Those who dismiss "Survivor" as brainless entertainment need to recognize the complex moral quandaries that the show and the actions of those on it have presented. The show may not be as artsy or pretentious as last year's "Cradle Will Rock" or this year's "American Psycho," but thankfully, it's also not as annoyingly simplistic or transparent.
At first glance, the moral high road of "Survivor" does not seem so obscured. Most people find Richard, the corporate trainer, despicable for his relentless plotting and narrow-minded desire only to obtain the $1 million prize.
Viewers loved to hate Stacey, the Californian attorney, for her vindictiveness and scheming. Conversely, Brown graduate Greg appeared to have more integrity than others with his seeming disinterest in the cash and hate for voting alliances, and basketball coach Gervase seems primarily concerned about making some lasting friendships and playing cards.
But during Wednesday's episode, Greg suddenly seemed a little less sincere when he described teammate Colleen as a kitten he would eventually need to kill, and with Gervase, it became painfully apparent that the leveraging of his charm concerns him more than actually making lasting friendships.
With $1 million at stake, each castaway eventually will be forced to betray (vote off) someone he previously befriended if he wants a chance at the money.
Is it possible to make decisions about which of your peers you will vote off the island while still maintaining decency and honor? Jenna's system of voting against any male who makes a barely-sexist, sarcastic comment is in itself too sexist to supply her any sense of morality. Rudy's (the ex-Navy SEAL) and Sue's (the truck driver) system of always voting with Richard because they appear too stupid to think for themselves earns them no admiration. Even Greg's and Stacey's system to always vote against those they found to be most annoying does not win them any points -- should a person be denied access to a prize they may truly need simply because of a few personality conflicts? Who gave anyone the power to judge another to be "annoying?"
Surely, alliances stand as the most horrid way of all to make voting decisions, as they serve as a way for the most greedy, money-hungry members of the group to get rid of the other upstanding citizens unwilling to betray their peers. Yet, on the flip side, the unallied members of the group may be forced to band together, simply to prevent greed from becoming the norm. It's hardly commendable to sit back as the "bad" vote-off the "good." Thus, if greed exists on the island, alliances become a necessary evil.
Therefore, completely ignoring the monetary prize may be the only way to maintain integrity and ethics in the world of "Survivor." Sean, the neurologist from Long Island, appears to be one of the few competitors who attempts to use this technique. He refuses to join an alliance, and he has devised a simple voting system in which he votes for a different member each week in alphabetical order.
If a castaway only spends his time on the island trying to build meaningful relationships, does he maintain his integrity? One problem with this idea is that caring only about friendships still brings about a strong incentive to stay on the island as long as possible, which in turn presents more incentives to build an alliance.
Making things even more complex, Wednesday's episode hinted at the idea that Sean may be using his alphabet technique as a conniving way to befriend the other unallied players.
It's just too hard to tell. Maybe Sean only wants to maintain his dignity; maybe Greg's and Colleen's relationship continued long after their exit from the island; and maybe Gervase hangs out with Joel and Ramona now that filming has ended.
But therein lies the problem -- with $1 million at stake, it is impossible to discern who actually wants to make friends and who plans to whore and backstab for the money.
True, $1 million is neither an immense sum nor is it a ticket to retirement (unless you're Rudy or BB) -- the savings account interest from the money after taxes could barely supply $25,000 per year, which is hardly enough for a couple to live in luxury. But as viewers have already seen, the prize is enough that it manages to cast great doubt over every castaway's actions and words. In the spotlight of $1 million, every competitor appears utterly despicable.
So, when you next watch "Survivor" with your friends and they criticize the hateful Richard, point out that Richard is not the only one at fault. Explain that the show, by its nature, is morally impossible. Remind them that all of the castaways universally made one grave mistake -- they decided to appear on "Survivor."