published by

Essays

View all posts