Why did Coach Ben set the cabin on fire?
Table of Contents
"Yellowjackets," Showtime's hit survival thriller, concluded its second season with an unexpected and shocking twist that left viewers reeling and begging for answers. Coach Ben, a character who had so far been perceived as the voice of reason and stability amid the chaotic wilderness, made a drastic and seemingly uncharacteristic decision. In the season finale, he set the cabin - the group's makeshift home - on fire, with the rest of the characters trapped inside. A game-changing move that has upended the narrative of the series and left us with a burning (pun unintended) question: why did Ben, seen as the moral compass in the wilderness, commit such a violent act?
Context: Ben's Perception of the Group
Understanding Ben's perspective of the group is crucial to unraveling the motivations behind his actions. Throughout the season, Ben had been increasingly distanced from the rest of the group. His moral compass, which had once aligned with the group's collective survival, seemed to have shifted dramatically as he witnessed a series of disturbing events that challenged his perception of right and wrong. The group's descent into violence and chaos, culminating in a strange, paganistic ceremony, appeared to horrify Ben, pushing him further into isolation. His conversation with Natalie prior to the incident further illuminates his internal struggle. Natalie, who had previously been approached by Ben to join him in Javi's secret tree cave, bluntly tells him to go off on his own, implying that he's a good person while she's not. This conversation seemed to add fuel to the fire, reinforcing his belief in his own righteousness compared to the perceived 'evil' of the group.
Theory 1: An Act of Desperation
One plausible theory is that Ben's drastic action was a desperate attempt to regain control over a situation that was spiraling out of his grasp. Ben, who was previously seen as a figure of authority, might have felt his grip on the group, and indeed on sanity itself, slipping away. His decision to set the cabin on fire could be seen as a desperate cry for order amid the chaotic descent of the group. The isolation and harsh realities of survival might have pushed him to the edge, amplifying his desperation and leading him to make such a shocking decision. Just as economic desperation can lead to drastic and often violent actions in our society, the desperate situation of survival might have provoked a similarly extreme response from Ben. His decision, while horrifying, could be seen as a last resort, an attempt to reassert control and bring an end to the escalating madness. It's a desperate move, but in the wild, desperate times often call for desperate measures.
Theory 2: A Misguided Attempt at Justice
Another theory posits Ben's act as a misguided attempt at justice, a punishment meted out for what he perceived as the group's moral transgressions. From his viewpoint, the group had fallen into a spiral of 'evil,' participating in acts he deemed morally reprehensible. His ethical convictions, coupled with the psychological toll of survival, might have skewed his perception and led him to see his actions as justifiable, even necessary. His sense of righteousness could have distorted his moral judgement, leading him to believe that setting the cabin on fire was a form of retribution, a way to mete out justice for the group's actions. This theory mirrors broader societal debates around punishment and justice - what one person sees as a justifiable punishment, another might see as a cruel and unusual act. In this case, Ben's personal sense of justice appears to have been warped by the extreme circumstances he found himself in.
Theory 3: A Sacrifice for the Greater Good
The third theory suggests that Ben might have considered his act a necessary sacrifice for the greater good. From his perspective, the group's moral decay was an infectious disease, one that could spread and cause more harm if left unchecked. His decision to set the cabin on fire, while extreme, could be seen as an attempt to eradicate this 'infection.' This theory speaks to a wider philosophical debate about the utilitarian concept of the greater good and the moral implications of sacrificing a few to save many. In Ben's case, he may have believed that by committing this violent act, he was preventing further harm to the group and perhaps even to themselves. It's a bleak perspective, reflecting the harsh realities of survival, where the lines between right and wrong are often blurred.
Theory 4: A Breakdown of Morality and Sanity
Finally, we cannot ignore the potential psychological factors that might have driven Ben to his violent act. The stress of survival, guilt, fear, and the potential for a mental breakdown all could have contributed to his drastic decision. The harsh conditions and the group's descent into violence might have taken a heavy toll on Ben's mental state, causing him to act out in ways he wouldn't have under normal circumstances. This theory aligns with our understanding of how extreme stress can trigger dramatic behavioral changes and even mental breakdowns. Ben's actions, seen in this light, could be interpreted as a symptom of his deteriorating mental health, a tragic manifestation of the psychological trauma inflicted by the ordeal of survival. This perspective underscores the importance of mental health and the devastating effects that extreme stress can have on an individual's actions and decision-making processes.
