Yes, he is immoral IMO, on a regular basis. In fact, he borders on sociopathic at times. The Tritter storyline really illustrated that, but in every ep they highlight his utter lack of regard for anything other than his own agenda. That’s why it makes sense that he would disregard “immunity” he granted to fire someone. You were saying it’s not consistent with his character because of his integrity, but I just don’t get where that’s coming from, at all. When would House keep to the terms of a bargain when he doesn’t have to and doesn’t want to? Subjective opinions do have to be based on facts, right? I don’t want to get in a slapfight with you about this, but just saying, “It’s my opinion, end of story” doesn’t make for much of a discussion.
Well, with all due respect, you could have asked. “Why do you think that? What are you basing that on? I don’t get that at all.” I don’t mind explaining my opinion, to the best of my ability; I have less patience with someone just informing me that my opinion is wrong just because it’s not the same as theirs.
I think for me it devolves to whether I feel I’m being invited to a discussion (asked to explain my POV) or to an argument (asked to defend my POV, because it’s “wrong”). I don’t mind a good argument on occasion, but I’ve never found them very productive in subjective areas like the value of art or what art means, because there’s no definitive answer. I also think that like most people I’m more likely to engage in theoretical discussions when I’m invested in the result. For whatever reason, in this case I’m not. At the end of the day – and, hey, it is the end of the day in my world – I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. I’m not being snarky, but we all have to pick our battles and this one doesn’t fire me up much.
I think the reason House pulled Big Love’s immunity wasn’t only because he violated the spirit of the game by making a deal with Cuddy, but because it showed Big Love was willing to sell out. BL was told to make the choice of who to put up for elimination based on whatever criteria he wanted- but it wasn’t his criteria he wound up using, it was Cuddy’s. There’s no way he’d have put up Kumar otherwise. Chase was a pussy, but at least when he went to Volger and Cuddy he kept some loyalty to House. BL showed that he simply couldn’t be trusted, if he was willing to hand over his babysitter.
Coming on the heels of BL’s many issues with the way House does his work, this hypocracy was more than House was willing to put up with.
Just my .02, of course.
I never said you were wrong. I just said I didn’t think House really had any integrity, not as you were stating it, ie., I don’t think he displays “morals” or values beyond his self-interest. I also don’t at all understand why him eliminating Big Love when he found out he collaborated with Cuddy to undermine House’s selection process is in any way outside of his nature or what we’ve seen of him. I guess I didn’t say it the way you wanted me to, but the bottom line is, I’m interested in why you think that, so if I didn’t express that (and it seems I didn’t), I’m sorry.
Well, you know, I’ve thought a bit about House. I even had a thread about whether or not he was a sociopath. Lots of people said they thought, deep down, that he wasn’t. Maybe he isn’t, really, but for all intents and purposes, he seems to be. I let go of the idea that he was basically good at heart because the show seems to come right up to the edge of showing his moral line, or his integrity, but in the end… never does. He ALWAYS only does what he wants and damn everyone else. If you disagree, I’d be interested in some examples of where he shows that he has integrity, and why his elimination of Big Love was out of character, and I hope I phrased my request nicely enough for you.
Maybe I missed something big here. I doubt it, but it’s possible.
ETA: I agree with bobkitty, it was Big Love’s selling out to Cuddy that bugged House. He doesn’t want a collaborator on his team.
For what it’s worth, I thought the right people were nominated for elimination, and I thought they would eventually explain it that way - that those two neglected doing their duty to the patient because they were so concerned about their jobs. CTB wasn’t paying attention to the MRI and actively distracting the Mormon, risking screwing things up with the patient to try to manipulate him. Kumar asked something like “so it won’t be me, right?” right as the patient is seizing. I’d have said “you two assholes put your job before the patient” and nominated them. The plastic surgeon offered a bribe, but at least it wasn’t during a critical time with the patient, and 13 didn’t even try to make a case.
For what it’s worth, I think House was being unfair for some of the reasons Jodi mentioned. He should respect “ends justifies the means” tactics to accomplish his challenge. He’s a dick, but I expected him to grudgingly follow his own rules.
If House isn’t immoral, it’s hard to imagine anyone who *would * be. House is Herod Antipas with no power and a bad leg.
Of course he was being unfair. But my point is, he’s unfair all the time. It’s not out of character for him to reneg on a bargain he finds unfavorable if he can.
I don’t honestly see that he has a history of following anyone’s rules, even his own, if it doesn’t suit him. The ends justify the means unless the means undermine the ends, which is why I think House went against the immunity he granted. He has the ultimate power, and he exercised it as he saw fit. Totally him.
Editing…
This is a video which I saw in the summer which explains how you throw a card through a window.
I think he did and people are confusing what are the ends and the means to him. His “end” was to have them prove they were loyal to him at Cuddy’s expense and willing to break rules to do what he asked. The underwear was the means to that, not an end in itself. For Cole to get the underwear by buddying up to Cuddy showed that not only did he not accomplish House’s ends, but that he misunderstood badly, mistaking the means for the ends.