Why did The Doctor chastise Karl for kicking Tzim-Sha?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
7
down vote

favorite












In the Doctor Who episode "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" The Doctor removed




several DNA bombs from her companions and reinserted these into the data-gathering coil brought to Earth by Tzim-Sha (Tim Shaw).




The Doctor was not surprised when these found their way back into Tzim-Sha and seemed to understand he was connected to the coil.



Why then,




after Tzim-Sha had detonated the bombs, potentially killing him,




did The Doctor chastise Karl by saying "you had no right to do that!" for kicking him




off the crane? Surely he was as good as dead anyway? Although he appeared to teleport away before we saw him die, The Doctor had previously gone into great detail about the way DNA bombs worked and their deadly potential.











share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
    – Jontia
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    @Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
    – Astralbee
    10 hours ago










  • Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
    – Jontia
    10 hours ago










  • @Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
    – TheLethalCarrot
    10 hours ago










  • "Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
    – tilley31
    9 hours ago
















up vote
7
down vote

favorite












In the Doctor Who episode "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" The Doctor removed




several DNA bombs from her companions and reinserted these into the data-gathering coil brought to Earth by Tzim-Sha (Tim Shaw).




The Doctor was not surprised when these found their way back into Tzim-Sha and seemed to understand he was connected to the coil.



Why then,




after Tzim-Sha had detonated the bombs, potentially killing him,




did The Doctor chastise Karl by saying "you had no right to do that!" for kicking him




off the crane? Surely he was as good as dead anyway? Although he appeared to teleport away before we saw him die, The Doctor had previously gone into great detail about the way DNA bombs worked and their deadly potential.











share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
    – Jontia
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    @Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
    – Astralbee
    10 hours ago










  • Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
    – Jontia
    10 hours ago










  • @Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
    – TheLethalCarrot
    10 hours ago










  • "Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
    – tilley31
    9 hours ago












up vote
7
down vote

favorite









up vote
7
down vote

favorite











In the Doctor Who episode "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" The Doctor removed




several DNA bombs from her companions and reinserted these into the data-gathering coil brought to Earth by Tzim-Sha (Tim Shaw).




The Doctor was not surprised when these found their way back into Tzim-Sha and seemed to understand he was connected to the coil.



Why then,




after Tzim-Sha had detonated the bombs, potentially killing him,




did The Doctor chastise Karl by saying "you had no right to do that!" for kicking him




off the crane? Surely he was as good as dead anyway? Although he appeared to teleport away before we saw him die, The Doctor had previously gone into great detail about the way DNA bombs worked and their deadly potential.











share|improve this question















In the Doctor Who episode "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" The Doctor removed




several DNA bombs from her companions and reinserted these into the data-gathering coil brought to Earth by Tzim-Sha (Tim Shaw).




The Doctor was not surprised when these found their way back into Tzim-Sha and seemed to understand he was connected to the coil.



Why then,




after Tzim-Sha had detonated the bombs, potentially killing him,




did The Doctor chastise Karl by saying "you had no right to do that!" for kicking him




off the crane? Surely he was as good as dead anyway? Although he appeared to teleport away before we saw him die, The Doctor had previously gone into great detail about the way DNA bombs worked and their deadly potential.








doctor-who






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago









TheLethalCarrot

33.1k13185227




33.1k13185227










asked 11 hours ago









Astralbee

4547




4547







  • 1




    Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
    – Jontia
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    @Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
    – Astralbee
    10 hours ago










  • Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
    – Jontia
    10 hours ago










  • @Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
    – TheLethalCarrot
    10 hours ago










  • "Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
    – tilley31
    9 hours ago












  • 1




    Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
    – Jontia
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    @Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
    – Astralbee
    10 hours ago










  • Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
    – Jontia
    10 hours ago










  • @Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
    – TheLethalCarrot
    10 hours ago










  • "Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
    – tilley31
    9 hours ago







1




1




Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
– Jontia
10 hours ago




Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
– Jontia
10 hours ago




1




1




@Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
– Astralbee
10 hours ago




@Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
– Astralbee
10 hours ago












Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
– Jontia
10 hours ago




Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
– Jontia
10 hours ago












@Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
– TheLethalCarrot
10 hours ago




@Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
– TheLethalCarrot
10 hours ago












"Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
– tilley31
9 hours ago




"Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
– tilley31
9 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
8
down vote













The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.




Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.



[ALIEN SCREAMS]



Go home.




In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.






share|improve this answer




















  • The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
    – Valorum
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
    – Keith Morrison
    6 hours ago






  • 2




    It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
    – Keith Morrison
    6 hours ago







  • 2




    I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
    – Jon Kiparsky
    5 hours ago






  • 2




    @Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
    – Kevin
    4 hours ago

















up vote
6
down vote













It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.



One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.



Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.



(*) Yes, we know who you are...






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Legal right



    While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.



    The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).



    In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.






    share|improve this answer




















    • Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
      – Nacht
      1 hour ago

















    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.



    In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.






    share|improve this answer
















    • 1




      The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
      – Valorum
      5 hours ago










    • The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
      – Jon Kiparsky
      5 hours ago

















    up vote
    -4
    down vote













    She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.



    This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.



    That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.













    • 3




      Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
      – Valorum
      7 hours ago










    • I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
      – Paul
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
      – Valorum
      6 hours ago











    • Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
      – Jon Kiparsky
      5 hours ago










    Your Answer







    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "186"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f196275%2fwhy-did-the-doctor-chastise-karl-for-kicking-tzim-sha%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    8
    down vote













    The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.




    Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.



    [ALIEN SCREAMS]



    Go home.




    In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.






    share|improve this answer




















    • The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
      – Valorum
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
      – Keith Morrison
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
      – Keith Morrison
      6 hours ago







    • 2




      I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
      – Jon Kiparsky
      5 hours ago






    • 2




      @Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
      – Kevin
      4 hours ago














    up vote
    8
    down vote













    The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.




    Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.



    [ALIEN SCREAMS]



    Go home.




    In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.






    share|improve this answer




















    • The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
      – Valorum
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
      – Keith Morrison
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
      – Keith Morrison
      6 hours ago







    • 2




      I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
      – Jon Kiparsky
      5 hours ago






    • 2




      @Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
      – Kevin
      4 hours ago












    up vote
    8
    down vote










    up vote
    8
    down vote









    The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.




    Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.



    [ALIEN SCREAMS]



    Go home.




    In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.






    share|improve this answer












    The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.




    Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.



    [ALIEN SCREAMS]



    Go home.




    In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 10 hours ago









    Valorum

    379k9927592987




    379k9927592987











    • The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
      – Valorum
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
      – Keith Morrison
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
      – Keith Morrison
      6 hours ago







    • 2




      I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
      – Jon Kiparsky
      5 hours ago






    • 2




      @Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
      – Kevin
      4 hours ago
















    • The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
      – Valorum
      10 hours ago






    • 1




      It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
      – Keith Morrison
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
      – Keith Morrison
      6 hours ago







    • 2




      I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
      – Jon Kiparsky
      5 hours ago






    • 2




      @Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
      – Kevin
      4 hours ago















    The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
    – Valorum
    10 hours ago




    The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
    – Valorum
    10 hours ago




    1




    1




    It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
    – Keith Morrison
    6 hours ago




    It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
    – Keith Morrison
    6 hours ago




    2




    2




    It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
    – Keith Morrison
    6 hours ago





    It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
    – Keith Morrison
    6 hours ago





    2




    2




    I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
    – Jon Kiparsky
    5 hours ago




    I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
    – Jon Kiparsky
    5 hours ago




    2




    2




    @Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
    – Kevin
    4 hours ago




    @Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
    – Kevin
    4 hours ago












    up vote
    6
    down vote













    It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.



    One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.



    Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.



    (*) Yes, we know who you are...






    share|improve this answer
























      up vote
      6
      down vote













      It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.



      One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.



      Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.



      (*) Yes, we know who you are...






      share|improve this answer






















        up vote
        6
        down vote










        up vote
        6
        down vote









        It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.



        One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.



        Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.



        (*) Yes, we know who you are...






        share|improve this answer












        It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.



        One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.



        Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.



        (*) Yes, we know who you are...







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 10 hours ago









        VBartilucci

        7,82411635




        7,82411635




















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Legal right



            While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.



            The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).



            In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.






            share|improve this answer




















            • Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
              – Nacht
              1 hour ago














            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Legal right



            While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.



            The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).



            In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.






            share|improve this answer




















            • Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
              – Nacht
              1 hour ago












            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            Legal right



            While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.



            The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).



            In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.






            share|improve this answer












            Legal right



            While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.



            The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).



            In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 4 hours ago









            Gaultheria

            8,45812249




            8,45812249











            • Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
              – Nacht
              1 hour ago
















            • Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
              – Nacht
              1 hour ago















            Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
            – Nacht
            1 hour ago




            Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
            – Nacht
            1 hour ago










            up vote
            -1
            down vote













            The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.



            In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.






            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
              – Valorum
              5 hours ago










            • The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
              – Jon Kiparsky
              5 hours ago














            up vote
            -1
            down vote













            The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.



            In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.






            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
              – Valorum
              5 hours ago










            • The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
              – Jon Kiparsky
              5 hours ago












            up vote
            -1
            down vote










            up vote
            -1
            down vote









            The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.



            In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.






            share|improve this answer












            The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.



            In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 5 hours ago









            Jon Kiparsky

            501513




            501513







            • 1




              The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
              – Valorum
              5 hours ago










            • The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
              – Jon Kiparsky
              5 hours ago












            • 1




              The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
              – Valorum
              5 hours ago










            • The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
              – Jon Kiparsky
              5 hours ago







            1




            1




            The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
            – Valorum
            5 hours ago




            The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
            – Valorum
            5 hours ago












            The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
            – Jon Kiparsky
            5 hours ago




            The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
            – Jon Kiparsky
            5 hours ago










            up vote
            -4
            down vote













            She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.



            This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.



            That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.













            • 3




              Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
              – Valorum
              7 hours ago










            • I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
              – Paul
              7 hours ago






            • 1




              I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
              – Valorum
              6 hours ago











            • Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
              – Jon Kiparsky
              5 hours ago














            up vote
            -4
            down vote













            She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.



            This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.



            That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.













            • 3




              Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
              – Valorum
              7 hours ago










            • I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
              – Paul
              7 hours ago






            • 1




              I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
              – Valorum
              6 hours ago











            • Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
              – Jon Kiparsky
              5 hours ago












            up vote
            -4
            down vote










            up vote
            -4
            down vote









            She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.



            This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.



            That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.



            This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.



            That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.







            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer






            New contributor




            Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 7 hours ago









            Paul

            1




            1




            New contributor




            Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.







            • 3




              Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
              – Valorum
              7 hours ago










            • I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
              – Paul
              7 hours ago






            • 1




              I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
              – Valorum
              6 hours ago











            • Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
              – Jon Kiparsky
              5 hours ago












            • 3




              Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
              – Valorum
              7 hours ago










            • I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
              – Paul
              7 hours ago






            • 1




              I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
              – Valorum
              6 hours ago











            • Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
              – Jon Kiparsky
              5 hours ago







            3




            3




            Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
            – Valorum
            7 hours ago




            Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
            – Valorum
            7 hours ago












            I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
            – Paul
            7 hours ago




            I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
            – Paul
            7 hours ago




            1




            1




            I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
            – Valorum
            6 hours ago





            I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
            – Valorum
            6 hours ago













            Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
            – Jon Kiparsky
            5 hours ago




            Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
            – Jon Kiparsky
            5 hours ago

















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f196275%2fwhy-did-the-doctor-chastise-karl-for-kicking-tzim-sha%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Bahrain

            Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay