House episode 6-7
Nov. 10th, 2009 10:12 amFor once, I mostly want to reflect on the serious in this episode. It really bothered me that they kept calling what Wilson did "murder." He didn't murder (kill with intent) anyone; he provided the means for someone to commit suicide. That's still something you (and he) can debate the right and wrong of, but it's not murder.
What Chase did, on the other hand, is murder. First-degree murder, by US law: "murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation." Is linking it to Wilson's almost-euthanasia intended to be a comparison, downplaying what Chase did, or a contrast, highlighting what Chase did? I don't know, and that bothers me.
It's also interesting that Chase, who committed the more serious act by US law (and by my own moral judgment, although that's less relevant to the discussion) is trying to avoid taking any consequence, while Wilson with the less serious, less culpable act is trying to take on more consequence than, I can argue and House does argue, he deserves.
Does this mean that Wilson is more moral than Chase? I don't think so. I think they both went to extremes and tied themselves into knots due to their own pathologies. Wilson had the benefit of a good friend getting through to him (albeit in an underhanded, twisted way) and being there for him. Chase has been avoiding letting the one who's closest to him be there for him, and I think it's because he knows what the priest told him is right. He won't feel he deserves absolution until he both faces the enormity of what he did and accepts the just consequence of the murder he has committed.
What Chase did, on the other hand, is murder. First-degree murder, by US law: "murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation." Is linking it to Wilson's almost-euthanasia intended to be a comparison, downplaying what Chase did, or a contrast, highlighting what Chase did? I don't know, and that bothers me.
It's also interesting that Chase, who committed the more serious act by US law (and by my own moral judgment, although that's less relevant to the discussion) is trying to avoid taking any consequence, while Wilson with the less serious, less culpable act is trying to take on more consequence than, I can argue and House does argue, he deserves.
Does this mean that Wilson is more moral than Chase? I don't think so. I think they both went to extremes and tied themselves into knots due to their own pathologies. Wilson had the benefit of a good friend getting through to him (albeit in an underhanded, twisted way) and being there for him. Chase has been avoiding letting the one who's closest to him be there for him, and I think it's because he knows what the priest told him is right. He won't feel he deserves absolution until he both faces the enormity of what he did and accepts the just consequence of the murder he has committed.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-11 12:35 am (UTC)I personally don't think Chase did the right thing, but that's not what my analysis is based on. His continuing desperate emotional struggle shows that he doesn't believe what he did is 100% right. Look at House. House had aided and abetted Chase, as has Foreman, but neither of them are continuing to be affected so deeply. They believe what they did was OK.
Chase doesn't believe that, not completely. As a result, he won't find any kind of emotional relief until he faces what he's done instead of trying to downplay it.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-11 03:18 pm (UTC)Wilson said 'We are all murderers'. I don't think either of them meant it that literal, I felt it just like their way of phrasing things harshly (House always and Wilson ocassionaly when he's with House).
"They believe what they did was OK.
Chase doesn't believe that, not completely."
I know, that's why he went to a priest and then got drunk out of his mind, and that's one of the reasons why he'll never be the same again.
I may be ok with his descicion, but he's clearly not :(