Doctor Who thread II: "I should have a hat like that." [SPOILERS]

[Starscream]

I don't think the Doctor intentionally screwed over Old Amy, I think he would have slammed the door on whoever got there last.

His claim wasn't that he couldn't save Old Amy, it was that he couldn't save both. Rory got to the Tardis with Young Amy first, he couldn't let them both come with him, and forcibly ejecting one of them once they were both inside would have been difficult and probably resulted in violence.

And even after he locked her out, Old Amy still had a chance. It's just that Rory had to choose. And he would have opened the door if Old Amy hadn't eventually begged him not to. All the Doctor did was make it clear that a choice had to be made (for why, see my previous post on the different types of paradoxes). And he gave it to Rory, who ultimately gave it to Old Amy.

Which is still a little cold, possibly even cruel, on the Doctor's part. Maybe it would have been more merciful to declare "THIS Pond will live, because I say so, don't like it get out and walk". Then he would have been accepting the terrible shame and responsibility for ending an Amy himself, and goodness knows he's made tough calls like that before.

But considering that a decision had to be made (and it did, that's the entire premise of the episode, to argue otherwise is basically to say "Well, why couldn't the rules be different to make the whole story unnecessary?") then probably the choice had to lie with Rory. His wife, his life. Taking it out of his hands would have been a kindness to him, but a cruelty to Amy who deserved to have her fate decided by the one man who waited 2000 years for her, and loved her more than anything in existence. And he ultimately gave it to Old Amy, who loved him enough to put his happiness before her own survival.

It wasn't the right choice, because there wasn't one. But it was probably the least wrong choice, and it sucked.

[Reverent-One]

It wasn't the right choice, because there wasn't one. But it was probably the least wrong choice, and it sucked.

See, I'd go further than that and say they made the right choice. There's no good reason to leave Amy in torment, living her life on the run with no human contact, thinking she'd been abandoned by the two people she loved the most for over 30 years. If I were ever kidnapped or trapped somewhere, I hope the people that care about me would do whatever they can to get me out of there as soon as possible, not leave me there so that I can develop to be a specific sort of person for no reason.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you said.

[Eakin]

A moral decision has to be correct or incorrect regardless of the ultimate outcome. Would this still be OK if old Amy HADN'T accepted her fate and chosen young Amy over herself? Would this all still be OK if they had been cut off by robots and the Doctor or Rory had shivved old Amy in the kidney and left her to slow the robots down? Because hey, ultimately she'll never exist once we leave this time stream who cares WHAT we do to her?

[Reverent-One]

A moral decision has to be correct or incorrect regardless of the ultimate outcome. Would this still be OK if old Amy HADN'T accepted her fate and chosen young Amy over herself?

Yes, would you be arguing that saving Amy was evil if they had hit the right timestream in the first place and we'd never seen Old Amy?

Would this all still be OK if they had been cut off by robots and the Doctor or Rory had shivved old Amy in the kidney and left her to slow the robots down? Because hey, ultimately she'll never exist once we leave this time stream who cares WHAT we do to her?

That would just be horribly unnecessary. If they had to slow her down, put and obstacle in her way, trip her, or knock her out (in that order). I wouldn't make a habit of shivving anyone, even alternate timeline versions of people that will never come to be once we fix the timeline. I mean, why do it?

[Starscream]

A moral decision has to be correct or incorrect regardless of the ultimate outcome. Would this still be OK if old Amy HADN'T accepted her fate and chosen young Amy over herself? Would this all still be OK if they had been cut off by robots and the Doctor or Rory had shivved old Amy in the kidney and left her to slow the robots down? Because hey, ultimately she'll never exist once we leave this time stream who cares WHAT we do to her?

So what the Doctor did would have been wrong...if he'd done something completely different?

I...agree? I guess? I really don't see what you are getting at. "Would the Doctor have been right if he had done something much worse?" I suppose not. Good thing he didn't then.

[Eakin]

Yes, would you be arguing that saving Amy was evil if they had hit the right timestream in the first place and we'd never seen Old Amy?

Saving young Amy wasn't evil, even though it would cause old Amy to vanish. I'm not disputing that the only good option was to break the "there can only be one" rule. Which was presented as impossible in the context of the show, fine.

I'm saying that what they did to old Amy in order to complete their mission to rescue young Amy WAS wrong. My interpretation of your argument is basically "the ends justify the means," hence the shivving comment. I was only trying to point out that the same logic justifies far crueler acts on old Amy because she's doomed to never exist anyway.

If they had hit the right spot in the first place they never would have had to do anything to old Amy, there wouldn't have been any opportunity to BE evil.

I don't know what the Doctor could have done differently
I don't know if there were any other options
I don't know what I'd have done if I had been in the place of various characters in that episode.

I was just really shocked that the Doctor would be that much of an evil bastard to someone he loves.

[Reverent-One]

Saving young Amy wasn't evil, even though it would cause old Amy to vanish. I'm not disputing that the only good option was to break the "there can only be one" rule. Which was presented as impossible in the context of the show, fine.

I'm saying that what they did to old Amy in order to complete their mission to rescue young Amy WAS wrong. My interpretation of your argument is basically "the ends justify the means," hence the shivving comment. I was only trying to point out that the same logic justifies far crueler acts on old Amy because she's doomed to never exist anyway.

If they had hit the right spot in the first place they never would have had to do anything to old Amy, there wouldn't have been any opportunity to BE evil.

I don't know what the Doctor could have done differently
I don't know if there were any other options
I don't know what I'd have done if I had been in the place of various characters in that episode.

I was just really shocked that the Doctor would be that much of an evil bastard to someone he loves.

So lying to someone at all, even to help them, is being an evil bastard in your book?

[Eakin]

So lying to someone at all, even to help them, is being an evil bastard in your book?

I guess I consider the old Amy to be distinct from the young Amy and what young Amy + 36 years will be

And lying to someone so you can trick them into causing their own death/nonexistence is bad, yes.

I think we have some very different moral intuitions about how bad it is for old Amy to cease to exist while young Amy will still be around to grow into a new "version" of her

[Reverent-One]

I guess I consider the old Amy to be distinct from the young Amy and what young Amy + 36 years will be

And lying to someone so you can trick them into causing their own death/nonexistence is bad, yes.

I think we have some very different moral intuitions about how bad it is for old Amy to cease to exist while young Amy will still be around to grow into a new "version" of her

Obviously, I think leaving Amy trapped for over 30 years in a place like that is pretty much unacceptable when there's something they can do about it.

[Eakin]

Obviously, I think leaving Amy trapped for over 30 years in a place like that is pretty much unacceptable when there's something they can do about it.

And I can agree with that.

Just not with the lying and backstabbing that they used to remedy the situation

[Reverent-One]

And I can agree with that.

Just not with the lying and backstabbing that they used to remedy the situation

Here's the bit that makes no sense, you're fine with Old Amy never existing because they fix the time stream, but lying to her while in the process of fixing it? That's pure evil?

[Eakin]

Here's the bit that makes no sense, you're fine with Old Amy never existing because they fix the time stream, but lying to her while in the process of fixing it? That's pure evil?

Pure evil? No, maybe even the best available option under the circumstances

More heartless and evil than I expected to see? Yes.

[Reverent-One]

Pure evil? No, maybe even the best available option under the circumstances

More heartless and evil than I expected to see? Yes.

How is it evil or heartless at all? They're doing what's best for Amy, telling a simple lie that will save her 30 years of pain and heartbreak. That's showing a lot of concern for such a heartless action. If someone has a friend that's addicted to drugs/alcohol/whatever, and use a lie to get the addictee to an intervention, are they being evil? They're lying in order to end the existence of a version of a person (specifically, the addict version), so it seems like it would.

[Eakin]

How is it evil or heartless at all? They're doing what's best for Amy, telling a simple lie that will save her 30 years of pain and heartbreak. That's showing a lot of concern for such a heartless action. If someone has a friend that's addicted to drugs/alcohol/whatever, and use a lie to get the addictee to an intervention, are they being evil? They're lying in order to end the existence of a version of a person (specifically, the addict version), so it seems like it would.

See you're framing it as helping someone turn their life around. I'm seeing it as a mercy killing, at best, and one undertaken with the aforementioned treachery, deception, and backstabbery.

[Reverent-One]

See you're framing it as helping someone turn their life around. I'm seeing it as a mercy killing, at best, and one undertaken with the aforementioned treachery, deception, and backstabbery.

So you'd see the intervention the same way? As a mercy killing of the addict version of the person?

[Eakin]

So you'd see the intervention the same way? As a mercy killing of the addict version of the person?

No, because the addict and post-addict are continuous versions of the same individual. Everything post-rescue about old Amy is lost, and her unique perspective, memory, and experiences and gone forever.

Again, that may be for the better. Hence mercy kill.

[Reverent-One]

No, because the addict and post-addict are continuous versions of the same individual. Everything post-rescue about old Amy is lost, and her unique perspective, memory, and experiences and gone forever.

Again, that may be for the better. Hence mercy kill.

But everything that addict would have been as an addict is lost too, 10 years down the line they would have been a very different person than if they got help and got clean for those 10 years. You're still ending a potential future like Old Amy. It's just you don't have it right in front of your eyes through the magic of time travel.

[Eakin]

But everything that addict would have been as an addict is lost too, 10 years down the line they would have been a very different person than if they got help and got clean for those 10 years. You're still ending a potential future like Old Amy. It's just you don't have it right in front of your eyes through the magic of time travel.

But unless there's time travel there IS no alternate version. The future addict is purely speculative as opposed to a living breathing person who now no longer exists because of your actions. If there's a "time stream" you move up and down there's only one possible outcome; the one that happens. You can only change it via time travel.

Of course, now ONLY time travelers have moral agency, because with a fixed time stream any choice, good or evil, could never have happened any other way...

So apparently there is no free will in the Whoniverse? I'm not crazy about that idea...

I'd also say that Old Amy is sufficiently mentally competent to make her own informed choice, while your addict would not be. Hence the difference in why it's OK to lie to the latter but not the former.

Sorry for the delay, wanted to make sure I thought this through.

[factotum]

I have to say I'm with Reverent-One on this one. Old Amy and Young Amy were the SAME PERSON, and it was not possible in any circumstances for them both to exist at the same time--we saw in season 1 Nu-Who "Father's Day" what can happen when you mess with your own timeline. If they rescued Young Amy, Old Amy ceases to exist. If they keep Old Amy, they have to leave Young Amy behind to suffer alone for 36 years. They can't keep both!

As for lying to Old Amy being the worst thing about it, I'm just not seeing it. As for that lie being pretty much the worst thing the Doctor has ever done, I'm REALLY not seeing it! The Doctor has participated in the mass killing of many races (Daleks, Time Lords, the Silence) with the somewhat flimsy excuse that he knows better than anyone else what is to be done with them...lying to someone to save them from 36 years of suffering is pretty small potatoes for him.

[dehro]

lying to an inconsistency of the space-continuum is like lying to a fading cloud...
from old Amy's perspective, the lie in fact never happened, because by saving young Amy she ceased to exist and was never there to hear the lie being uttered in the first place. The only one who has to live with the lie is the Doctor himself.
young Amy never feels betrayed about how he has handled old Amy..nor does Rory.

[Serenity]

For that matter, at the point the Doctor slammed the door in Old!Amy's face, taking her would probably kill her anyway, as they would have to leave an anesthetized Young!Amy behind at the mercy of the Handbots. Young!Amy would die, and Old!Amy could never have existed.

[thegurullamen]

For that matter, at the point the Doctor slammed the door in Old!Amy's face, taking her would probably kill her anyway, as they would have to leave an anesthetized Young!Amy behind at the mercy of the Handbots. Young!Amy would die, and Old!Amy could never have existed.

The paradox portion of the TARDIS would have sustained Old!Amy's history.

At the cost of the karaoke bar, of course.

But everything that addict would have been as an addict is lost too, 10 years down the line they would have been a very different person than if they got help and got clean for those 10 years. You're still ending a potential future like Old Amy. It's just you don't have it right in front of your eyes through the magic of time travel.

How often do you come face to face with alternate possibilities of yourself and have to condemn them to death? There's a huge difference between going down a different path and forcing someone else (and they are different people--the second the timeline split (i.e. when the doctor interfered with the Young!Amy red waterfall timeline directly), Old!Amy stopped being a possibility altogether because Young!Amy's experiences differed from Old!Amy's at that point, which would have led to a different Old!Amy altogether) into non-existence to save your own hide. For one thing, you don't bear the emotional damage from having to do that (and there would be damage--A LOT). For another, the alternate version of you would fight it for all they're worth because this never happened to them--it's not a part of who they are, and from their viewpoint, they are being needlessly eradicated. Killed. You can try to couch it in abstract and high-brow language involving paradoxes, time travel, probability and causality, but in that situation, it all strips away and just comes down to life vs. death and only in very rare circumstances would someone refrain from fighting for their life.

They do not see nonaddict!friend's life as a continuation of their own--he's a completely separate entity. A completely separate stream of consciousness, with different thoughts and experiences and memories. They aren't the same person, except for genes and a share timeline up until one very precise moment. In that moment, they became two separate beings. Granted, they never should have met, but that doesn't change the base point: they are separate and eradication is still death, for all intents and purposes.

And, if they were put in a situation like Amy's, where one is just as good as another, why wouldn't addict!friend try to take nonaddict!friend's place, by murder if necessary? It's self-preservation, instinct.

So, if the copied person sees it in such terms, so must the Doctor. He's no slouch on ethics or philosophy, so he knows the shaky moral ground he's on. Greater good and all of that, but there's no clear white-hat way out of this jam. It's blue and orange at its finest--who do you kill, if one must die?

[Eakin]

The paradox portion of the TARDIS would have sustained Old!Amy's history.

At the cost of the karaoke bar, of course.

I'm pretty sure the Doctor was lying to get Old Amy to comply when he said that. The TARDIS was used to sustain a paradox at the end of S3 but it looked like it had been totally remodeled and modified by the master to make that happen

[BRC]

I'm pretty sure the Doctor was lying to get Old Amy to comply when he said that. The TARDIS was used to sustain a paradox at the end of S3 but it looked like it had been totally remodeled and modified by the master to make that happen

That was a much bigger paradox, affecting an entire planet rather than just one person, but the principle is the same.

Of course, I think the Doctor was lying the entire time. He knew he couldn't save both. I'm not sure he was intending to save Young Amy from the beginning, personally I wouldn't be surprised if he planned to shut the door as soon as either Amy got into the TARDIS.
Mind you, I think he would have preferred to save Young Amy, Old Amy hated him (he's vain remember) and was a symbol of his failure, plus Rory and Old Amy wouldn't be nearly as happy together as Rory and Young Amy, but I don't think he would have kicked Old Amy out, had she gotten into the TARDIs first.

Also, you can't get rid of the Karaoke bar.


Also, an observation, in this season there is the definite impression that between episodes they are having fascinating adventures as space-tourists, which, while wonderful to be on, would be boring to watch. We're only seeing the adventures where they are in mortal peril of some form or another, because we don't tune in for fourty-five minutes of Rory, Amy, and the Doctor having a nice, peaceful hike through the Bioluminescent forests of Calrop-9.

Unless the trees come alive and start eating people on the hike, in which case you can bet that we'll be there.


In the other seasons I didn't get that impression.

[Axolotl]

In the other seasons I didn't get that impression.

Really? I'd been getting that impression since Season one,that they're on a sight-seeing tour of the universe but we're just seeing the exciting parts. Midnight certainly gave me that impression. that they were used to just relaxing in alien resorts.

[Gilphon]

I'm also reminded of the four things and a lizard that were happening at the end of Blink. And Love and Monsters certainly implied that 10 and Rose had lots of off-screen adventures, if you're prepared to admit that episode exists.

[BRC]

Really? I'd been getting that impression since Season one,that they're on a sight-seeing tour of the universe but we're just seeing the exciting parts. Midnight certainly gave me that impression. that they were used to just relaxing in alien resorts.

I'm certainly willing to believe that's whats been happening, it just didn't seem as prevalent. I don't know why, maybe it's just because such references are usually (And rightfully) subtle, so they aren't showing up as much in my long-term memory.

[thegurullamen]

I'm pretty sure the Doctor was lying to get Old Amy to comply when he said that. The TARDIS was used to sustain a paradox at the end of S3 but it looked like it had been totally remodeled and modified by the master to make that happen

I thought it was still being used in conjunction with the temporal engines of the Kindness Center to keep both Amies in the same timestream.

[Kato]

Just two things to throw in...

1) I wonder if Curly should see The Lodger before this weeks episode... I don't think it'd ruin anything of season 5 but knowing... whatshisname might improve the new episode. Any opinions?


2) I'm with Eakin on the earlier discussion. Saving Old!Amy was the less bad decision and probably the one I'd made but still, they used her to save Y!A and they promised to save her (well, kind of) but thus ultimately abandoning her, if only to save Y!A. I'm not sure whether I'd had done something different but it was still somewhere between murder and mercy killing, not much arguing on that for me.
Though, I'll admit if you take that position any thing you do might be considered murder since you kill a million different futures for many different people... but with time travel it's something else.

[Gilphon]

I believe she's said she intends to watch The Lodger first.