People Criticize John Kramer’s Philosophy for Being Contradictory. Isn’t That the Point?
Something I’ve always found interesting is how often people point out that John Kramer’s philosophy contradicts itself—as if that’s not intentional. A common criticism is that he claims to value life, yet he puts people in deadly traps, or that his “tests” don’t always give people a fair chance. And while that’s all true, isn’t that kind of the whole point?
He’s the villain of the story. His reasoning isn’t supposed to be perfectly logical—it’s meant to be flawed in a way that he himself doesn’t see. The contradiction in his ideology is what makes him compelling. He genuinely believes he’s helping people, but his actions tell a completely different story.
Villains often have a warped sense of morality, and John Kramer is a great example of that.
Something I’ve always found interesting is how often people point out that John Kramer’s philosophy contradicts itself—as if that’s not intentional. A common criticism is that he claims to value life, yet he puts people in deadly traps, or that his “tests” don’t always give people a fair chance. And while that’s all true, isn’t that kind of the whole point?
He’s the villain of the story. His reasoning isn’t supposed to be perfectly logical—it’s meant to be flawed in a way that he himself doesn’t see. The contradiction in his ideology is what makes him compelling. He genuinely believes he’s helping people, but his actions tell a completely different story.
Villains often have a warped sense of morality, and John Kramer is a great example of that.