The 100 Season 6: Believing in the Common Good
The moral case for creating a common belief in the goodness of others.
What should society believe about itself?
How should we think about ourselves and believe about others? Are we inherently good or inherently bad? What makes something good or bad? Where should the line be drawn between the two? It's hard to come up with a viable way of thinking about things. There are many different ways in which society could be organized to make it successful. Some of which we've explored in previous pieces around the show. It all depends on what the framework is and how it might work. If you do it in a good enough way, this could be a good thing. If you do it badly, it could go very, very wrong. Then there are those who create a functional system that's somewhere in between.
Previously in this space, we've explored why there are rules, how to resolve conflict between different sets of rules, what happens when you bring about a totalizing vision of society and try to force it on others. More recently we looked at how a society structured around the individual could work, and how to punish people who don't follow the rules set out in an individualistic society. But in order to function properly, an individualistic society must see itself as having moral standing. If this doesn't happen, you end up creating endless divisions over what a proper moral standing is.
They have to believe in each other and the goodness of society. Obviously, this isn't the easiest task by any means. You have to convince others to commit wholeheartedly. Thankfully, what helps is that most people want to believe in their own goodness. Usually this extends to those directly around you, your family members and to a lesser extent your friends. Such a belief is a good starting point for a broader moral framework. One that allows you to work towards a common good. So long as you have a proper sense of what the common good is, you can make that abstract enough that people will prize this commonality over the every day concerns.
One could argue that it's possible to create a society which believes in the common destructive nature of humanity. Believing in how people are fundamentally bad has some benefits. Mainly that you can destroy anyone or anything in your way. Similar to the way in which a totalizing ideology like communism and fascism can be willing to destroy anyone outside the ideology, you can create a belief in destruction. For obvious reasons however, this ends badly. Allowing people to believe entirely in humanity's evil only leads to being willing to murder others. So the society which believes in destruction only perpetuates violence and death. We would have to find a way to create a more positive concept of the world.
“There is no joy without pain.”
Sanctum is such a place. It has all the basic needs any good society must have to function. They've moved beyond the need for material fulfillment. As a result, they can concern themselves with higher ways of thinking. Higher goals like what to believe and who to put their faith in to show them what to believe and how to go about doing this. It's one of the benefits of having all your needs met. One could even argue that a belief system about the common good is a precondition for allowing all your needs to be met. So long as the Lightborns perpetuate this belief, there's a harmonious way of life.
Partly because the common good should be directed towards making sure those every day concerns become less of a problem. Much like with a totalizing ideology similar to communism and fascism, this belief can go too far. Those who put forward the common good can become as abstract as the belief in the common good. They can be elevated beyond what is reasonable and functional. It can push people to the point of sacrificing themselves towards the continuation of those who profess the belief rather than the belief itself.
We can see this play out in characters like Russell Lightborn. He has been elevated to a god like position for his people. Along with most of his family members, he directs his people towards a common good. The people of Sanctum in response to this see him as more than just an ordinary person. They venerate him and pay tribute to him in the hopes of a greater purpose. Solid in the belief that they are all working towards better things.
Doing this doesn't require the type of violence that comes about through elevating someone through communism and fascism though. In fact, more often than not the belief in the common good requires people to adhere to an idea of non-violence. At least in so far as it applies to those who share the belief in the common good. Those who believe in a different form of common good might find themselves fighting for those who believe differently. This is different from the idea of fighting for survival or a general conflict of rules. Such ideas can be maintained even between those with different beliefs while fighting over what is seen as a greater cause.
“There is no hell. At the end of our lives we're not going to be judged for the things we did to survive. We'll be judged for the reasons we did them.”
This plays out in the conflict between the Primes and the Children of Gabriel. While the Primes believe in continuing their own existence through the mind drives, Gabriel and his followers are believers that there's value in letting people die. A fundamental difference in beliefs. Even more, the existence of the Primes is an affront to the continuation of the Children of Gabriel. But of course without the Primes, the Children of Gabriel have no reason to exist. They are dependent on each other. In particular because it allows the Primes to have an enemy upon which they can create demons. The antithesis of the holy gods they have made themselves out to be.
The key to a harmonious way of existing is believing in people's willingness to work towards a common good. If two groups of people believe in non-violence as part of their common good for instance, this can be a starting point to peace, and perhaps the merging of two belief systems into a greater one. So long as people's beliefs align, this process can play out over and over again.
To some extent this is the role Clarke and her people represent. The possibility of merging the two beliefs under a single common good. Many of the central beliefs are aligned between Clarke and her people and the people of Sanctum. They believe in a general view that non-violence is the best way to go about things. However, obviously the history of Clarke and her people makes the Lightborns very concerned about what happens if they allow them to live on Sanctum. They've been able to create a system that works. Having someone else coming in from the outside come in can be extremely dangerous to the cohesiveness of society.
Or so that is what they originally set out to do. What ends up happening however is that the Lightborn family and the things they believe have beliefs and ideas about what's in the common good and it's not necessarily in line with how Clarke and her people live. Particularly when they find out that the Primes have been keeping many different things from their people. The idea of taking over people's bodies to further their own existence is something that they can't condone. Even if it does allow for the people of Sanctum to exist pretty harmoniously. The price is way too high. Using people and their beliefs who have been made out to be lesser towards their own ends is wrong regardless of why they're doing it. At least that's the way they approach it.
Which is where the idea of corruption comes into play. These beliefs can be corrupted by those who are trying to put them forward. People who are elevated higher than others will tend to begin to believe that they deserve the position they've been granted. If they didn't, people wouldn't be praising them and worshipping them in the way they are. As a result, they see any kind of opposition or questioning of what they want as a slight against their higher purpose.
Once this happens, there are only two ways things can go. Either they force the people who question to accept things or they demonize them. Make them into their enemy and an enemy of the belief system under which they live. And those who follow them will go along with it. Why wouldn't they? It's all in service of the common good. At least until they become the subject of being demonized and scorn by those who they love the most. It's then that their faith will be tested.
A crisis of faith is very difficult to come back from. Once you undermine people's confidence in their own belief system, you destroy their capacity to believe in themselves and other people. It leads to a conflict beyond a simple disagreement between two people or groups overall. If the common good that you believe in is destroyed, you are willing to destroy others. To work towards and allow for the complete collapse of everyone and everything around you. Even those you claimed to care about like your family and friends no longer have any value. Any emotional weight, because they're all meaningless.
“There is no starting over without forgiveness.”
However, there is a better way. It's a function of many different belief systems. Namely the idea of forgiveness. If a belief system has an idea of forgiveness then we can find a way beyond harming others. Beyond the idea of simple binaries of either being for or against the common good. That people can be redeemed after they have committed an act against the common good. So long as people can make amends, a true common good can be achieved. When you don't have such a system, you only end up destroying everyone but the most devoted believers.
We see this in Josephine and her pathological belief in her own rightness. She has completely abandoned any semblance of guilt or moral framing. Her only real interest is in continuing her own existence. She will sacrifice anyone and anything towards this goal. Including allowing people to worship her as a god, even if she doesn't believe in it herself, or the common good. The only good she's willing to think about is her own. Which is why when she's given the power to control Clarke's body and destroy her, she doesn't really hesitate.
“Salvation comes from faith and good works, what you do, not what you say.”
By contrast, Gabriel has the humility and grounding to actually try and push for the common good. Where he fails in the fact that he can't hold to his own ideals when push comes to shove. His need for survival overrides his principles and the need for the common good. This is what ultimately dooms him and his followers when it's revealed to be the case. If even the person who is espousing the belief system can't hold to his beliefs, there's very little reason for others to believe in it. The people who have found their leader wanting then have a choice. Hold true to their ideals and beliefs regardless of what their likely former leader has set out for them or adopt a new set of beliefs.
Where do these beliefs come from however? They need to come from a new leader or from within the group itself. Occasionally, a new leader can come from the outside and offer salvation to those who seek it.
However, we'll explore this more deeply when we get to season 7, the final season, which is currently available to paid subscribers.
Check out The 100 on Netflix.
sounds like an interesting show. i've always thought a group's unique environment played a role in shaping beliefs and belief systems. i'm curious how, in a 'perfect' world (an engineered environment) beliefs would evolve...