I see that I've struck a nerve with my criticism of "true belief." As I compose my response to Ken, Dagny reminds me, "we want him to keep coming back to the site and commenting." While I agree with that, it's often impossible to completely challenge someone's belief system and keep him engaged in rational dialog at the same time. I'll just give it my best, and most diplomatic, effort and let the chips fall...

Earlier I observed that John Coleman saw 'Serenity' as a story of sacrifice and belief rather than choice and values. Ken takes this same worldview even further, describing it as sacrifice and belief TRUMPING choice and values. Citing no more than his interpretation of a "knowing glance" Ken insists that I've misinterpreted Mal's "misbehavior" and that it is, as JK suggested, "certainly some form of doing something to benefit others." But where JK casts this self-sacrificial behavior as "exceeding" rational self-interest, Ken argues that the entire idea of rational self-interest is "insufficient."

To his credit, Ken attempts to explain how it is insufficient: "...without a tacit admission that there is a standard of good and evil that is more important than self-interest, the plot (not to mention real life morality) simply would not make sense." But while Ken is fast and sure in his criticism of rational self-interest, he's not so confident in offering the "sufficient" alternative - one that "fully answers" the questions of "belief, love, freedom and control." His best suggestion is "the Truth." In 'Serenity's' example, the truth is, as Samizdata's Paul Marks put it (see 'Serenity Review', 10/10/2005), the Alliance central government "wishes to create a better, more civilized world (or rather worlds) and (...) is prepared to violate the nonagression principle in order to achieve this objective." (Note again, the Islamist parallel.) But Ken didn't refer to the "truth" he said, "the Truth" with a capital T, like "Him" or "God." (We call Him "NED" around here, meaning "non-existent deity.) So in the end Ken takes nothing more from this film than a duel between competing true-beliefs and, not unlike the Christian crusades against the Muslims of their day, the "good guys" win. Why? Because they believe "in something more important than themselves." This could conceivably explain how our heroes defeat the primative, range-of-the-moment Rievers, but not the Operative who gave us numerous lectures about the superior virtue of HIS true belief.

I give Whedon much, much more credit than this. As Book cautioned Mal, "True belief cannot be defeated, it can only be destroyed." This is because "true" belief means "unquestioning" belief - anything that opposes the doctrine of that belief is, by definition, wrong. But how did Joss end the film? [Major spoiler alert!] When Mal had the Operative dead to rights and raised the sword high in a two-handed grip, with every justification to kill in defense of himself and humanity, Mal plunged the Operative not into death, but into bondage before the video of what resulted on Miranda in the name of his own "true belief." The true-believer was forced to watch the horror that waits as the ultimate end of his highest value: A "better, more civilized world" through the suppression of human ambition. But ninety-nine percent of humanity will, when their ambition is removed, refuse to fight - for their neighbor's life, their loved one's life, their own life... or ANYTHING else. (The other one percent? They become Rievers.) This resulted in the Operative abandoning his pursuit of River.

Thus Mal had not destroyed true belief, he defeated it (also giving River liberty instead of "dropping her like a hot potato.") He did this not by the force of some "superior" true belief, but using reason and reality to show the Operative how his belief was wrong. For the Operative to recognize his error and submit to the overwhelming power of reality in contradiction to his belief required one thing: rational thought.

This brings me to what I consider the most pernicious element of Ken's entire entry. Whether by ignorance or hostility, Ken dismisses Ayn Rand's philosophy as nothing but "me first." He insinuates that Rand held no moral values, no "standard of good and evil that is more important than self-interest." He presents Jayne as "the true voice of a Randian." But Jayne starts out closer to a Riever than a Randian. Rievers kill for sport and for spoils. Jayne too will sometimes kill for spoils, which distinguishes him from Mal or any other Randian. Rational self-interest justifies killing only in defense and not as a means of personal gain... even if that gain is necessary for survival. Randians draw this distinction because it is rational: If every human were a Randian there would be peace and commerce and progress and life; if every human were an altruistic true-believer there would be war and slavery and taxes and mass-murder.

Zoe and Mal's "knowing glance" implies an inconsistency in Mal's treatment of River versus the stranger at the bank, but Mal had made no mistake. Despite River's actions at the bar she was still a member of his crew, and therefore a part of "me and mine." Mal's uncertainty was not the validity of self-interest, but whether River posed a future danger to the rest of the crew. He dealt with her transgression by laying down the law with her and her brother. In the end keeping her proved to be in his, and the crew's, self-interest.

For more on the the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which she called, "Objectivism" see: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro