Discussion

The Maze Runner image

Topic: The Maze Runner

One of the things I loved and was fascinated about in this trilogy was its exploration to a pretty severe degree of the philosophical question "Do the ends justify the means?" So it's always interesting to talk to people who've read the books to know what their answers are in terms of this particular example, and if ends do justify the means (which I believe can in certain examples but not in this one imo) where do y'all personally draw the line?

0 Likes

1 comments

Yecats I think that the ends most certainly did not justify the means in this scenario, but, like you said, it can happen. I think it was the fact that you kind of realize in book two or three that they're probably not actually going to come up with a cure. At that point it just seems like they're trying to appear as if they are doing ANYTHING, so as to not have to have the realization that they're doing more harm than good. I feel that the resources that WICKED had would've been better put towards building a safe place of sorts for the immunes or even having them help — as in, work alongside the scientists — to come up with a cure for the virus (surely their blood would be good for something?). If they had been successful, then MAYBE we could consider the justification of their actions. Plus, there's the whole situation of the "WICKED is good" thing, where (if you've read book five) you learn that Teresa only remembered the phrase because of a punishment given by WICKED. People often ask, "Would you have a million people die to save a billion?" and while it's a hard question to answer, most people (I think) would say yes. WICKED seems like the kind of organization that would say yes, and I guess you could admire the fact that they can make those difficult decisions, but I think you need to know that there's a chance that what you're doing will actually save people. WICKED's Flare checkpoints didn't work in the cities, and their attempts at a cure didn't either. It seems, at least I think so, that WICKED was in place to scrape together a false sense of security for the people foolish or desperate enough to believe in them. Besides, wasn't it WICKED itself that released the virus (book four) as a form of population control? Now that I'm thinking about it, it reminds of me of the government (AKA the firemen) in Fahrenheit 451 (which I highly recommend if you haven't read it). They claim to others and themselves that they exist to keep people happy, when they literally destroy people's lives for simply owning books. They believe that their job is essential and that nothing good would come from getting rid of the firemen. I realize that I'm rambling and this answer probably didn't need to be this long (I love this series so much), so to sum it up, I would say that I agree with you in saying that the "end" that WICKED "provided" the world, did not justify what they did to get there (and let's be honest, what did they do other than train a bunch of kids to fight and mentally scar them in the process?). I think that it depends on a number of factors like morality and the chances of success. I don't think WICKED really saved anyone, and so there's no end to really justify, just simply terrible actions. I apologize for the long answer, I have never been a concise person, especially when I'm passionate about something lol. Hope this made sense!

1 Likes

Yecats Forgot to mention this in the original post: I think even Chancellor Paige realized that their organization wasn't accomplishing anything, since she helped them all escape.

1 Likes

user🌚🌚 No don’t apologize I totally get it I love talking about this and was super excited to see someone respond. I agree with what you said.The killing a million to save a billion was basically what the people at wicked used as an excuse. They tortured abused and killed innocent children and people but saw themselves as saving the future of humanity. And you’re right they did release it which made me so damn mad cause all of this was to make up for their mistakes. Even that one guy in book 5 eventually came to his senses and admitted what they were doing was wrong before he died. And you’re right Ava helped them in the end but if I remember correctly it was not 100% sympathy and regret necessarily but more cause she knew it the whole thing was a lost cause. The whole moral dilemma was tough from the beginning because a cure was never promised, and I wonder if the promise of one coming from what they did would change anything in terms of right or wrong. I think what didn’t help in the book were the WICKED’s staff members’ attitudes. They saw their work as heroic and a sacrifice and kept that attitude the entire trilogy. There was little sympathy shown towards the children in the trilogy and in the fever code proved they were ****** regardless of whether someone could argue if what they were doing was right or wrong. I especially feel as though some of the things done to the kids was most likely unnecessary to their studies and were done anyways because “we have to find a cure and the scientists say every test is necessary”. I mean not that I think of it I don’t even know if I could say the question “would you kill a million to save a billion people” 100% applies to this case considering it wasn’t just instant death but years and years of abuse and trauma which is worst than just death in my opinion you know?

1 Likes

Yecats That's true, I was mostly using the million people for a billion as a comparison for the original philosophy that you had brought up (the ends justifying the means), but you're right, it's not a super accurate comparison to the situation in it's entirety. I also agree with what you said about Ava, I think she knew that they were going nowhere with the experiments. Like I said, she knew they weren't accomplishing anything. Although, Thomas often made the point of mentioning how often Ava would treat him better than the other scientists did (in book five, pre-maze) and always said she thought of him as "like her kid" or something along those lines (it's been a bit since I've read the series, I'm a tad rusty lol. Honestly, I think she was just manipulating him into trusting her more (and, let's be honest, it was probably entirely planned by the psychologists). He was also a child and likely desperate for any form of a parental figure, so maybe he overlooked a few things. It's still something to think about though, whether or not she had one big realization at the end and let them go. I guess that's up to our own interpretation though. I assume the "one guy" you mentioned was the previous Chancellor, right? Anderson or something? I think it started with an "A". I actually found his un-sent email in book five very interesting. The fact that it took madness — or maybe one of the few desperate grasps of sanity in between, like we saw would happen with Newt — to see what they were really doing to the kids. The attitudes of the staff were definitely terrible, I 100% agree. They tried to lecture the kids like "you're so lucky to be immune, you could never understand" and "you think we like doing this?". I mean, sure the kids don't understand that specifically (some of them get the not immune thing, I guess), but you stand by while their friends get murdered by grievers or find out the hard way that their not immune??!! It just seemed like the scientists were bitter and angry. Maybe they knew it wasn't working toward the end, and it caused its own kind of madness. The fact that they were helpless and hopeless. There was nothing they could do. Sure, it started out as an effort to find a cure, but how long could they realistically believe that it was going to work? That's gotta hit a person pretty hard. Mind you, I'm not justifying their actions or saying that any of what they did was okay, I'm just trying to see where they were coming from. Maybe they were so blinded by desperate hope that they couldn't see that the kids were real people that they were affecting (again, not justifying, just analyzing). That's kind of just an idea I came up with on the spot, it may not be super accurate or anything, just a thought. Again, it's been a bit. As kind of a side note, if you don't mind, I'm curious on your thoughts of the new sequel series The Maze Cutter, if you've read it yet. I have the two books that are currently out, and while I'm going to keep reading so I know how it all ends, I can't say I'm a huge fan. I feel like it could've ended after The Crank Palace (which was amazing). I will say, I like seeing little entries from Newt's journal in the new series, but other than that, it's not super great in my opinion. What do you think? I can't seem to root for the characters as much as I could before. I think it may be partially because, despite the characters having said that they are in their 20s (I think? Please correct me if I'm wrong on this), their POVs seem childish (specifically the islanders). Maybe that's meant to convey their innocence and new-ness in the strange world that they've been isolated from, but they feel so young. I mean, I know 20 isn't old or anything, but they don't seem that much different than Thomas and his buddies. It's also different to have the books switch to different people now, after having been singular POV for so long. If you haven't read it, I'm sorry if I've spoiled anything, but I tried to keep it vague-ish just in case :]. I'm curious to hear another voice on it though, no one I know has read the sequel series.

Like

Take Pix Everywhere

Add your phone number, and you can get instant, personalized recommendations anywhere, anytime via text message

By using our website you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience.