I’ve had this question bugging me since the end of Heroes about a month ago.  If you haven’t seen the finale yet look away now…

Right.  So Hiro finds Charlie “all grown-up” and suddenly has a dilemma.  He can go back and undo what was done, but the life that Charlie’s lived would no longer have happened.  And so Kensei must, once again, at the behest of the dragon cut out his own heart.

What bugs me about this is that the morality of the decision appears entirely to rest on knowledge of the outcome.  Charlie’s presence, and subsequent life, in the past should quite simply not have happened.  (I’m ignoring for the time being that were it not Hiro’s intervention she would be dead anyway!).  If Hiro had somehow been able to find out where/when she was and gone back to retrieve her, neither she or Hiro would have known anything about what hadn’t happened.  From Hiro’s perspective he would have simply been correcting a wrong and Charlie would be regaining the life she knew.

That all changes once we know the outcome of Charlie’s ‘past’ life.  It appears that sometimes the ends do justify the means?

Advertisements