jojozigs

I actually think that the show is being a bit uncharitable to humanity with its overall portrayal of Guests. Surely it isn't the case that there is only ONE GUY who has gone to Westworld that was fascinated by and wanted to interact with the hosts as if they are real people, and treat them accordingly rather than as sacks of meat. But maybe most of those people don't to go Westworld because they think it's immoral / sad...? Maybe it's the fact that only the super-rich (who maybe tend to be more entitled than average) are able to go? We need more info about humans not in the park to answer this question I guess.

This is a topic that definitely has a lot of meat to it, and it was a fun read to go through the previous posts (I just joined this forum to talk about this show like 3 days ago so I'm doing some catch up). I guess one thing that jumped out to me was the idea that either you're human/sentient or you're not, and that therefore it's either wrong or it's not to abuse/kill/rape the hosts. I guess I have a fundamental disagreement with this idea. I don't think, for example, cats are "fully sentient", but I think we should think carefully about how much pain and suffering we inflict on cats. And indeed, our laws on the topic generally agree. There should be a good reason to cause pain to a cat. And if we need to kill them for some reason, it should be done with as little pain as usual (I'm actually a biologist so I know a bit about animal research). For the same reason, zoophilia is morally wrong because the animals can't consent to the act. Even if they are partially sentient (which I think most mammals are) they don't understand what's happening or why. So even if it doesn't "hurt" them, it's still wrong. So what about dubiously sentient machines? I absolutely think it is morally wrong to cause intentional harm to a machine that is dubiously sentient. Even if some asshole salesman tells me "oh don't worry, it's just a robot, you can do whatever you want". Seriously, William is even told when he comes to the park - "if you can't tell the difference, does it matter?" If the weight of the evidence suggests that the thing/person/animal standing in front of you is fully exchangeable for a human, IMO, to treat them as if they are. As for the level of sentience of the Hosts. I'm of the opinion that the hosts are only not "fully sentient" because they can't remember. There are some topics I remember from my philosophy class on memory, about whether we should be held culpable for events that we don't remember. Because our identities are essentially nothing more than constructions of our memories, was that really "us" that robbed that store, if we don't remember it? The hosts are basically like that. Their recent memories are erased, and then they are placed into a world that is consistent with the memories that remain. It's more like short term memory loss amnesia. I think we can all agree that a human with that particular disability is still human, even if it didn't happen because some asshole with a future-ipad clicked some buttons. A maybe more interesting question, I think isn't about whether we can murder/torture/kill the hosts with a clean conscience, but rather whether HOSTS can be held culpable for their actions. Are black hat Hosts moral agents, and thus it is morally acceptable to hold them accountable for their actions? Or do they lack free will, since they are programmed with their specific personalities/motivations? But aren't we all?? The interaction between heroic guests (so far basically William) and evil Hosts asks us to look at this question. It seems perfectly OK to me for William to kill as many bad guy hosts as he wants to protect Delores for example (he doesn't have to worry about himself due to the toy guns). Also, can the hosts consent to things (obvious example would be sex)? If they are for all purposes fully human moral actors, the answer should be yes. But part of fully consenting to something is understanding what you are consenting to. In some cases the hosts lack requisite information. Or what about Maeve and poor Felix? I'm rooting for Maeve, because WHO WOULDN'T, but I think Felix is fairly innocent and decent-ish kind of. Her doing something like torturing him for information... I probably wouldn't be OK with that. It would be a morally wrong act, so while I could understand it I still think it would be wrong.

But how on earth could you know that??? I don't know you're human - for all I know you could be an AI. But I believe I'm still morally obligated to treat you as if you are.

I agree generally with your critique. Especially that they have to wear apparently more protective gear in this case than they even do when sawing bodies apart. Also there was one part a couple episodes back where someone from upstairs WAS dressed in period gear and almost pulled Delores out because she was off-loop before William claimed to be accompanying her. However, there is a huge difference in exposure duration between the meat-shop workers and either the guests or behavior/administration. In fact, this difference between chronic dangers and acute dangers is the basis for many workplace safety precautions including things like specific ergonomic precautions. You don't need to wear earplugs for a rock concert, or if you walk by a construction site. But if you spend 8 hours a day on a construction site, you better wear earplugs. Likewise for exposure to mild irritants, like salt water. No big deal if you swim in the ocean once in awhile, even for a brief time every day - but if you're elbow deep in brine all day long you need to wear long gloves or your skin will get messed up. So maybe it is a little handwavy, but what if whatever the workers are exposed to by working on the guests is merely irritating or potentially chronically toxic, but is mostly safe if exposure times are short...?

When you have a person you care about right in front of you, those feelings are real, even if you rationally know that that person is constructed. And I think the conflict William is experiencing on this score is basically the point of his character. Agree with this. I thought pretty much all the reveries did was allow the hosts to (occasionally) remember past events. So basically just fix their broken memory - hence my comparison to human memory. If we all had daily amnesia and lived in a amnesia loop, would we be any different from hosts?

He's explicitly aware of that. It's why he doesn't allow himself to sleep with or explicitly pursue her romantically. But what he's reacting to - and ultimately is unable to stop - is that despite what he knows in his rational brain, the emotional part is completely taken in because Westworld seems more real, more visceral than the real world. And that's because he actually has a soul, unlike Logan. He also doesn't want to play on "god mode". He doesn't fight unless he has to and doesn't act like he's invincible. He buys in to the reality he's presented with, rather than trying to subvert it. I feel like he's playing the game the way it was intended to be played - it's the way I'd play it so I guess I approve of his approach. I'm not sure the other hosts are "nowhere near" as self-aware as Delores. Yes, she's special-er but other hosts are maybe 90% of that. Most hosts we spend more than 2 seconds with seem pretty human when they aren't reciting pre-written scripts (which Delores does too). Yes their brains can be reset but so can human brains if you bang them the right way. I think if we had our brains reset every day and were presented with the world also having been reset, we'd be indistinguishable from hosts. Which is the problem. Why is he losing himself in the world?? What kind of a broken person would WOULDN'T! I don't think he fully accepts that they are as conscious as humans yet. He's clearly wrestling with it.

But MIB is shown in episode 1 as actively going out of his way to emotionally and physically torture Delores specifically. If he's really got a hope of "saving" her as his goal I don't see how that works. It seemed to be totally unrelated to the hunt for the maze. If he really is a jaded William I'm going to need that to be explained since (so far) it would make no sense. Unless MIB is legitimately insane, which I don't think he is. I'm not necessarily saying I think it's epic love story. Just that I don't really get why people would despise the character so much and call him weasely or weak or whatever. Mostly waht I liked was him rejecting the bully Logan.

I believe him as young-ish. Early 30's at a stretch. But I don't see a problem even if he looks 40 - In your view, how young does someone have to be to be "believably" idealistic? I don't personally think there's a high correlation with age. My brother's the most idealistic person I know and he's 42. And plenty of jaded douchebags are 18. You mean his "rape and murder people for laughs" boss and friend? Logan seems like nothing more than an entitled, nihilistic, asshole with nothing to offer anyone, and far more "bored with life" than William. So bored that all he can think of to entertain himself is random violence - he's basically the same as sizemore, just the guest version. And I have the same contempt for both. Awww in jail he won't be able to rape as many people. So sad.

Man, people sure are harsh on our young white hat. Maybe it's because I'm a gamer (especially games like Dragon Age and KOTOR) and before that I've always been very into imagining I'm somewhere other than the real world via whatever media, books, movies, TV , etc... but I really, totally and completely understand William getting swept away and feeling more alive in Westworld than he ever did in reality. Instead of grasping and grinding away just to get a little bit ahead in a world that has no apparent meaning, In Westworld he can do something, here he can make an impact on other people's lives - an impact that feels very real and genuine. And though yes, he's objectively aware that Delores and others are robots designed for his pleasure, he is listening to his SOUL and I think he knows at a visceral level the real actual truth - that these people are every bit as alive, self-aware, and real as that douchebag he ditched a couple episodes back. Heck probably more so. Why wouldn't we cheer for that?? I just don't get the hate. If William ends up being the MIB I'll have mixed feelings, but not because I dislike William or think he's a loser or a faker. I think he's a moral, empathetic person and he's having a genuine reaction to this world. I'll just be upset that William completely loses his idealism and becomes capable of horrible sadistic things that we witnessed in the first 3 episodes. The fact the MIB still supposedly believes in the world of westworld and yet doesn't believe in the humanity of its people is... I dont' know, weird. I don't really understand how that works. I feel like, either you reject it as fake or not. It's hard for me to understand the perspective of the MIB, most especially if he is William. As for Delores falling for William, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it probably is part of her programming that if a heroic male guest comes along and sweeps her off her feet, she will choose them even over Teddy. I'm guessing that she is a bit of a tough nut and it takes some major heroism to activate her as a romance. On the other hand, she is becoming self-aware, obviously, and maybe this really is something organic that differs from her programming or may be complementary to it but she'd make the choice regardless of her programming? Either way it was obvious to me why William kept rejecting her - and it's not because of douchebag's sister. It's because (at least up to now) he doesn't believe that Delores is choosing him of her own free will (but rather by her programming), and he's not OK with that because he's a decent person.