The Blogtastic Blogfest That Is Getmeoutofthis.net!

This post has Bioshock and Bioshock 2 spoilers, so keep that in mind if you read on.

Brer asked me, as I started playing Bioshock 2, to keep an idea in mind: Is the game being nicer to Sophia Lamb, and her philosophy, than it was to Andrew Ryan? This is a loaded question, of course. He obviously thought it was. Me, I disagree. I feel like both characters received a comeuppance of having their own philosophies turned against them. The difference simply lies in which has the more “brutal” philosophy.

Andrew Ryan believes in a very “dog eat dog,” social Darwinism kind of philosophy. The weak should not hold down the strong. The best will rise to the top, and should be able to shine without being held back, especially not by the government. In his philosophy, people who are weak fail, fall, and die. He considers himself, of course, to be among the strong, those who succeed. Yet, when you approach him in Bioshock, it is obvious that he is not one of the strong. He has lost, for you are here to kill him. He attempts to salvage his dignity by basically committing suicide through you, by choosing death for himself, instead of having it happen to him. But the fact remains: he has fallen, he has failed, and he will die. He gets the “bad” end of his philosophy.

I feel a similar thing happens to Sophia Lamb. She believes in helping the weak, and that “we are all one big family.” She believes in the greater good. Everyone’s actions should serve the needs of the many, not the needs of the few. If that requires sacrifice, then so be it.
At the end of Bioshock 2, at least with the good ending, Eleanor saves Lamb’s life. She provides kindness and charity which gives her absolutely no benefit, honestly. Lamb tried to control every aspect of her life, and will surely continue to. Giving her kindness doesn’t really give Eleanor any benefit, perse.
However, it puts Lamb in an awkward situation. Brer claims that she would go on to work her philosophical magic on the surface world, but I don’t think that’s the case. Eleanor has dethroned her. She’s in control, and I do not believe she is going to let Lamb do anything like that any more. Lamb is being reduced to a lame duck, being kept alive out of kindness. She won’t be able to enact any good on the world, because Eleanor will keep her in check. In fact, she’s really going to end up being nothing but a burden to Eleanor who, if she is really as brilliant and bright as Lamb would believe, is going to do good things, even if they don’t exactly connect with her philosophy. Eleanor will enact some manner of good on the world, and she is holding her back from that. Her existence, from that point, is potentially harming the greater good. She should remove herself, the very thing she tells Delta to do throughout the whole game. She is on the “bad” end of her philosophy.

Ryan’s philosophy is more brutal, so I feel like his fall from grace is more brutal. I also feel like having two games talking about his philosophy can potential put him in a slightly worse light than Lamb, who only had one. Still, I don’t feel like there is a significant difference between their treatment. I’m sure I’m probably missing something, or ignoring something else, but that’s how I felt when I finished the game, and now I have shared it in a bloeg.