Have either of you considered that a more fair comparison to Jessica would be Foggy is seasons 1 of Daredevil?
Matt lied to Jessica and the rest of the team. She was mad. She learned more, she decided there was a reason and decided to trust him.
In season 1 of Daredevil Foggy finds out Matt lied. He is angry. He learns more about Fisk, and he reaches out in an olive branch to Matt. He acknowledges that DD has a part to play, and when Matt goes out to stop Fisk, Foggy trusts him. He tell him to "go be a hero" and trusts he has to do this.
Admittedly it's not a perfect match, but I think closer to Jess accepts him fully, or differentiating that understanding is not acceptance.
However, if after Jess' act of trust, Matt started doing the same stuff. Withholding from the group and endangering them, I don't think understanding him would prevent her from being angry.
Likewise, when Foggy acknowledged Fisk needed to be stopped by both the law and DD and trusted Matt, Matt followed that by escalating DD until he was going every night, getting hurt all the time, lying or neglecting to mention what he was doing, and eventually not showing up for work.
Foggy might accept there's a place for DD, but Matt took it to an extreme, and wasn't honest about it. In light of that, Foggy's worry, and then anger when his worry was ignored or belittled, and eventual wariness and mistrust when the cycle repeats and worsens bring them both down all while Matt still minimising show bad things have gotten until it became undeniable and then at that point he pulled a 180 and tried to shove Foggy out the door because it's too dangerous and too big a deal, (and to hard to face that Foggy had a point and he let him down).
Side note, Matt's send off to Elektra (we keep hurting each other. You believe something I can't support, and asking you to change it is asking you to be someone else, so we need to be apart), and his attempt to push Foggy away, (I won't apologise for who I am, start again with out me, I hold you back) seemed very parallel. I think in Matt's mind he was Foggy's Elektra in that Foggy was against vigilantism and Matt was a vigilante and to be otherwise would not be true to himself. I also think Matt is making a false parallel.
Matt's "true north" to borrow a phrase from Claire, is doing what he believes is right according to personal conviction. He believes murder is wrong, therefore what Elektra does is wrong, but she doesn't see it that way, putting them at odds and making them hurt each other and better off without each other. I think he believes Foggy is this way too, and that Foggy believes vigilantism is illegal and that makes it against his value system based on upholding the law (even though he is willing to fudge the law he thinks for him it is his moral truth), therefore what Matt does is wrong, but Matt doesn't see it that way, so they are at odds and hurt each other, and so they might be better off without each other too.
He's wrong on two counts. One, he misses Foggy because he relied on him more than he acknowledged and so he was not better off without him. Two, his assumption about Foggy's values is wrong.
Truth is, for Foggy, his true north is taking care of people and doing what preserves relationship. Basically he values maintaining relationship over an absolute moral conviction. That's why it's not as simple as not helping Matt even when it bothers him to do so because he has some problem with the legality of DD, (for Matt it would be; you follow my values or I leave), because his truth is putting people over ideals. Matt's safety. Matt's needs.
I think those who side with Foggy and those who side with Matt have a different moral hierarchy much like the men themselves.
Matt is straight up Kohlberg, where the highest form of morality is adherence to personal conviction. People who agree with this can't see why Foggy can't get onboard with Matt's convictions. There are who he is and he has to live them. Didn't he say he wouldn't apologise for who he was and explain about the sirens and his conviction that he had to protect the city? He needs to do that to be morally right. It is his conviction and who he is.
Foggy, on the other hand is straight up Gilligan, where the highest form of morality is considering the needs of everyone in the group and putting the group functionality, needs, and unity first by making sure to maintain the group and relationship when making choices. Interestingly Gilligan's theory was created because most women fall at this level, which is two steps down from the top of Kohlberg's ladder of morality, and she believed that women view the world differently rather than that they were morally stunted. Now obviously the scales are bigger than gender since I believe Foggy as a male may have a more Gilligan compatible view, and I am guess not everyone siding with Matt is male, though I am unsure. At any rate, from Foggy's point of view, Matt is consistently putting personal needs about the needs and functionality of the group, (I.e. showing up to court late because his activity as DD is so prolific it's cutting into his obligations. Downplaying his injuries or the needs of other for him to be well. Downplaying Foggy's concern that Matt might not be able to continue practicing with him because he may die or get disbarred. Making unilateral decisions about the practice.), and furthermore he is not trying to restore group harmony and seems to rebuff any statement Foggy makes to this point about how his actions affected other. Those are major problems if maintains group order and harmony, and valuing the others in the group over ideal is your view of strong morality.
There's a disconnect there. It is not simple on either side.
Being more Gilligan myself, I don't see Matt repeatedly giving Foggy chances to get out as a positive thing, or even an in anyway respectful thing as others do. Yes, he's saying, if you disagree, and this bothers you, you are free to follow your own conscience and leave, but it shows just how fundamentally he misunderstands Foggy. Leaving is the exact thing that would be the worst thing Foggy could do according to his value system. The most against his conscience. Instead I see him repeatedly devaluing his relationship with Foggy, by being willing to end it so flippantly. So much so, that eventually Foggy stops trying for as hard for a while, because things have fallen that far.
Re: Episode 2 Discussion
Matt lied to Jessica and the rest of the team. She was mad. She learned more, she decided there was a reason and decided to trust him.
In season 1 of Daredevil Foggy finds out Matt lied. He is angry. He learns more about Fisk, and he reaches out in an olive branch to Matt. He acknowledges that DD has a part to play, and when Matt goes out to stop Fisk, Foggy trusts him. He tell him to "go be a hero" and trusts he has to do this.
Admittedly it's not a perfect match, but I think closer to Jess accepts him fully, or differentiating that understanding is not acceptance.
However, if after Jess' act of trust, Matt started doing the same stuff. Withholding from the group and endangering them, I don't think understanding him would prevent her from being angry.
Likewise, when Foggy acknowledged Fisk needed to be stopped by both the law and DD and trusted Matt, Matt followed that by escalating DD until he was going every night, getting hurt all the time, lying or neglecting to mention what he was doing, and eventually not showing up for work.
Foggy might accept there's a place for DD, but Matt took it to an extreme, and wasn't honest about it. In light of that, Foggy's worry, and then anger when his worry was ignored or belittled, and eventual wariness and mistrust when the cycle repeats and worsens bring them both down all while Matt still minimising show bad things have gotten until it became undeniable and then at that point he pulled a 180 and tried to shove Foggy out the door because it's too dangerous and too big a deal, (and to hard to face that Foggy had a point and he let him down).
Side note, Matt's send off to Elektra (we keep hurting each other. You believe something I can't support, and asking you to change it is asking you to be someone else, so we need to be apart), and his attempt to push Foggy away, (I won't apologise for who I am, start again with out me, I hold you back) seemed very parallel. I think in Matt's mind he was Foggy's Elektra in that Foggy was against vigilantism and Matt was a vigilante and to be otherwise would not be true to himself. I also think Matt is making a false parallel.
Matt's "true north" to borrow a phrase from Claire, is doing what he believes is right according to personal conviction. He believes murder is wrong, therefore what Elektra does is wrong, but she doesn't see it that way, putting them at odds and making them hurt each other and better off without each other. I think he believes Foggy is this way too, and that Foggy believes vigilantism is illegal and that makes it against his value system based on upholding the law (even though he is willing to fudge the law he thinks for him it is his moral truth), therefore what Matt does is wrong, but Matt doesn't see it that way, so they are at odds and hurt each other, and so they might be better off without each other too.
He's wrong on two counts. One, he misses Foggy because he relied on him more than he acknowledged and so he was not better off without him. Two, his assumption about Foggy's values is wrong.
Truth is, for Foggy, his true north is taking care of people and doing what preserves relationship. Basically he values maintaining relationship over an absolute moral conviction. That's why it's not as simple as not helping Matt even when it bothers him to do so because he has some problem with the legality of DD, (for Matt it would be; you follow my values or I leave), because his truth is putting people over ideals. Matt's safety. Matt's needs.
I think those who side with Foggy and those who side with Matt have a different moral hierarchy much like the men themselves.
Matt is straight up Kohlberg, where the highest form of morality is adherence to personal conviction. People who agree with this can't see why Foggy can't get onboard with Matt's convictions. There are who he is and he has to live them. Didn't he say he wouldn't apologise for who he was and explain about the sirens and his conviction that he had to protect the city? He needs to do that to be morally right. It is his conviction and who he is.
Foggy, on the other hand is straight up Gilligan, where the highest form of morality is considering the needs of everyone in the group and putting the group functionality, needs, and unity first by making sure to maintain the group and relationship when making choices. Interestingly Gilligan's theory was created because most women fall at this level, which is two steps down from the top of Kohlberg's ladder of morality, and she believed that women view the world differently rather than that they were morally stunted. Now obviously the scales are bigger than gender since I believe Foggy as a male may have a more Gilligan compatible view, and I am guess not everyone siding with Matt is male, though I am unsure. At any rate, from Foggy's point of view, Matt is consistently putting personal needs about the needs and functionality of the group, (I.e. showing up to court late because his activity as DD is so prolific it's cutting into his obligations. Downplaying his injuries or the needs of other for him to be well. Downplaying Foggy's concern that Matt might not be able to continue practicing with him because he may die or get disbarred. Making unilateral decisions about the practice.), and furthermore he is not trying to restore group harmony and seems to rebuff any statement Foggy makes to this point about how his actions affected other. Those are major problems if maintains group order and harmony, and valuing the others in the group over ideal is your view of strong morality.
There's a disconnect there. It is not simple on either side.
Being more Gilligan myself, I don't see Matt repeatedly giving Foggy chances to get out as a positive thing, or even an in anyway respectful thing as others do. Yes, he's saying, if you disagree, and this bothers you, you are free to follow your own conscience and leave, but it shows just how fundamentally he misunderstands Foggy. Leaving is the exact thing that would be the worst thing Foggy could do according to his value system. The most against his conscience. Instead I see him repeatedly devaluing his relationship with Foggy, by being willing to end it so flippantly. So much so, that eventually Foggy stops trying for as hard for a while, because things have fallen that far.