MORAL COMPASS?

[Scott]

Many fans and detractors and even disappointed fans have wrestled with morality as it pertains to the actions of the Charmed Ones. Phoebe and Paige have both come under tremendous fire for what they did or failed to do in Hyde School Reunion when Rick, a three strike criminal, is vanquished by the Scaber demons. That episode has been digested, dissected and dessicated to the point that many have grown weary of the entire debate. Most who participate in the debate cite Morality Bites and attempt to apply the principles presumed to have been enunciated clearly in that episode. Whether this can be done in the superficial manner that usually accompanies the efforts is debatable. What the debate really demonstrates is that the discussion needs to be taken to a different level. In short, we need to define moral principles as they apply to the Charmed Ones, then assess the sisters' actions in light of these moral principles.

The alternative is to continue an inductive approach which rather haphazardly seeks to elucidate moral guidelines. Rarely, are terms defined. For example, personal gain is an oft bandied term that seemingly gets violated every other episode (sometimes twice in one!). What exactly is the personal gain restriction?

In another vein, is it acceptable to simply vanquish demons because they are demons? In Season 6, Chris pushes the sisters on the warpath as they vanquish demon after potential demon targeting Wyatt. Does that end justify the liquidation of every demon possible? Think of Drake. He is a demon, a powerful demon, who nonetheless has never killed or harmed an innocent. At worst, he was a door to door peddlar of his book. Suppose Chris had picked him out as a possible threat. Should he have been liquidated simply because he was a demon?

[vandergraafk]

For readers unfamiliar with the tenets of "just war", self-defense is an acceptable reason to engage in warfare. Thus, using Wiccan powers to fend off demon attacks is allowable. "Just war" runs into difficulty when discussing the issue of "pre-emptive warfare". At what point would it have been acceptable under the tenets of "just war" to attack the Hitler regime? Did the Allies simply have to wait until the Nazi's attacked first? Similarly, when was it acceptable to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan? After 9/11 or before when the Taliban were about to blast the statues of Buddha in Bamyan to smithereens? Or, even earlier when the Taliban used the national soccer stadium as a killing fields? With respect to Charmed, was Chris right when he led the sisters in a Holy War against demons one and all who may or may not have had anything to do with turning Wyatt evil?

As many writers on "just war" have noted, there needs to be a sliding scale, if you will, in order to arrive at a "just war". Simply possessing the weapons of mass destruction does not automatically invite a pre-emptive attack. (Sorry, Bushidos!). Simply complaining that the weapons inspectors haven't done their jobs thoroughly isn't enough either. There are lots of ways to trap a mouse. War is the tool of last resort, a lesson the neo-Cons never learned, wished to learn, or even cared about.

For Charmed, the creation of a sliding scale was somewhat difficult since one side was obviously good and the other side evil. Half-measures or diplomatic efforts to dissuade the bad guys was pointless, as both Cole and Piper/Leo pointed out to Demon Queen Phoebe in Long Live the Queen. Saving the Innocent by interrupting the hit satisfied neither Good nor Evil. Evil will simply try again and again, whilst Good will have to spend precious resources in protecting an Innocent over and over again. Still, Chris demon of the day campaign seems way, way over the top. How should he have been reined in? What criteria should have been used to judge his behavior?