View Full Version : Morality in Death Note? Do the ends justify the means?
NoSanninWa
2006-10-30, 23:25
Death Note is a story where questions of morality are frequently asked, but only rarely answered. It seems to leave us to make up our own minds about these topics. Or at least if it has answers to offer, it isn't going to do so for quite a while to come.
In this show, both L and Light are portrayed as good and bad. At times it is hard to tell which is the villian and which is the hero. Both have good motives and their own ways of accomplishing them. Does this show even have any sense of good and evil, or just many shades of gray? By not giving us any solid answers about this topic, the writer seems to be asking us to start a dialogue about the meaning of the character's goals and if their means are justified by their worthwhile goals.
Since this topic can easily become incindiary, I'm going to ask everyone to remember that when discussing opinions they should not attack the person who holds that opinion. Also, remember that a contrary opinion does not mean that the person you are talking with is immoral. If we can't all remember this, I'd have to close the thread and I really don't want to do that. (I really hope I'm being paranoid about this.)
mantidor
2006-10-30, 23:42
oh my I was just about to suggest this thread! ^_^ you read my mind.
Its a complex issue, personally I think that no human has a moral ground high enough to kill anyone, no matter what, yet I would find impossible to not use the Death Note if it ever falls in my hands, Im almost sure we all have our list of people the world would be better without, as much as I would feel terrible about it, Im willing to do it, at the very least, the people I care about would be in a better world, its a price fair enough in my eyes.
However, I saw L as the hero the moment Light went crazy all the way in the part I read of the manga, Light was simply the evil guy for me all the time.
SoldierOfDarkness
2006-10-30, 23:55
Just started looking into this series.
For starters, I suppose one could argue that no one has the right to decide who dies and who lives.
But then again, in Kira's case he's targeting criminals.
Exactly what are L's justification for bringing Kira down?
bluemist
2006-10-31, 00:09
I would focus on Light first.
In reality I am against any kind of death penalty, but in the realms of the Death Note world I believe that... “initially” Light has a point. Current society can’t contain crime no matter how harsh punishments are aside from capital punishment, and it is exactly what’s happening in our society now. He believed that he is the right person to rule the world/play God and decide who is right and who is wrong (or shall be killed). Unfortunately, Light went downhill from his optimistic views almost instantly, when he tried to kill L from the broadcast. Granted that it wasn’t L himself, but still was a criminal, I guess L cut him some slack. But that event alone proved that Light is NOT the right person to save the world, firstly, simply because he violated his protocol of ‘ridding bad people only’, but secondly, because he was a freaking “coward”.
Surprised I said Light is a coward? Despite his arrogance and his supposedly amazing IQ and genius, he was not making smart decisions. I could argue that there is some other way for him to get out of the FBI fiasco without “killing” FBI agents, but I guess he took the easy way out since he has some ‘power to kill’ anyway. Basically, he’s afraid to die, so he tries to kill ‘anyone’ who opposes him, good or bad person.
(I can argue that he can more easily get rid of the FBI monitoring him if he bought more time to act normal, seeing that Raye Penber already is bailing out of investigating him before the bus incident.)
Yup, in the first volume alone I already don’t approve of Light’s actions, but then again it will be boring to not take this kind of direction, this is a manga after all. I can’t imagine a totally protagonistic Light either, which really keeps protocol and kills only criminals.
KaneDragon
2006-10-31, 00:38
Light was off on the wrong track from the vary beginning, thinking he could rid the world of evil. You can't change human nature like that. Not to mention he was planning on killing immoral people and punishing for petty crimes once he became "a god".
He was drunk with power and just wanted to flaunt his skills. Otherwise, he would have stuck to killing serious/obvious criminals in a variety of ways (instead of using heart attacks to gain attention).
Somewhat relevant to my point?:
"When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Most assuredly, I tell you, they have received their reward.
But you, when you pray, enter into your inner chamber, and having shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.
As said in the very beginning of this thread, there aren't absolute good and evil. It's all relative.
Azuma Denton
2006-10-31, 00:49
Nice topic.
I will talk about L n Light seperately.
Light :
His motive is good. He wants to create a world where there is no need to fear for criminal. But he is stepping into god's region. N finally he is obsessed by his power n blind him. In one side, u can see him as a savior, but in the other side, he is a murderer. So it's up to people, which side will they be. But still, killing (although indirectly) is prohibited by both laws n religion.
L :
L is just a detective want to catch a murderer. You can say he is the actual hero in this story. You can say, "What's wrong with Kira trying too kill the bad guy?" Well, killing is forbidden by laws n religions. So L is just doing his duty as law enforcer to capture Kira.
One thing i want to ask Light, "Will u be able to kill your sister if she becomes a criminal?" Since her sister is the most important person to him.
AvianWing
2006-10-31, 01:16
It's all relative.
Couldn't have said it better. Morality is a human made concept that standardizes the norms of the society. A thousand years from now, it will most likely be completely different. So, arguing whether something is morally correct or not is similar to arguing about religion: to some people, some things are right and other things aren't.
With that aside, I might as well interject my personal opinion out of boredom.
It seems to leave us to make up our own minds about these topics.
Exactly. To me, this is a subtle shade of gray. While Light may possess the qualities of an anti-hero, I personally believe that he is quite justified in his reasoning. This is the conflict between idealism vs cynicism, both within the character and within the story.
The classic fairytale-- the equivalent of shounen in the world of anime-- often presents a naive and idealistic protagonist. So, the protagonist is always "right." Light is idealistic: he wants to create a world free of violence. However, he is also sadistic: he believes in the foul nature of human kind and decides to take a not-so-conventional-hero way of bringing about change. He has the attribute of a "hero" and that of a antagonist. So what is he?
We label as people who want power mongers without control. Light wants to be a God. Is that such a bad thing? In his mind, if he is the ruling entity, then there will be justice to people who never received any. There will be a voice to those who are constantly being exploited. It's similar to Monarchy versus Democracy. Everyone claims that Democracy is a better form of government. The truth is, instead of the tyranny of the monarch, the tyranny of the majority exists. Vice versa, the monarch can be a fair ruler and Democracy can put a check on the ruling entity. It's all a farce; they're all stimgas people like to put on things.
It's the classic case of Julius Caeser's murder. Will he become a dictator? Nothing is proven.
NoSanninWa:
I think you meant the ends justify the means (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_ends_justify_the_means).
As for my 2 cents, I think the question is rather vacuous. Either way, both good things and bad things happen; the only distinction is who gets to pass judgment. And that is always the "winner."
That's more or less how I feel about this, and I think the "message" in Death Note pretty much matches that, based on the manga ending (although it may just be confirmation bias). I only read up to......the point when the first L died. After that the story just gets too dull.... and the ending, so maybe there was something I missed.
Orchunter226
2006-10-31, 02:12
I think that Light's killing of criminals is a shade of gray leaning more towards good. However, once he starts killing people just because they oppose him, then it become quite immoral. For instance, if he kills the FBI agent, that is way overstepping the line.
The FBI agent is a man of the law, doing his job and trying to catch someone he believes is a killer. He has done nothing wrong, and has committed no immoral acts.
L hasn't committed any immoral acts, yet. But we will see if he does later on. Atm he is just a detective in the leagues of Sherlok Holmes.
ThisIsDream
2006-10-31, 03:31
It seems to leave us to make up our own minds about these topics.
Actually, they did a lil discussion in the manga
NEar said he is just like Light, he believe in what he think is right and sure that is Justice.
"The idea of your own action being Evil but sacrificing yourself in order to change the world...That is the killers Chosen Path of Being Righteous." "The killer being Evil or Righteous is not our place to judge" " If we catch the Killer then he is Evil. If The killer controls the world then he is righteous." Aizawa san said " So the Winner is Right?... But... Yeah, I guess..." IDE san said" NO your're right, the world has always been like that...
LonelyMachines
2006-10-31, 05:00
Of course, Light's motive isn't purely to "rid the world of evil." It's more selfish than that. His real motive is to make himself a celebrity, a god. Essentially, he's a child given the power and responsibility most adults couldn't handle, and this is how he uses it.
In a civilized society, his victims, no matter what they've done, are being deprived of due process. Light is at best a vigilante, at worst a murderer.
L is also on a bit of a personal vendetta, and setting up a man to be killed in his place on national television as a means to an end isn't particularly noble, either.
Both men are driven by obsession as well as their own sense of "justice," but by the end of the second episode, it's clear that both are driven by more personal and selfish motives than "justice."
2H-Dragon
2006-10-31, 05:53
Its fairly simple.
Light: Is some1 that thinks that what he does is the right thing. It's not like he gets pleasure out of killing. And its also isnt like he's trying to rule the world. He wanted to change the world and the Death Note gave him that posibilty even it meant killing others.
L: Is some1 who actually think the same way as Light. Eventhough his stance is diffrent. It's his job to get Light and he does by any means. Sacrfice a few for the Majority. In that way he's the same Light.
I don't see Light or L as a bad guy, but I think killing is wrong by anymeans except for self-defence.
And if we where actually in the world of Death Note. It's simple as the winner is right. History thought us that. Morals do change over-time, but humans will always will have urge to go against the general moral.
DragoonKain3
2006-10-31, 06:16
I was and always will be against capital punishment. Apart from thinking that I won't be any better than the murderers themselves, I personally think that letting major criminals rot in jail for the rest of their life is a much harsher fate than a quick death.
As such, while Light is interesting because of how he acts, I still don't agree with him.
There is one phrase though that describes Light to a tee, and is the driving force for my interest in the series because we already see him already spiraling down to darkness:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
For starters, I suppose one could argue that no one has the right to decide who dies and who lives.
But then again, in Kira's case he's targeting criminals.
He's targeting criminals that are already in the slammer.. what good does it do.. :rolleyes:
If they were criminals from the outside it would be all heroic and such but because they're locked in they're cells serving time.. it's just mass murder..
Exactly what are L's justification for bringing Kira down?
It's the fukin' law.. there's no moral bull anywhere.. it's just the law pure and simple..
If people were to kill eachother over petty difrences then what.. ?
Anyway.. IMO they're all fukin' "evil"
Think of it this way.. C kills A, B is all heroic and kills C, D kills B for the same reason..
So.. who's more just B or D ?..
Well in the anime, like in the real world there is no justice.. only the laws of revenge exist (be they supported legally or illegally)
^_Usagi_^
2006-10-31, 09:42
He's targeting criminals that are already in the slammer.. what good does it do..
Actually NO, check further manga chapters + he also kills people that oppose him
I agree with Raito's ideas more than should be sane.
Besides as was said it is not for us to judge what is right or wrong. Morals & ethics were set by ourselves or rather those with power. But we still view what is right & what is wrong differently.
Since Raito was caught he was portraided as a criminal & a pathetic madman (poopy on that damn ending!!! :frustrated: ), but if he would succeed then now he would probably have his perfect* world & he would be right. The one who loses is wrong, its as simple as that.
It's the same as looking into a case in court, if you lose you were wrong, if you win you were right. Later if the person whose entire family you slaughtered comes & shoots you, he is still put in pirson cause you WON. The real truth might be of no importance at all, cause who can tell what it is anyway?
He was drunk with power and just wanted to flaunt his skills. Otherwise, he would have stuck to killing serious/obvious criminals in a variety of ways (instead of using heart attacks to gain attention).
To me, he did that intentionally. He used heart attacks in the beginning to make people believe that *someone* was killing all the criminals to make people be afraid of committing anymore crimes. If he just used random methods, while the law will have a harder time catching Light, the criminals will have a harder time believing that *someone* is intentionally trying to kill them if they do any crimes. They would just see a bunch of people dying, that's it.
By the time Kira was known to the public, Kira was known to deliver justice by killing criminals by heart attacks. If Kira suddenly stopped using heart attacks, the criminals would believe that they can do crimes again because they would feel safe again.
Him killing the fake L. I could also argue he did that with more than one purpose in mind. He wanted the world to know that Kira exists, and that he has the power to bring justice. Think of the fake L fiasco as a demonstration of power, so all criminals watching TV would know, Kira definitely exists and he has the power to kill criminals. If Kira didn't do anything, the criminals would have a sigh of relief, Kira didn't hurt L, and L is fighting for the criminals, L will save the criminals from dying. Kira had to make it known at that time, that criminals have no choice but to die, and that no one, including L could save them. So that people would be too afraid of committing crimes lest they incur the wrath of someone named Kira.
Also, with the fake L fiasco, Kira has basically said on TV that he is not afraid of the police, the law or anything. That he will deliver justice where justice is due and will not back down from the police. If Kira wanted to build his ideal world, eventually the world will have to know that Kira exists, and once that happens, the police will be after him anyways. Kira just decided that was the best time, considering that L openly challenged him on "live TV", to make it known that Kira exists.
But, even if Kira succeeded, him judging people is wrong. With his justice, there is no second chance either.
^_Usagi_^
2006-10-31, 10:13
PS: doesn't Kira remind you of somebody... how about... erm... lets say God? If anyone has read the OT then you'd see that he kills & punishes people whenever HE seems its right. He gets rid of other nations who (by what is said in the book at least) are more (I don't think that is mentioned, but I suppose it could imply since he chose the Israelites, this might be wrong & chosing a specific people might have been just cause by accident or favouritism towards their ancestors - Abraham, Isaac, etc) wicked & sinful. Besides not one of us is without sin, so we each deserve to die. When God kills its justice, if he spares it's mercy & grace.
Just out of curiosity, who out here that opposes Kira's ideas is a christian? (cause as far as I see it now, your these two are exactly the same)
Him killing the fake L.
I think that was one of his biggest mistake. I really don't belive he might have thought about all the person above mentioned. He acted on emotions (maybe anger... no.. maybe competiveness, I'm not sure), which also gave away his location.
It was exactly this point of morality that made me not watch this show or read the mange. The description I read for this show instantly turned me off, it was a contradiction in itself, it reached of immorality.
Light Yagami is an ace student with great aspects who`s bored out of his mind. One day he finds the Death Note a notebook held by a shinigami (Death God). with the Death Note in hand, Light decides to create a perfect world. A world without crime or criminals. However when criminals start dropping dead one by one, the authorities send the legendary detective L to track down the killer. If people like this show it is their right, I'm not going to bash it, but this topic will at least let me say my peace.
The protagonist
This Light guy has the most simplistic idea about the world, it would show that he is one of those people who is so weak and cowardly that they have to cower behind the law in order to feel save and security. Seeing the law as some absolute guide, rather than the joke it really is. A world without crime would be perfect? We'll still get all the natural disasters, where people die and property gets destroyed. Perfect world? Nope. I can go on a killing spree and not be a criminal. I simply have to enlist in the army. I can sell weed and not be a criminal, I simply have to go to Holland. Perfect world? Nope. It takes more than a world free of crime for it to be perfect.
A criminal, aren't we all?
Who is a criminal? A person that breaks the law? Why does a person break the law? Because s/he is a evil thing that plagues society? Or someone who is driven over the line by society having no choice but to become a criminal in order to survive? Someone who is unaware of laws and accidentally breaks a law? All of you who download fansubs and scanlations? There are many reasons why a person breaks the rules, as many unjust reasons as just reasons. Robin hood, who steals, but gives to the poor. A soldier who can't kill a child with a bomb which results in the deaths of his squad. A prostitute, who is forced to sell her body by a pimp? A drug dealer who sell drugs to children out of greed. Good people? Bad people? Of course this distinction should never be made by the courts, because justice is supposed to be blind, but unfortunately these days it is not. A good lawyer will be able to bend and twist the truth in such a way that laws are twisted in there meaning. A jury does not base their verdict on the facts alone, as they should, but also on their emotions. A criminal to one person can be the hero of another. The criminal from one perspective, can be the loving father from another, or evil monster from yet another. Who is the main protagonist to judge from his one perspective? Nothing but a fool as he himself becomes a criminal in the process of his judgment and by that same judgment he should kill himself. The walking contradiction. Every person on this planet has broken a law once in their existence, be it the law of man/society or be it the laws of god/religion. How stupid is it to condemn all criminals to death, might as well kill everyone in the world. He might as well start with himself, because he too is a criminal. He too deserves death by this own judgment, because killing a person, be it a criminal or an innocent, is still a crime, unless of course it is sanctioned by that same law. Which should show the true colors of law to those that understand the full implications of that statement.
The joke of law
What is law? A set of rules that redistributes the freedoms of individuals so everyone can be equal, so everybody has equal freedom. Well that was the dream of law, the ideal of law, but that dreams has ended long ago. Rules are said to be set by a society, but these days they are set by those in power, which has produced some very unjust laws. Different societies have different rules/customs/believes and cannot be judge by one person, who has only one perspective. Some examples? In the US one needs to be 21 drink, 16 to drive, smoking weed, prostitution is not allowed. In Holland one needs to be 16 to drink, 18 to drive, smoking weed is allowed, prostitution is allowed. How does Light wish to judge people that live by another set of rules which differs from his own? Applying his own set of rules onto a society where he does not live is unjust, applying his set of rules to the whole world is no different than oppression or a dictatorship, because it is only based on the perspective of one person.
To judge
Everybody has a right to judge, this is not the problem. These are your own thoughts and everybody has a right to them. Yet to sentence, is another story. A judge appointed by the court has this right given to him. The courts (as the story goes) represents the collective will of the people, the collective interests, which symbolizes the judgment of individuals by the whole of sociality. (if only that dream was true) A person off the street does not have right, the protagonist does not have that right. But I'm sure the protagonist will try to justify this actions later on in the story by telling himself that the death note was given to him by fate/god in order to judge. I can only hope that he gets judged by the powers that be after he has corrupted himself beyond redemption.
ThisIsDream
2006-10-31, 10:28
Think like this
-Laws = Created by human being. < that is the fact.
What kind of human Being create laws?
-intelligence, smart, powerful, authority people (no matter how many ppl they are still Human being)
-Yagami Raito = Human being
-Yagami Raito is smart, intelligence, well planned.
-Yagami Raito has the Death note - powerful, authority
-Yagami Raito setting Laws
Just out of curiosity, who out here that opposes Kira's ideas is a christian? (cause as far as I see it now, your these two are exactly the same)
edit: I need to rewrite this before someone gets the wrong idea.
Christianity is a joke to me, but I respect the faith and I do not wish to offend, the holy bible is an assembly of the gospels written by the disciples of Jesus, some parts were left out because they didn't fit with the believe system. One of the parts that was left out was where it said that in the end, end of time, when all souls are split between hell and heaven, the souls in heaven will take pity on the souls in hell and will pray to god to show mercy on those in hell. This will result in god opening the gates of heaven and the emptying of hell. It would imply that there is no real reason to be good or evil, which is why it was left out of the bible.
^_Usagi_^
2006-10-31, 10:42
Christianity is a joke,
even though I might share your view, not everyone does.
Where di you get this "left out part"?
It can be found in the uncut version of the Book of Revelation. I'll see if I can dig up the link.
Just out of curiosity, who out here that opposes Kira's ideas is a christian? (cause as far as I see it now, your these two are exactly the same)
You seriously don't want to continue this discussion.. ;) :)
It's too.. volatile.. :D
And BTW, it's against the rules.
^_Usagi_^
2006-10-31, 11:08
You seriously don't want to continue this discussion..
It's too.. volatile..
And BTW, it's against the rules.
somebody just need to ruin my fun :)
I'll stop it when you tell me what volatile means. heh.
But I was being curios without the insultive side, but actualy wanted people to question whether Kira & xian God is any dif (besides one failing... or is it both?...)
Going off topic
There are a couple of huge differences. God is an omnipotent being, which means he sees all sides, so he can fairly judge because he knows everything. God can not only destroy but also create, he can undo what he has done if he changes his mind.
Its a complex issue, personally I think that no human has a moral ground high enough to kill anyone, no matter what, yet I would find impossible to not use the Death Note if it ever falls in my hands, Im almost sure we all have our list of people the world would be better without, as much as I would feel terrible about it, Im willing to do it, at the very least, the people I care about would be in a better world, its a price fair enough in my eyes..
I agree partially with you, I never supported the ideals of Killing the criminals as a way of punishment. But I don’t think Humans has the right to kill because the crimes others have committed, no matter how bad it was.
So even if Lights reasons are god intentioned, I don’t agree with the approach he has on the matter.
One thing i want to ask Light, "Will u be able to kill your sister if she becomes a criminal?" Since her sister is the most important person to him.
I think he made it clear in Episode 2 that he kill his family if necessarily, So I don’t think he would hesitate to Kill his sister if she became what he is trying to get rid of.
SoldierOfDarkness
2006-10-31, 12:12
He's targeting criminals that are already in the slammer.. what good does it do..
If they were criminals from the outside it would be all heroic and such but because they're locked in they're cells serving time.. it's just mass murder..
Really?
The guy who was holding those kids hostages wasn't exactly in the slammer. Neither was that bank robber who later died. Then there was also that thug who was trying to rape that girl.
I agree though that he became drunk with his power though. Though the question remains whether or not the good people would've died if they had not targeted him. A docile spiderl does not strike if it is not harmed.
Just out of curiosity, who out here that opposes Kira's ideas is a christian? (cause as far as I see it now, your these two are exactly the same)
Not even close. Say if God/Jesus was doing the death notes he would never EVER target innocent people who opposed him. Actually I'm not even sure if he would ever do something on this magnitude. NOTE: I mean in relation to Death Note.
If you want to relate to real life, I doubt anyone would actually say that some guy was responsible for this "unknown" deaths and be able to catch him.
^_Usagi_^
2006-10-31, 12:35
Say if God/Jesus was doing the death notes he would never EVER target innocent people
But he did order the Israelites to destroy the other nations. I repeat DESTROY, no matter if kids or women (especially women should be killed) (+he also punished Israelites if they actually left people alive). Ya sure they might have been pretty bad & sinful, but NOT ALL (if we just take little children for example)! It's as when God punished the descendands (basically innocent, unless getting idiot parents is your fault) of a king because he sinned but not from him.
God caries out his justice, so does Raito. Ya sure God is an all powerful being with foreseeing & etc (though I doubt this in some way or otherwise he would have know everything that happened up until now; in my view, no offences please, he either likes to see people squirm - implying he's a sadist; or he was extremely bored so created a world which he already knew would be messed up)
Funny, wasn't Raito also BORED in the 1st chapter.
Somebody say stop, cause I'm starting to turn this into a religious debate. grrr
ThisIsDream
2006-10-31, 13:31
But he did order the Israelites to destroy the other nations. I repeat DESTROY, no matter if kids or women (especially women should be killed) (+he also punished Israelites if they actually left people alive). Ya sure they might have been pretty bad & sinful, but NOT ALL (if we just take little children for example)! It's as when God punished the descendands (basically innocent, unless getting idiot parents is your fault) of a king because he sinned but not from him.
God caries out his justice, so does Raito. Ya sure God is an all powerful being with foreseeing & etc (though I doubt this in some way or otherwise he would have know everything that happened up until now; in my view, no offences please, he either likes to see people squirm - implying he's a sadist; or he was extremely bored so created a world which he already knew would be messed up)
Funny, wasn't Raito also BORED in the 1st chapter.
Somebody say stop, cause I'm starting to turn this into a religious debate. grrr
Nice, yesterday I was trying to use some religion's example such as Bible, but I couldnt give specific detail in the manga thread. In the Bible I only remeber the about but not the Detail.
After Jesus die on the Cross, God shooting Fire Balls from the sky to kill everyone (Some people are the doing their job like The FBI Agent, But the point is if those people really recognize the him, they would even abandon their Job, Duty to worship JEsus.)
Light kun kill people who are trying to catch//stop//kill him. He is not going to kill Everyone in the world who are oppose him.
- he realizes, that people need time to accept Kira, and doesn't force the fact that Kira won the battle against L upon the public masses. He wanted the people to slowly accept that Kira was right, that his world was indeed the better one. I mean he could have just said "L lost. I, Kira am the ruler of the world, and you all must obey my rule: all criminals die." That would instill fear among other things, but he didn't do that and gave time to the people to accept his ideals. Whether they accept is another thing, but the point is, he said instead "I, Kira exist, and am delivering justice by killing all criminals. I will save the good people. L may still be after me, but wait and see, as I continue delivering justice, the world will be a better place. Slowly, you all will be rooting for Kira and not L". That was why, even though L lost, he continued relaying the fact that L was still alive.
Thanks for quoting me, ThisIsDream, but the thing you quoted is from the manga thread...and I'm sure that quote contains spoilers...you might want to fix that
One thing i want to ask Light, "Will u be able to kill your sister if she becomes a criminal?" Since her sister is the most important person to him. Well if Light doesn't kill her, would that mean Light is harbouring a criminal? Wouldn't that also be wrong? Because then there is justice only for some people and not for others...I mean where is the justice for the victims of her sister is she was a criminal? Another question is if Light's father discovers that Light is Kira, what would his father do? His father is on the side of the law ("justice"), and considering the stuff Light has done, he would no doubt be executed. So if his father turns him in, Light will be killed. But Light is his own son, his own flesh and blood. What would his fater do, save his son or take a hard stance and turn Light in knowing full well he will be executed? Kinda reminds me of the hunter x hunter question, "your mother and wife are held by hostages. you can only save one. which do you save?" where there is no "right" answer.
ThisIsDream
2006-10-31, 14:10
Thanks for quoting me, ThisIsDream, but the thing you quoted is from the manga thread...and I'm sure that quote contains spoilers...you might want to fix that
Well if Light doesn't kill her, would that mean Light is harbouring a criminal? Wouldn't that also be wrong? Because then there is justice only for some people and not for others...I mean where is the justice for the victims of her sister is she was a criminal? Another question is if Light's father discovers that Light is Kira, what would his father do? His father is on the side of the law ("justice"), and considering the stuff Light has done, he would no doubt be executed. So if his father turns him in, Light will be killed. But Light is his own son, his own flesh and blood. What would his fater do, save his son or take a hard stance and turn Light in knowing full well he will be executed? Kinda reminds me of the hunter x hunter question, "your mother and wife are held by hostages. you can only save one. which do you save?" where there is no "right" answer.
Yea that exactly what I thought
I dont know why ppl hate Light, look he is just defending himself. May be he did many cruel things during that, but I am sure Light is the absolute right type person to be God in that "Kira World". You cant be mercy, or emotional. It will only create unfair and u will get defeat by that.
Going off topic
There are a couple of huge differences. God is an omnipotent being, which means he sees all sides, so he can fairly judge because he knows everything. God can not only destroy but also create, he can undo what he has done if he changes his mind.
Actually, it is not off topic. The word "God" did mentioned in Death note, so we gotta know the definition of "GoD" first. Again, different point of views, what is the definition of GoD to everyone?
It doesnt matter what is moral or not. Light sets the new morals and ethics and he knows this. Which makes him so damn scary. For now he is testing the Death Note and seeing what works and what doesn work. Of course some of the things he needs to try out are unethical. But the thing that I dont get is this, yes Ive noticed a few people that this world dont need. And Im talking major scum bags like Castro and so on. But I dont think I could use the Death Note to rid the world of this garbage. So what I dont understand is How Light can use it so trivialy. He did have a mildde breakdown once he learnd that it was for real, but he got over that fairly quickly and he even takes pleasure in useing it. This kid who is no older than I am may be a genius but he truly does have some issues.
Again, different point of views, what is the definition of GoD to everyone?
My definition would be, the collective of higher consciousness of all in the universe, basically one huge entity which we are all a part of, yet don't know.
The protagonist
This Light guy has the most simplistic idea about the world, it would show that he is one of those people who is so weak and cowardly that they have to cower behind the law in order to feel save and security. Seeing the law as some absolute guide, rather than the joke it really is. A world without crime would be perfect? We'll still get all the natural disasters, where people die and property gets destroyed. Perfect world? Nope. I can go on a killing spree and not be a criminal. I simply have to enlist in the army. I can sell weed and not be a criminal, I simply have to go to Holland. Perfect world? Nope. It takes more than a world free of crime for it to be perfect. I think he is trying to make a better world, not a perfect world...that's a big difference, and a perfect world is not really possible for the reasons you mentioned. I think Light is thinking of a world perfect in the sense that there is no crime, but not perfect in that there won't be deaths from natural disasters and the like. I think Light's goal is to make people be afraid of committing any crimes...someone could go on a killing spree if they are not afraid of being killed by Kira. But if a criminal values their lives, they wouldn't go on the killing spree you mentioned...I think that was what Light was getting at. Of course, for the people who don't care about being killed....well, fear won't stop them from committing more crimes. He is working towards a "better" world, doesn't mean he will really create it. Reducing crime to the extent that crime almost never happens is his goal I think. (And I don't think he is hiding behind the law...if anything he is using and taking advantage of the law and every person around him to his advantage to achieve his goal of creating his "better" world)
And this talk about God....eh, Light is not God, but Kira his public facade is supposed to be a God-like figure that delivers justice. God and God-like is pretty different to me. Even then Light who pretends to be Kira (this God of Justice) is still human and so will make mistakes. Besides, who's to say that gods can't make mistakes...Kira may attempt to only kill criminals...but he might still kill people who are innocent. In the same way, the judge and jury can make mistakes about people and say an innocent is guilty.
In the end, no one has the right to judge who is "guilty" or who is "innocent" as someone said before since values differ from person to person and from place to place, and likewise the same can be said about who is a "criminal" and who isn't. But if no one does that, if no one judges, then we will have a society without laws...since there will be no criminals and no innocent people. If there are no laws, there may be chaos and everyone can do whatever they want...even if laws are imperfect, arguably, they are still necessary to ensure order. A lesser evil if you will.
Kikaifan
2006-10-31, 18:24
It's funny for you to mention Castro, when Light is the epitome of the violent revolutionary; he and those who attempt to reforge society in the crucible of war and dispose of all those who oppose the new order are doing pretty much the same thing. He's just less traditional in his methods. And somehow his methods and arrogance, lack of sacrifice combined with absolute belief in both his ability to realize his ends and the righteousness of doing so make him especially repugnant to me.
ThisIsDream
2006-10-31, 18:39
Just a Suggestion. Since the topic - Morality in Death Note? Do the ends justify the means? I think it would be better for people who have read the whole series to judge. If you have only read a lil or half then judge the morality or some characters it might not be a good thing. And when other people reply it they might use some examples from the series to support their point which u havent read yet.
Deathkillz
2006-10-31, 19:05
Light thinks that he is doing the right thing in his own opinion but inreality who is he to judge people? by killing off criminals, light himself has become tainted...its like yea light can judge people...but who is going to be the one to judge light? God? then one can also argue who is the one to judge God? and so on in an endless cycle...
tbh what goes around comes around (twice as hard in some cases) and its better to leave things like fate/destiny to judge the outcome...by breaking this chain and intentionally killing off criminals Light is becoming erm..."evil?" he might be doing the world some good but he is hurting himself...hence "he who uses the death note cannot go to either heaven or hell"
this leads to L...so far all we know about him is that hes a detective...but good or bad? naturally he is catching criminals which is a good thing but is he using underhanded tactics that sacrafices people's lives? that we dont know yet...
Matt Soulblade
2006-10-31, 19:27
IMO, getting read of evil is a stupid thing. If evil is destroyed then "good" actions will no be able to be recognized, any action would be an action, just that. A world cant exist without good and evil.
But.
I think that the end ALWAYS justify the means. However Raito is killing people, maybe some of them deserved it (yes I know that most of you would think that killing people is always, no matter what, wrong, but I will leave this as a posibility), and I dont think there is an end that could justify a mass murder, even a perfect world.
In fact, I fear the posibility of a perfect world.
I think that humans exist to perfect themselves, but then, what is "perfection"? God? WTF is god????? You dont know what a god is, you just guess what it is. So what when we get perfection? We will dissapear of course. We will not have anything else to do, we are perfect, we already did everything.
But again, we dont know what a perfect world is. Raito thinks he knows that, and he's working to change the world.
I may disagree with Raito's methods and with his ideal, but if I had the oportunity to change the world, I would certainly go for it.
Rheinhard
2006-10-31, 23:00
It's funny for you to mention Castro, when Light is the epitome of the violent revolutionary; he and those who attempt to reforge society in the crucible of war and dispose of all those who oppose the new order are doing pretty much the same thing. He's just less traditional in his methods. And somehow his methods and arrogance, lack of sacrifice combined with absolute belief in both his ability to realize his ends and the righteousness of doing so make him especially repugnant to me.
An excellent point, you beat me to what I was going to write about w/r/to Castro.
But to further elaborate the Castro (and by extension, many oppressive regimes) connection: I am sure most people here only think of Castro and Cuba how they are today; a backward country without a free press where one man exerts an untrammeled power which cannot be limited by any action of the people under his rule. But look at history and see how Castro started: he led a rebellion against a very corrupt and brutish dictator (Batista) who had the support of the US government because Batista at least allowed US corporation more or less free reign to do as they liked in Cuba. Castro's revolutionaties followed Communism because they saw the injustices against the common people of Cuba by this untrammeled corporate power allied with police state authority. In their view, the ideal of Communism "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" represented the ideal and just organizing principle of society. (Admit it, it does sound nice, doesn't it? Many people guess that that quote is from Jesus, when asked about its origin.) But it goes wrong when the leaders, no matter how high their idealism, insist that only they know the right way and things must be done according to their will. In the end the old cliche about "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true. And in Cuba we see where this has degenerated to.
This is true of so many other examples. Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but look at Nazi Germany. We see Hitler's ideology as the epitome of evil, but in his own view he was doing good. In his twisted view, he really believed that Jews were at the root of all of Germany's and the world's problems. So if they could only be gotten rid of, society would be peaceful and prosperous. Isn't that the ideal of justice?
Look at the Soviet Union. The Bolshevik revolution was an uprising of the common peasant Serfs against an absolutist Russian monarchy and aristocracy that had brutally opressed them for generations. Again, they saw the concentration of wealth and power in an elite few nobles as the root of the evil that was done to the serfs, and so the obvious counterweight would be to make sure that no one could accumulate so much wealth. Again, in their view the answer to this was communism, that the private accumulation of wealth, and the power that accompanies it, must be outlawed. Accomplish this "just" theoretical goal, however, in practice meant the arrest and murder of people who had large accumulations of wealth and land, or who would support the return of the old regime. To carry out such purges and protect the revolution against those who would overthrow it, more power was accumulated in the hands of Communist Party leaders, culminating in the dictatorship of Josef Stalin, who saw any threat (real or imagined) as a danger to the state which needed to be eliminated. So millions of peasant farmers who resided outside his control in the countryside had to be rounded up and put on state run farms where they could be monitored. Military and party leaders who might question his policies were to be eliminated, because he alone would guarantee the security of the Soviet Union and the success of the Revolution.
The same kind of thing is true in revolutionary France, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Islamic theocracies like Iran, and on and on. It is always, always, in the name of the highest ideals of justice that the worst crimes are committed: ideals that are so high and noble that they can only be reached by standing on mountains of dead children.
Now look at Light Yagami. (to get back to the topic) Now I've only seen the first 4 episodes subbed and never read the manga, so I can only draw conclusions based on that. But by the end of episode 4 Light is planning to kill the FBI agent that has been tailing him: a man who has committed no crime, and who probably has a wife and family. Why? Because Light is bringing justice to the world, and only he shall decide what is right, and that ideal is too important to let anyone else interfere with. Also earlier, he killed the false L on the TV broadcast without knowing anything about the person. The phony was said to be a condemned murder, but for all Light knew this man could also have a family, and was working in his own way toward what he saw as justice. When anyone has an unassailable power, no matter how good their intentions, it is very very dangerous.
I have thought of this question with regard to other anime and fantasy as well. Often I've heard people muse "Wouldn't it be cool if we had alchemy like FMA?" or "It would be great to be a wizard like Harry Potter!" I immediately react that both these things would be disasters for a very simple reason: in both these cases it seems that people endowed with these magic/alchemic abilities have them from birth. In Harry Potter world, it doesn't matter how hard you work or study, if you're born a "muggle" you will never have magical ability. It's a little less clear for FMA, but it doesn't seem to me that, say, Sheska the librarian could go off and gain alchemic ability just by studying. Sheska has read every alchemy book in the State Library, so shouldn't she be able to do at least as much alchemy as Ed and Al in the start of the series? Yet she doesn't. It seems that alchemic ability is something you're born with.
And if that's the case, then a world where people have these powers is one where people would be saddled with a natural aristocracy more absolute and pernicious than the worst of the Russian nobility. As with the Ishbalans, if you were a member of a group of "undesirables" in such a world, you would have no recourse to protect your most basic rights if you didn't have alchemic or magic powers. People often ignorantly bash science saying "Science gives us the atom bomb, or global warming!" But anyone can become a scientist or engineer, or a leader in our democracy, if they are willing to study and work hard enough. So any group that feels its rights are being threatened have a recourse to push back.
It is this ability of people to "push back" that prevents the worst abuses of power. But how can anyone "push back" against Light Yagami? Even if his motives (stop crime) may seem good, he is in the end human, and therefore fallible. Can we be sure that all the people he has killed are guilty? How many people on death row in the USA have been released thanks to the development of DNA evidence that proves their innocence years after their initial convictions? If they had been executed (by lethal injection or by Death Note) it would not be possible to recitfy this injustice. How would one appeal a death sentence by Kira? There is no way to ring up and say "Hey, they've got the wrong guy in this case!" And if his plan to kill that FBI agent continues, then likely anybody who tried to rise up and say publicly that Kira had gotten the wrong man would certainly be kacked too, for the crime of instilling doubt in the minds of the public about the honor and justice being served by Kira.
In the end Kira poses a far greater threat than anything he is acting against. In the end he will likely have to kill more and more people who might question his actions publicly or who are trying to stop him. There is a reason that our founders tried to set up system of checks and balances and the rule of law instead of the rule of men: no one person or branch of government should be able to attain this kind of unassailable power.
That's why it seems to me that the most likable character in this show so far is Ryuk. :D
AvianWing
2006-10-31, 23:02
Somebody say stop, cause I'm starting to turn this into a religious debate. grrr
Stop. You're playing with fire here. No more religious context here. None. Nothing whatsoever. I can see where you are coming from, but talking about religion isn't the purpose of this author, this thread, or this forum in general. Remember, if people are willing to kill over religion, it has the power to arouse strong emotions.
Well, let me take a very very cynical approach here using statistics.
By the logic of human mortality, killing is evil. So, what exactly does killing do? It reduces the number of human beings. So, are unmarried people evil? After all, they didn't give birth to their fair share of children, constituting the logic that the number of human beings is reduced. Then, let's say that no one is ever killed and not a single population control policy is enforced. The population on earth booms so much that the whole world dies of global warming.
12 million people died in World War II, an event to which we call atrocity. But when every family produces an extra child, the birth can easily exceed the death. Moreover, Europe gains greater stability (discounting the cold war tension) and many people are introduced with this concept called democracy.
What am I getting here?
So, can Light bring about stability of the world with the sacrifice of a few thousand? In the long haul, doesn't he save more lives? That's all theory in his head, anyway. But he endeavors to change the world with good intent.
Do you spite a child who tries to bake a cake on mother's day but ends up burning it? the kid tried, even if he wasted the ingredients to bake the cake.
Eh? This topic is posted about the anime, when we're only on episode 5? Well, no real issue. So it's just a general morality topic? Not intended to discuss whether the characters are moral or whether their actions are moral, particularly? The latter is certainly discussable at this time, I suppose. I'm amazed that people have (well, a person has) already made statements equivocating a belief related to morality in Death Note to a religious belief, maybe that paranoia isn't unfounded. o.o
Anyway. I've considered this so much that it's all become too complex for me to analyze in a way that satisfies me. :eyespin: So, I'll just write about the United States criminal justice system, for now.
Evidence-based police analyses show no connection between the death penalty and deterrence of crime. In fact, "brutalization" and "resetting" are terms to describe how the crime rate may rise for a period of time after capital punishment is administered.
Deterrence requires that the criminal weigh the pros and cons of committing the crime with the consequence which is intended to deter the crime in mind and then make a deliberate decision to commit the crime.
What's the reality? A majority of capital crimes are between people who know one another, many of those are spontaneous and hardly premeditated, and therefore with a severe likelihood that a suspect will be immediately indentified. Detectives clear 86% of such cases (immediate suspect identification) but only 12% of those in which one is not (identified). Murderers who premeditate and thus are subject to deterrence will not be as easily identified as those who don't, and if so will have an 88% chance of not getting anywhere near the death penalty. Not only that, criminals wait an average of 8 years on death row, and the appeals process causes only a tiny fraction of those sentenced to actually... die.
Applied to Death Note, all criminals who commit a crime worthy of media sensationalism are subject to the possibility of immediate and uncontested punishment (that is, Kira's divine retribution).
If Kira were to obtain the cooperation of the police, then he would also have access to cases not sensationalized, and would be to then, for instance, kill absolutely anyone who commits or is suspected to commit a certain type of crime. That certainty, when weighed in the criminal mind, would have a much more significant deterring effect than capital punishment as it currently exists.
In particular,
Kira only kills those who premeditate and who did not commit their crime out of desperation. Therefore, he wisely kills those who are subject to deterrence.
Kira also desires that the police one day of their own volition decide to cooperate with him, in which case he would have the power to do as I described above.
By the way, note that Light is killing criminals also because he believes it's justice to kill the rotten, not just because of the deterring effect. :cool: Light's moral belief it is not that it's enough to protect the innocent. From Light's point of view, the murders are in themselves just. However, he does believe the act of murder is immoral. Therefore, he is sinning in order to exact justice--which he recognizes. (Probably no one understood this distinction, unfortunately.)
Do you spite a child who tries to bake a cake on mother's day but ends up burning it? the kid tried, even if he wasted the ingredients to bake the cake.
I spite the kid that bakes his mother a birthday cake using the blood of other people. :p
To me, Light crossed the line the second he decided that he was somehow worthy to arbirate the life and death of others, and that even the innocent were expendable in his desire not to be caught. Light fears death for himself, but has no mercy towards others.
And before someone brings up that our justice system judges people, there is a difference between twelve people (in America, my frame of reference) and a single person. It is more difficult to get twelve people to agree on something than it is for a single person to decide whether someone is right or wrong.
Of course, Light's idea for utopia would never work. The odds are against Kira noticing you, and humans are a gambling lot...
hitokirigirl
2006-11-01, 14:32
I think mentioning God and religious stuff are a bit off-topic : the deal is to think if human beings have right to kill people...otherwise It would be endless.
Human is the most perfect being on this world, and yet the most evil. I don't want to give examples, but you sure know many crimes that are beyond imagination (strangely commited by men, not women...)
Anyway, if I had the Death note, I just couldn't use it.
Not because of all the morality. Just because death is the nicest punishment to criminals, rapists, robbers,terrorists, and so on........
Hey, does someone hold the Torture Note ? :heh: :heh: :heh: :heh:
AvatarST
2006-11-01, 14:46
Personally, I think some people like rapists and murderers just deserve to die, but I doubt I'd be able to use the Death Note. I wouldn't feel like I have the right to sentence even the most horrible scumbags, and I wouldn't want to carry with a burden for the rest of my life for wasting my time with that kind of "people".
In any case, the current justice system just has those people locked up. I say that, hiding behind the excuse that it's meant to "reform" these people, the punishment is quite barbaric too; it removes them from society by taking their freedom. Death does the same, except there's no coming back from that, of course.
Justice judges and sentences people based on its power, and that's exactly what Light is doing. Justice without power is meaningless. If Yagami Light is the most powerful person in the world, then he is justice. People who represent justice are a pathetic number compared to the whole of society, and they certainly don't represent everyone's ideals. How can there ever be a true, perfect definition of justice if there's absolutely no way to represent everyone?
By the way, hitokirigirl, you can choose the cause of their death, so you could make them die in a fire or something nice like that.
If Yagami Light is the most powerful person in the world, then he is justice.
I won't go to deep into it, but by your statement, a dictator, a tyrant can also be just.
Forcing his/her rule, his/her image of a better world, onto the people in a country, under the threat of physical harm or death is what a dictator/tyrant does.
hitokirigirl
2006-11-01, 15:42
By the way, hitokirigirl, you can choose the cause of their death, so you could make them die in a fire or something nice like that.
Yes, true, forgot about that....But it would be temporary torture though. Something lasting a few times would be better, don't you think ? :heh:
AvatarST
2006-11-01, 16:06
I won't go to deep into it, but by your statement, a dictator, a tyrant can also be just.
Forcing his/her rule, his/her image of a better world, onto the people in a country, under the threat of physical harm or death is what a dictator/tyrant does.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying I like it, but whoever has the most power can make his decisions "justice", as they are the ones with the ability to enforce what they want. Right now, the flawed (but the least flawed in history, perhaps?) judicial and legislative systems are "justice", because it's the system that is currently in power. Of course, it doesn't do a perfect job, judges aren't perfect, and neither are laws, but humans aren't perfect.
The current system also limits people's freedom under the threat of being locked up or the capital punishment.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-01, 16:52
If Yagami Light is the most powerful person in the world, then he is justice.
I won't go to deep into it, but by your statement, a dictator, a tyrant can also be just.
Forcing his/her rule, his/her image of a better world, onto the people in a country, under the threat of physical harm or death is what a dictator/tyrant does.
Yagami Raito didnt FORCE people, he understand that people have 2 faces. Yagami Raito also understand that there are people who are oppiste him, he is not going to kill them, he wants people slowly to accept the "ideal world".
Yagami Raito only kill those people who are opposite him and willing to risk their life to stop "kira" the "ideal world". IN that case deaths are inevitable.
Let me quote this thing again
- he realizes, that people need time to accept Kira, and doesn't force the fact that Kira won the battle against L upon the public masses. He wanted the people to slowly accept that Kira was right, that his world was indeed the better one. I mean he could have just said "L lost. I, Kira am the ruler of the world, and you all must obey my rule: all criminals die." That would instill fear among other things, but he didn't do that and gave time to the people to accept his ideals. Whether they accept is another thing, but the point is, he said instead "I, Kira exist, and am delivering justice by killing all criminals. I will save the good people. L may still be after me, but wait and see, as I continue delivering justice, the world will be a better place. Slowly, you all will be rooting for Kira and not L". That was why, even though L lost, he continued relaying the fact that L was still alive.
Yagami Raito didnt FORCE people, he understand that people have 2 faces. Yagami Raito also understand that there are people who are oppiste him, he is not going to kill them, he wants people slowly to accept the "ideal world".
And if they don't? I bet it doesn't matter does it, he will just keep on doing what he is doing.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-01, 17:40
And if they don't? I bet it doesn't matter does it, he will just keep on doing what he is doing.
If they dont, it doesnt mean Yagami will kill them. How many people are satisfied with the Law todaY ? What Yagami Raito's doing are just same as police, L.
L, police - Criminal Rate Drop - a ideal world
How? Put them in Jail, No Freedom, or sometimes Death penalty
Yagami Raito - Criminal Rate drop - a ideal world
How? Death penalty
Conclusion - Which one are more effective?
hitokirigirl
2006-11-01, 18:19
If they dont, it doesnt mean Yagami will kill them. How many people are satisfied with the Law todaY ? What Yagami Raito's doing are just same as police, L.
L, police - Criminal Rate Drop - a ideal world
How? Put them in Jail, No Freedom, or sometimes Death penalty
Yagami Raito - Criminal Rate drop - a ideal world
How? Death penalty
Conclusion - Which one are more effective?
True that in the last eps, that police officer (whatever his name) said that criminality dropped a bit. It means criminals, or at least potential ones are afraid to die from that invisible hand...
However, while this is an anime, I have strong doubts that method will work in real life...And undoubtly fear and paranoia would set up, perhaps something similar to Staline time, when everyone were spying each other, and if wrong, was sent to the end of Siberia.
If they dont, it doesnt mean Yagami will kill them. How many people are satisfied with the Law todaY ? What Yagami Raito's doing are just same as police, L.
L, police - Criminal Rate Drop - a ideal world
How? Put them in Jail, No Freedom, or sometimes Death penalty
Yagami Raito - Criminal Rate drop - a ideal world
How? Death penalty
Conclusion - Which one are more effective?
I wonder how I should explain this to you, without insulting your view of the world.
You know, I can't believe you are comparing what the police does, to what a murderer such as Light does. Even if the system is broken, the police is not above the law, they don't just go out and start executing criminals. (well some do, until they get caught and put in jail themselves) Light thinks he is above the law, his judgment is right and he can kill anybody he sees fit to die. I really wonder what would happen if someone would have taken the death note away from Light and given him a gun, would he still do the things he did with the death note.
If killing people for committing even the smallest crimes was such a good idea every crime would be punishable by death. But only in the most rare and extreme cases are people put to death. You see it doesn't matter if every crime would have a death penalty, people would still commit them. People are still driven to break laws by society. This is the very core of the problem and why laws and the judgment system is so broken. Laws and the judgment system only deal with the symptoms of a problem instead of the root of the problem. The symptoms being crime, the root being a whole bunch of things which range from poverty to greed. If every crime carried a death penalty, crime wouldn't disappear, criminals would just become more desperate before committing a crime and more determined to not get caught. Crimes would become more deadly and more innocent people would get hurt. Not a very effective way to make an ideal world.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-01, 18:49
You know, I can't believe you are comparing what the police does, to what a murderer such as Light does. Even if the system is broken, the police is not above the law, they don't just go out and start executing criminals. (well some do, until they get caught and put in jail themselves) Light thinks he is above the law, his judgment is right and he can kill anybody he sees fit to die. I really wonder what would happen if someone would have taken the death note away from Light and given him a gun, would he still do the things he did with the death note.
Actually, I am not saying police will go out and executing. Police (following the law) are just going to catch those criminals, and the penatly things will judge by the court or some people (Human being) same as Yagami Raito.
Law - Criminal Rate Drop - a ideal world
How? Put them in Jail, No Freedom, or sometimes Death penalty
If killing people for committing even the smallest crimes was such a good idea every crime would be punishable by death. But only in the most rare and extreme cases are people put to death. You see it doesn't matter if every crime would have a death penalty, people would still commit them. People are still driven to break laws by society. This is the very core of the problem and why laws and the judgment system is so broken. Laws and the judgment system only deal with the symptoms of a problem instead of the root of the problem. The symptoms being crime, the root being a whole bunch of things which range from poverty to greed. If every crime carried a death penalty, crime wouldn't disappear, criminals would just become more desperate before committing a crime and more determined to not get caught. Crimes would become more deadly and more innocent people would get hurt. Not a very effective way to make an ideal world.
That is what the law today is like, but not everyone in the world are satisfied with it. Just like there are people who think the law in "kira world" is bad.
Shabazza
2006-11-01, 18:57
There would be no judgement if there were no crimes.
There would be no law if there were no criminals.
Light (the one from the bulb :>) can't exist without darkness and otherwise. The "perfect" world Light is fighting for can't exist in human terms.
I don't care about the morality in Death Note because there IS no end to Light's way of justifying others.
Klashikari
2006-11-01, 19:03
^ yup, and this is were Light was completely overwhelmed in his drunk state of power.
he was saying the same thing himself : humans are hopeless, tending to harm each other etc. (the very nature of the human to do anything, good or bad, depending on the POV)
this is such a irrational thinking to believe he will correct "the world" with his godlike power, though he knows himself that anyone can do any sin, depending of their life, situations, mental state yada yada.
he was not even wrong from the moment he killed the fake L, he was wrong at the second he aknowledge the power of the death note and just carries on the burden and the whole psychotic crusade.
While perfection may be unattainable, humans still aim for perfection. Light believes that he can make the world a better place, so he tries hard to make his ideal world a reality. I mean who doesn't want the world to be a better place? Why is wanting a better world irrational? It may be unachievable, but there is nothing wrong in trying to think that we can create the "perfect" world.
One thing to think about is, are all soldiers murderers if they kill another person on the battle field? A soldier may take the lives of many many people, so are they just mass-murderers? They are supposedly fighting for their country, but is that really an excuse? If they truly didn't want to kill, they didn't have to enlist in the army. Their enemies may be trying to take over their nation, but their enemies aren't necessarily trying to kill the solders in particular...so self-defense is arguably not a good reason for a soldier to kill another person. However, despite all that, I would think that most, if not all people would regard soldiers as "heroes" and not "murderers". Why is it OK for them to kill people then?
On the same note, consider the case, in medieval times, where the leader of a group of rebels overthrows an evil tyrant and becomes the new king. Under the evil tyrant, the country and its citizens were miserable, but under the rule of the rebel king, the country prospers and its citizens are happy. But the rebel had no choice but to kill the people protecting the evil tyrant in order to do so. The rebels make the country prosper so they're good...but they killed some people so they are evil. But if they didn't kill those people, more people would have suffered and died under the rule of the evil tyrant. If the rebels have the power to make the country a better place for its citizens, and don't do so because they don't want to kill someone, then aren't the rebels guilty of watching people suffer and evil live? Isn't that also evil to continue letting people suffer when you have the power to stop it? Aren't they a bit selfish if they don't do it because they think killing is wrong, despite the fact that it will, arguably bring greater good? I think this is what Light was getting at, when he decided that he was the one who was gonna do it for the sake of the innocent. I just don't think Light is as evil as many say he is, although the methods he uses are evil.
Anyways, I'd rather just sit and enjoy the show and not worry about morality issues. Forgot about the fact that Light's ideal won't work in real life, and remember that this is a just fictional story. It's not often you see a story like this due to the controversy it brings.
Klashikari
2006-11-01, 20:38
the problem in my eyes, is he would need to change the humans themself...
this is a real... child dream to think you can change the whole and complex human psyche with that tyrrany...
that's why, the laws are "human" justice were done (even if they are really loosely, because of the human nature itself) : an act can be "good" or "evil" depending on the point of view, context, culprit motive, etc.
on the battlefield, its the soldier duty to defend his affectation/land/country/the person he/she love/believe/etc.
that's why, it's really questionnable that Light would have any right to kill anyone, just because he has... the power ?!
no human has the "right" to kill in most case, there are indeed situations you can't overlook etc.
the main flaw with light : he thinks he can give divine punishment, though he is... human himself. whatever he thinks, he is just a silly eccentric human with a powerful book. the notebook just gives him the opportunity to gave power, but this doesn't give him any "above human" status. he can't be killed like any human, he can be (no) trusted/loved etc like any human. and indeed, he is not perfect.
thats the very point why i think Light has a ripped mental logic : it's completely flawful.
of course (and fortunately), it is fictionnal. but the fiction can be based on reality (with "if''s of course).
except the death note and the shinigame concept, DN is... well realistic.
talking is probably just some way to understand the personnality of the characters etc (some readers would see light as a brat, other as a genius etc). yet, it's interesting, right?
Though, if it's a child's dream...then people looking for world peace may also be living in a child's dream. If it is in the nature of humans to fight with one another, then the people seeking world peace are also seeking to change the "psyche" of humans, because true world peace is just not possible
For some soldiers, even for the sake of duty...does that free them of the fact that they will and have killed people. If it's duty, if it's wrong, they can still refuse to do it. If the know that it's wrong, and still obey that duty and kill...then they have crossed the line. If it's for duty, one might say that Light feels that it's his duty to do what he's trying to do for the sake of good people (like a soldier might feel like it's his/her duty to do it for his/her country).
That said, Light having power does give him an undeniable advantage over other people. And he does, arguably, have the power to change the world to his liking. And with that comes responsibility in seeing that world succeed that most people wouldn't want or have. He may not be "God", but he is a person with a lot of influence and power on how the world may turn out.
Light's plan to get rid of criminals for the ideal world is flawed, but then again, who can really claim an idea is really flawless? If humans aren't perfect, how can an imperfect human come with a perfect idea? If we wait for an idea to be perfect, nothing will be done. Light just took the initiative.
And yeah, I guess it's interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn't be writing all this. :heh:
ThisIsDream
2006-11-01, 23:17
Actually, I start to understand why people think Light is a bad guy.
We are all human being, and I think no human being has the "right" to kill an other human being, I think no human being has the "right" to put someone in jail, I think no human being has the "right" to execute an other human being, White people think Black people dont have the "right"
As I can see, "right" is something a human being set for an other human being. It might be better if Light is not a human being, may be a shinigami? OH wait, I think shinigami dont have the "right" to kill and I also think God dont have the "right" to send ppl to hell.
Conclusion, at this rate, no one can make the world better (or has the right to), because no one has the right to do .....
FatPianoBoy
2006-11-01, 23:57
In other words, having the ability to change the world gives you the right to do so? Interesting concept.
NoSanninWa
2006-11-01, 23:59
Unless I misunderstand, and I don't think I do, that is not what ThisIsDream is saying. The point of that post is that if someone has the power and desire, he has to take those rights for himself or else the world will never change.
In other words, having the ability to change the world gives you the right to do so? Interesting concept.Interesting observation. :heh:
Conclusion, at this rate, no one can make the world better (or has the right to), because no one has the right to do .....
...But if people in the past thought that, the world may very well be a very different place. Say, in the past slavery was very common, and was the norm. Was it wrong for someone to try to change the world to be a better place by saying that slavery was wrong? Did they not have the right to say that? If they don't have the right, how will the world change to a world without slavery if they can't do anything to change it?
There is no such thing as "right", as "right" differs from person to person, as well as from time to time. People can only do what they think is "right" in the place and time they are in.
I think mentioning God and religious stuff are a bit off-topic : the deal is to think if human beings have right to kill people...otherwise It would be endless.
Human is the most perfect being on this world, and yet the most evil. I don't want to give examples, but you sure know many crimes that are beyond imagination (strangely commited by men, not women...)
Anyway, if I had the Death note, I just couldn't use it.
Not because of all the morality. Just because death is the nicest punishment to criminals, rapists, robbers,terrorists, and so on........
Hey, does someone hold the Torture Note ? :heh: :heh: :heh: :heh:
I really dont want to be an ass here but... Why are you being stupid? Chooseing to be part of a religin or not is one of our biggest differences from animals. And as for not useing the Death Note because "death is too nice of a punishment..." you woulnd think like that if you or a family member were raped. You really must not be paying attention to the show because they say you can control how the person dies.
P.S. Hitokirigirl Im sorry if I'm echoing something some one else already said
hitokirigirl
2006-11-02, 02:59
I really dont want to be an ass here but... Why are you being stupid? Chooseing to be part of a religin or not is one of our biggest differences from animals. And as for not useing the Death Note because "death is too nice of a punishment..." you woulnd think like that if you or a family member were raped. You really must not be paying attention to the show because they say you can control how the person dies.
My, my, I'm really sorry to sound stupid to you, but learn that every human DOES NOT believe in God. And treating people who have no religion to be animals makes you nothing else but a fanatic, huh?
And I will repeat it again : even if the Note gives you to control the death, death is a sweet punishment, even if the death if horrible. Even if you die by torture, in the end it's still death, so some kind of escape. Staying alive and in an unbearable way is a method to make the criminal suffer and never forget what he has done.
NSW, as you thought, I think that thread won't last long...
Deathwing
2006-11-02, 03:28
I was rooting for L before he died because i beleve he was right
Light was insane, killing criminals is ok but when do you start to draw the line. Like Ryuuku said if u start killing people who you think have evil hearts you will end up the only one left. Apprently for Light killing innocent poeple that were on his trail was more important then killing the criminals he could have just let ray go believing he was innocent and keep killing criminals in secret but he just had to kill him and then L who was on his trail after that.
ok i won't lie im a christian and i do beleive that only god should decide who lives and who dies.
However i will draw a middle ground here for the people who dont think there is a god and say that even though circumstances cause death. Humans should not be able to control who lives and who dies its just too much of a power rush for some people and they will go trigger (or in this case pen) happy ex.light
You can argue what if it is a rightous human who will only kill criminals, but i dont think such a person exists who cant be corrupted by that much power
^_Usagi_^
2006-11-02, 06:01
Hey, does someone hold the Torture Note ?
haha.... feeling sadist today arent we...
this would be even crueler than killing them though... but Raito's aim was to "cleanse" the world , not to rehabilitate the bad guys... its faster
ThisIsDream
2006-11-02, 10:14
ok i won't lie im a christian and i do beleive that only god should decide who lives and who dies.
Nice example :) , like I said it might be better if Light is not a human being. There are always people who don't accept or recognize an other human being doing things. They will think we are all Human Being, we are all the same. Why would u have the "right" to do this or do that..............
Waiting for Non-Human Being to change the Human Being world.
No. Righto wanted to become a God. That's all there is to it. He's got a God Complex, all that talk about making the World a better place was to flaunt his power and create future 'worshippers'.
But, who knows. Death Notes are actually atrictly for a Shinigami's use, and I find that raher appropriate, seeing that they are like the Grim Reapers of the World. In human hands, under the possession of somebody who does not have any direct benefits from using the note, there are other wilder purposes to be found for the Note's use.
Deathwing
2006-11-02, 10:50
Nice example :) , like I said it might be better if Light is not a human being. There are always people who don't accept or recognize an other human being doing things. They will think we are all Human Being, we are all the same. Why would u have the "right" to do this or do that..............
Waiting for Non-Human Being to change the Human Being world.
Humans can change the world its just that i dont think a mass killing by somebody with a messiah complex is the right way to go about it. I should have made it more clear that the right im focusing on is the ablity to take human life so easily like light was able to do. You make some good points though.
hitokirigirl
2006-11-02, 12:40
haha.... feeling sadist today arent we...
this would be even crueler than killing them though... but Raito's aim was to "cleanse" the world , not to rehabilitate the bad guys... its faster
Me, a sadist, no :heh: :heh: :heh:
True that killing cleans the world faster, but it would be endless, and I doubt the Death Note has enough sheets for the coming centuries...
Wait, Ryuk managed to get 2 Death Notes : that punk must have some hidden stock :heh:
Darklightz
2006-11-02, 12:50
I think Ryuk said it best
"Light : I'll be using the Death Note to rid the world of all the bad people
Ryuk : Then you'll be the only bastard left?"
In this world there are as many ideal societies as there are people.Everyone thinks they have the best morality and that they know exactly how the world should work,and when different ideas collide there's conflict.
Strangely enough,Light's situation is very similar to what Bush is doing in Iraq.He sent the army,assuring them they would be greeted as liberators.But much like Light,Bush didn't stop there and kept fighting more "bad people" wich earned him the contempt or pretty much every other nation on earth.No matter how idealistic your vision is,if you start mass killing people,you are just a murderer.
AvatarST
2006-11-02, 15:02
If Kira did only kill rapists and murderers, I wouldn't have been against him.
The problem is that he didn't, though.
My, my, I'm really sorry to sound stupid to you, but learn that every human DOES NOT believe in God. And treating people who have no religion to be animals makes you nothing else but a fanatic, huh?
And I will repeat it again : even if the Note gives you to control the death, death is a sweet punishment, even if the death if horrible. Even if you die by torture, in the end it's still death, so some kind of escape. Staying alive and in an unbearable way is a method to make the criminal suffer and never forget what he has done.
NSW, as you thought, I think that thread won't last long...
Haha a fanatic? No thats why I said its the chocie of believing in a religon. And just to let you know I'm not getting worked up over the riligon part of the argument. I have more respect for people who through away the belife of a higher power altogether than anyone from any riligon. But riligon does play huge part in my reasoning on this hole death note thing. And almost everyone who do have a riligon believe that death is a seriouse punishment because how we act here determins where we go after death. And there are some crimes not even riligon can save you from.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-02, 16:34
In this Thread, for people who gonna keep saying Yagami Raito's action is wrong, he doesnt have the right to take other people lives, so he is a murderer, he is evil.
The answer will be this statement -
There are always people who don't accept or recognize an other human being doing things. They will think we are all Human Being, we are all the same. Why would u have the "right" to do this or do that..............
So Conclusion will be - Waiting for Non-Human Being to change the Human Being world.
"Right" problems
We are all human being, and I think no human being has the "right" to kill an other human being, I think no human being has the "right" to put someone in jail, I think no human being has the "right" to execute an other human being, White people think Black people dont have the "right"
As I can see, "right" is something a human being set for an other human being. It might be better if Light is not a human being, may be a shinigami? OH wait, I think shinigami dont have the "right" to kill and I also think God dont have the "right" to send ppl to hell.
Conclusion, at this rate, no one can make the world better (or has the right to), because no one has the right to do .....
There is no such thing as "right", as "right" differs from person to person, as well as from time to time. People can only do what they think is "right" in the place and time they are in.
"Law" which creating "right"
Think like this
-Laws = Created by human being. < that is the fact.
What kind of human Being create laws?
-intelligence, smart, powerful, authority people (no matter how many ppl they are still Human being)
-Yagami Raito = Human being
-Yagami Raito is smart, intelligence, well planned.
-Yagami Raito has the Death note - powerful, authority
-Yagami Raito setting Laws
For people who gonna keep saying the shinigami Ryuuku say " you will be the only bastard left".
It seem like people think Ryuuku is justice, is right. Anyway, Ryuuku doesnt know much or understand about human, and you take what he say seriously :heh:
For people who gonna say Yagami Raito cross the line of killing (innocent) people who are after him or (innocent)people who are opposite him.
The answer will be this -
Yagami Raito only kill those (innocent) people who are opposite him and also willing to risk their life to stop//catch//kill "kira" the "ideal world". IN that case deaths are inevitable.
For people who gonna say Yagami Raito use power and become a dictator and forcing people accept him.
The answer will be this -
Yagami Raito didnt FORCE people, he understand that people have 2 faces. Yagami Raito also understand that there are people who are oppiste him, he is not going to kill them, he wants people slowly to accept the "ideal world".
Even if they dont, it doesnt mean Yagami will kill them
For people who gonna say If Yagami Raito doesnt have the death note he will be a brat, nothing special etc....
The answer will be LOL, "If someone doesn't have this or have that, then he//she will not be the same" can apply to anyone or anything.
For people who gonna say the "Kira world" Yagami Raito gonna create is flaw and the way of his doing will never end.
The answer will be this-
Yagami Raito is not going to create a flawless, perfect world, he is going to create a "better world" with less criminals, Yagami Raito also understand there are crimes which will never end.
Impulsive Crimes and Murders will never stop occurring, but planned crimes and intenional malicious acts are starting to cease and will be gone.
For people who gonna compare Countries Vs Countries, Nations Vs Nations etc.. to Yagami Raito, it is a little bit different.
European taking other people lands, colonized areas, destroying other nationals' cultures, Hitler eliminating Jews, White people slaving different skin's colour people, a country invading another country for own benefits, Communist Vs Capitalism, Liberalism VS Conservative etc......... Compare to Yagami Raito eliminating "Criminals"
As you can see the differences
- First are a group of people (I am right) VS a group of people (I am right)
- Second are "Criminals" which are Everyone (or most ppl? Some may think Criminals are good who knows) in the world recognize as "Criminals" - People who are doing Bad, evil things. It is really hard and rare for Everyone to accept on one thing or come up with a same statement.
However, u can say is majority judge minority.
Ok now lets move on to the next step. Since "Criminals" exist, everyone will think what actions should take and it will be the penalty problems.
Some will say this crime should stay in the jail for 3 years, some say 4, some say stay in jail forever, some may even say kill them, torture them etc............What Yagami Raito is doing. Yagami Raito was killing major criminals, and yea he did kill some minor criminals, Yagami Raito is not perfect. May be we should find a "Perfect" human being to do this :)
(Note) : if u gonna come up with the "right" problems, please read earlier posts.)
AvatarST
2006-11-02, 17:34
Yagami Light also killed innocent people doing their job, like...
Ray Penbar.
Yagami Light also killed innocent people doing their job, like...
Ray Penbar.True, but as someone put it, Light was "damned if he did and damned if he didn't".
Again, think of this as a war between Kira and L. Both are fighting for control over the world. Innocent people are bound to get caught in the cross fire. Think of those people as L's soldiers who are doing their job to hunt and kill Kira. Kira is being attacked by enemy soldiers, even if those soldiers are doing their job, even if they are innocent, they are trying to kill Kira. And think, it was L who brought those innocent people into the battle.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-02, 19:54
Good point Neux - L who brought those innocent people into the battle.
And that is why the chef yagami said this is the situation L was waiting for - people who willing to risk their lives to aganist Kira.
Let me repeat myself again ^^
For people who gonna say Yagami Raito cross the line of killing (innocent) people who are after him or (innocent)people who are opposite him.
The answer will be this -
Yagami Raito only kill those (innocent) people who are opposite him and also willing to risk their life to stop//catch//kill "kira" the "ideal word". IN that case deaths are inevitable.
I've only seen the first episode, but it's already pretty clear where Light stands in regards to morality. Intent is pretty useless for determining whether an individual is performing ethical acts. Therefore morality should be determined by the actions of an individual rather than by his intent.
In episode 1, Light used the Death Note in three different situations:
A) When Light killed the first man, he didn't think that the Death Note would actually work, so there's no question of morality involved.
B) When Light killed the would-be rapist, he suspected that his act would kill, but he was still uncertain. This action can be more accurately described as an experiment. Thus, when he was witness to a rape attempt in progress, instead of trying to intervene or informing somebody, he merely used it as an opportunity to experiment! By the measures of just about all systems of morality, this would qualify as a callous disregard for the welfare of another human being.
C) Light killed hundreds of "criminals". This leads to two interesting observations:
1. Deliberately performing an act that leads to the death of another human, outside of a very few mitigating factors such as war or self-defence, is the very definition of murder. Light's killing of those criminals is morally equivalent to murder. In most systems of morality murder is one of least ethical acts that can be performed.
2. In just about all moral systems, people who commit crimes are supposed to be punished. However, it's also very important that the punishment fits the crime committed. To do otherwise is to subvert the very meaning of morality. It is highly unlikely that all of Light's victims deserved the punishment of murder. In this regards, Light's murders are extremely immoral.
More complex analyses can be done on Light's actions with regards to rights and responsibilities, and the like; but the conclusions won't change: Light acted very immorally in episode 1. Given the rest of his personality faults, it's unlikely that Light will grow any compassion, so I don't think that it's premature to anticipate his getting his just deserts.
Darklightz
2006-11-02, 23:24
True, but as someone put it, Light was "damned if he did and damned if he didn't".
I disagree.The Death Note is the perfect killing weapon,it leaves no trace of it's user.Therefore as long as the user himself doesn't create evidence of his crime,he's safe.If Light had spared Ling L Taylor,L would have had no clue where to search.
While I agree on a fundamental level that some criminals can't be reformed and death is the onyl way to deal with them,the problem remains,who can be the judge?No matter who does the judging,there will be injustice.
I disagree.The Death Note is the perfect killing weapon,it leaves no trace of it's user.Therefore as long as the user himself doesn't create evidence of his crime,he's safe.If Light had spared Ling L Taylor,L would have had no clue where to search.
While I agree on a fundamental level that some criminals can't be reformed and death is the onyl way to deal with them,the problem remains,who can be the judge?No matter who does the judging,there will be injustice.
I wouldn't say no clue. After all, L did notice the first guy that Light killed in order to see if the Death Note was real or not. It's just that it wouldn't have been as readily apparent to L if Light had stayed his hand.
As for the "damned if he did and damned if he didn't" comment, that was mine. However, that was directly aimed at the whole Ray Penbar situation. Basically, Light convinced himself that the longer he was under scrutiny, the larger the chance that he may somehow be connected to Kira somehow. Thus, he chose to act and take Ray out.
If he didn't act, he could have been watched for months, years, or maybe even for however long the Kira case remained unsolved. If he did act, the fact that he took out Ray, who was watching him, may cause him to come under suspicion even more. Hence the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" line.
If i remember correctly, the writer of death note was asked about this question in the volume 13 of the manga, "do you consider L good as the good guys, and light evil?" the answer he gives is "no, both of them should be consider evil since they used all the power in their hand for the personal goal, in the case of light, he want to use the death note to create a utopian society, where he is the god. In the case of L, he used all the method he have (including illegal ones) to catch kira, not because what he is doing is against the law, but because he want to prove he is smarter and better than light." and in the end he says "The only character who can be consider to be the good guys, is light's father."
Regardless of his intentions or motives, Light is a murderer. No ifs and buts. I might feel different if Light would actually consider his actions a burden, but he seems to rejoice in the fact. Power mad, I say. Next thing you know he'll be killing people that are bumping into him by accident, or for other petty reasons.
As for L, he's using all possible resources to try and catch a murderer. Can't really see the problem with that.
Yes. Whatever it is, Light killed people. L is correct in saying that Light's punishment is death.
When people say killing is wrong regardless of intention, and that that is murder no matter what. How about euthanasia? Someone who lives in pain and wants to die but cannot...A person sees this and wants to end that person's misery. Is that person committing murder? That person's intent was to help relieve that person of pain and let that person die..leaving that person live on in pain can arguably also be seen as cruel....
As for L, he's using all possible resources to try and catch a murderer. Can't really see the problem with that.Then on the same note, it's OK for L to spy on other people for the sake for catching a criminal? It's OK for the government or the police to spy on its all citizens to catch a single murderer (or a group of murderers)? Anyways, L may be using all his resources to catch Kira for justice, but Kira is also using all his resources to fight for his justice. They are both doing the exact same thing.
About how Ray and the other agents were killed. The main reason was to get closer to L. There are countless other FBI agents, the police out there, and he has not killed a single one. The agents who were after Kira were dragged into the battle by L and they got caught in the cross fire. Kira hasn't changed his goal at all, but L left Kira no choice but to retaliate after L *openly* declared war on Kira. With L around, Kira can't really continue his plan for his better world...Kira needs to get rid of L first, once L is gone, then Kira can continue killing only criminals. L is that much of a threat to Kira, which shows how good L is.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 11:14
So u guys are saying Light is a murderer because u dont like the Death penalty he gave for criminals? Then all executers in the world are murderers... Like I mention before, this is the penalty problems. All police put human being in jail, treating them like an animals in Zoo. What are they lol?
PLEASE dont come up with the "right" problem again -_-. all human are the same.
So u guys are saying Light is a murderer because u dont like the Death penalty he gave for criminals? Then all executers in the world are murderers... Like I mention before, this is the penalty problems. All police put human being in jail, treating them like an animals in Zoo. What are they lol?
PLEASE dont come up with the "right" problem again -_-. all human are the same.
The point is that these criminals aren't meant to be executed by the whim of a single person, they are sentenced to death by the People. It's like the difference between a democratic republic, and a single dictator who can do whatever he wants. You might not see the difference, but there is one.
Really sounds to me like some people are just making excuses. Light isn't performing euthanasia, he's executing people without due process, regardless if they deserve it or not. It's even worse in the case of the FBI agents he had executed, which probably wasn't even necessary to avoid getting caught at that point. As for comparing it to L's actions, that's totally ridicilous. Surveillance and execution aren't even in the same ballpark. But I suppose it's pointless to argue with Light fans. :p
Orchunter226
2006-11-03, 12:43
Before I considered the argument of whether what Light was doing good or bad deeds a hard one to consider. These criminals are the dregs of society and it could be argued either way. However, now that he is killing innocent people, REGARDLESS of whether they are after him or not, it is wrong. I don't care if an FBI agent had caught him and was hauling him. Killing that agent is a murder. These people were innocents doing their jobs, not some criminals deserving death.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 12:55
For musouka, I think u are conservative :). Yea sometimes new ideas are hard to accept. Look back to the history, there are such a thing call revolution. However I think u perfer mojority judge minority.
There are always people who don't accept or recognize an other human being doing things. They will think we are all Human Being, we are all the same. Why would u have the "right" to do this or do that..............
So Conclusion will be - Waiting for Non-Human Being to change the Human Being world.
And like I said before, Yagami is kind different from dictator, he is not going to force people to accpet his idea, he want people slowly accept the ideal world, and he understand ppl have 2 faces...... omg plz read earlier posts...
and for Trax, I m not light's fan, just pointing no wrong and right.
Orchunter226, please read earlier posts lol.
Just thought of a nice analogy... Let's say a neighborhood is plagued by a gang, causing trouble and committing various crimes including violent ones. For some reason (possibly revenge) a vigilante has had enough and goes after members of the gang one by one. While people in the neighborhood would know it was essentially murder, they obviously wouldn't disapprove and think "good riddance". The authorities would be trying to catch the vigilante however, with the neighborhood people not very cooperative at that point. But if this vigilante would gun down some police officers in order not to get caught, people would definately not approve and might even be worried what would happen if they saw the vigilante in the act. At that point, eventhough they symphatize with the intention, they would probably prefer that the vigilante gets caught. At least, that's what I think.
hitokirigirl
2006-11-03, 13:28
Just thought of a nice analogy... Let's say a neighborhood is plagued by a gang, causing trouble and committing various crimes including violent ones. For some reason (possibly revenge) a vigilante has had enough and goes after members of the gang one by one. While people in the neighborhood would know it was essentially murder, they obviously wouldn't disapprove and think "good riddance". The authorities would be trying to catch the vigilante however, with the neighborhood people not very cooperative at that point. But if this vigilante would gun down some police officers in order not to get caught, people would definately not approve and might even be worried what would happen if they saw the vigilante in the act. At that point, eventhough they symphatize with the intention, they would probably prefer that the vigilante gets caught. At least, that's what I think.
Somehow your example illustrates very well what Raito said in episode 1 : people are hypocrite. For the sake of morality, they won't say or act as they'd like...
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 13:33
Trax, your analogy just exactly what people have 2 faces like. Yagami Raito knows that. I dont know if is a good example to compare the For some reason (possibly revenge) vigilante to Kira.... A neighborhood's issue to a Utopia world.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 13:42
Somehow your example illustrates very well what Raito said in episode 1 : people are hypocrite. For the sake of morality, they won't say or act as they'd like...
lol how many times need to mention Raito knows people have 2 faces, and he also know that people need time to accept the idea. If even if they dont, he is not going to kill them. What u guys are saying is similar to what the 2nd kira was doing on sakura Tv and that is not what Raito wants, he could care less about those critics.
masakenji
2006-11-03, 13:52
errr, Light failed the moment he said to want to RULE and become a GOD!
we all know its wrong to kill people, however i would kill child molesters if i got the chance. but thats not what Light is doing. he is killing innocents.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 14:04
This is a revolution, like a war.
Yagami Light also killed innocent people doing their job, like...
Ray Penbar.
Again, think of this as a war between Kira and L. Both are fighting for control over the world. Innocent people are bound to get caught in the cross fire. Think of those people as L's soldiers who are doing their job to hunt and kill Kira. Kira is being attacked by enemy soldiers, even if those soldiers are doing their job, even if they are innocent, they are trying to kill Kira. And think, it was L who brought those innocent people into the battle.
For people who gonna say Yagami Raito cross the line of killing (innocent) people who are after him or (innocent)people who are opposite him.
The answer will be this -
Yagami Raito only kill those (innocent) people who are opposite him and also willing to risk their life to stop//catch//kill "kira" the "ideal world". IN that case deaths are inevitable.
Trax, your analogy just exactly what people have 2 faces like. Yagami Raito knows that. I dont know if is a good example to compare the For some reason (possibly revenge) vigilante to Kira.... A neighborhood's issue to a Utopia world.
I don't see what's wrong with the analogy. It's pretty much the same situation, just on a different scale (making the neighborhood safe vs. making the world safe).
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 15:14
I think the different is here For some reason (possibly revenge) vigilante and Kira.
Also neighborhood safe vs. making the world safe,
Neighborhood = a group of people. Just like Raito only protecting his own family (or some group of people) only to me.
World = Everyone in the world.
masakenji
2006-11-03, 15:48
Quoted from the Manga.
"A God that needs to know the name and face of a person sounds more like a joke than anything. This is not "Gods Judgement" It's only a childish person playing God"
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 15:54
Edite this quote
Again, think of this as a war between Kira and L. Both are fighting for control over the world. Innocent people are bound to get caught in the cross fire. Think of those people as L's soldiers who are doing their job to hunt and kill Kira. Kira is being attacked by enemy soldiers, even if those soldiers are doing their job, even if they are innocent, they are trying to kill Kira. And think, it was L who brought those innocent people into the battle.
About how Ray and the other agents were killed. The main reason was to get closer to L. There are countless other FBI agents, the police out there, and he has not killed a single one. The agents who were after Kira were dragged into the battle by L and they got caught in the cross fire. Kira hasn't changed his goal at all, but L left Kira no choice but to retaliate after L *openly* declared war on Kira. With L around, Kira can't really continue his plan for his better world...Kira needs to get rid of L first, once L is gone, then Kira can continue killing only criminals. L is that much of a threat to Kira, which shows how good L is.
True, but as someone put it, Light was "damned if he did and damned if he didn't".
Again, think of this as a war between Kira and L. Both are fighting for control over the world. Innocent people are bound to get caught in the cross fire. Think of those people as L's soldiers who are doing their job to hunt and kill Kira. Kira is being attacked by enemy soldiers, even if those soldiers are doing their job, even if they are innocent, they are trying to kill Kira. And think, it was L who brought those innocent people into the battle.
Neux, nice points, but here are so many people are too plain to see deeply. They only see ok Raito kill FBi agent, he is innocent. Ok Light is evil he is wrong. LOL
Whoa, whoa. You are blaming L for having FBI agents do their job? Gee, I guess we should let everyone who's ever killed a cop out of prison. Clearly it's not the murderer's fault, the blame must be placed on the chief of police who sent them to that district!
L did not murder those innocent people in cold blood. Light did. That's the difference.
masakenji
2006-11-03, 16:06
Read Chapter 19 of the Manga and judge Kira for yourself.
If you actually think Kira is good then you are pretty much the chick in the Anime ep.01 that asked Kira to kill everyone on her phone.
Whats the reason why L, ASKED the police force to help him? To do their job and catch killers. He never once refused their resignation or forced them to do an investigation. These are men that have one aim and it so happen L is the leader.
i cant even believe people think Kira is innocent as well as L. Both of them broke the law, the difference is Kira's rule breaking is sadistic.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 16:09
I requote that thing, Like someone said before this is a war, a revolution. and please read carefully and stop posting what have been posted before lol. I am tired of keep requote old posts for people who dont read =\
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 16:11
No one are saying Light is a good guy or innocent, just say this is a revolution and no one is right or wrong.
I requote that thing, Like someone said before this is a war, a revolution. and please read carefully and stop posting what have been posted before lol. I am tired of keep requote old posts for people who dont read =\
We already read it the first time. I'm not too stupid to understand the point you're trying to make, I just utterly disagree with it. These agents were not like soldiers. Light knew they weren't a danger to him. He killed them anyway, out of his obsession with finding L instead of just evading and continuing what he's doing.
It's an ego thing now.
masakenji
2006-11-03, 16:21
no one is right or wrong?
kira want to be god and rule people - WRONG
L breaking laws - WRONG
kira individually implement punishments at his choosing - WRONG
this is not revolution, since its being happening for thousands of years. Its called Dictatorship.
you pretty much can compare Kira to Hitler. each strive for their perfect war at all costs. difference is Kira got a book.
AvatarST
2006-11-03, 16:22
It's an ego thing now.
Exactly.
Honestly, like I said before, I don't give a damn if Light kills scumbags like murderers or rapists.
But Light is not working towards a noble goal, he's working towars making his already huge ego even bigger. And that's why I think he's no better than those criminals.
A revolution, you say, where no one is "good" or "evil"? I think we all have the right to give and have an opinion on whether something is "good" or "bad", and to me, innocents dying or getting hurt is always a "bad" thing. He destroyed a family in episode 5 - why do you think I absolutely loath scumbags like murderers or rapists? Exactly for the same thing Light last did. I lost any respect I had for him, honestly.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 16:26
I bet ur "soldier" is someone carrying a gun or weapon going to the battlefield and fight lol. And I guess what NEux was saying was an analogy like Trax. No matter what, these Fbi agents are risking their lives to stop//catch//kill "Kira". And even that Fbi agent didnt suspect Light(ok now Light is in no danger), they are still those people who are willing to RISK THEIR LIFE TO CATCH//STOP//KILL "Kira" (which are L's Units) . Light = alone doing the revolution. L supports = CIA, FBI, Japanese police etc......
I think the different is here For some reason (possibly revenge) vigilante and Kira.
Also neighborhood safe vs. making the world safe,
Neighborhood = a group of people. Just like Raito only protecting his own family (or some group of people) only to me.
World = Everyone in the world.
Sorry but what is your point? I even mentioned the difference in scale already. That's why it's an analogy.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 16:32
If u think they are wrong then they both are wrong.
Actually, they did a lil discussion in the manga
NEar said he is just like Light, he believe in what he think is right and sure that is Justice.
"The idea of your own action being Evil but sacrificing yourself in order to change the world...That is the killers Chosen Path of Being Righteous." "The killer being Evil or Righteous is not our place to judge" " If we catch the Killer then he is Evil. If The killer controls the world then he is righteous." Aizawa san said " So the Winner is Right?... But... Yeah, I guess..." IDE san said" NO your're right, the world has always been like that...
No matter what, these Fbi agents are risking their lives to stop//catch//kill "Kira".
No, they're risking their lives to find Kira. Then, if they find him, they report to L and he is the one that decides what to do. I highly doubt their orders were to actually engage Kira and try to take him down. Furthermore, their investigation was moving away from Light. There was a danger there, but Light had already passed it.
Also, quit acting like I'm an idiot. I understand analogies. I'm not a moron. Not everyone that doesn't buy into your viewpoint is refuting you because they're just too stupid to understand you.
EDIT: Also, Light did not kill the FBI agents because they were going against him. He killed them to A) scare off the police, and B) flush out L by creating tension between him and the police force.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 16:49
OK scales problem :), but i dont know what the possibly revenge has anything do with kira and ya "eventhough they symphatize with the intention, they would probably prefer that the vigilante gets caught." is true, but light is not going to kill them like a dictator.
Actually, when Light kill the criminals which L used to test where Kira located. The msg is kind shown - Who ever want to find "Kira" out and stop him he will hunt them down.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 16:55
No, they're risking their lives to find Kira.
Yup, he is a unit from L'side
Then, if they find him, they report to L and he is the one that decides what to do.
L supporters = CIA, FBI, Japanese polices etc.... Vs 1 person Light, While L can send (innocent) people to find L out, but Light cant send anyone to find L out. That is inevitable.
But the point is Light doesn't have to find L. He just has to evade him. The only reason he really wants to find L is because of his ego.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 17:12
Ya, u can say that so both of them are wrong, because of the ego thing. Not only Light is wrong. Also they both think they are justice.
In Light's view, L is a big threat to him as well. L isn't dumb like ordinary detectives, he also gather (innocent)people who would risk their lives to go against Kira.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 17:30
Many revolutions are a group of people Vs a group of people, but this time Light is the only one who is doing the revolution. "Kira" such a God-Like position which are playing by a human being, it is really sad and pathetic. It is not an easy job to do.
I would say he has a lot of the qualities a successful leader (note: a successful leader does not neccesarily mean a good leader) needs to control and stabilize a country (or to a larger extent, maybe the world). That is he/she needs to have:
- power (e.g. death note or military power)
- intelligence (to outwit enemies like L or other enemy nations)
- charisma (convince people to believe in him),
- doesn't easily collapse from pressure and responsibility (even though so many people were after Light, he maintained composure throughout the series...except for one out of place moment at the end)
- not be afraid of taking risks (e.g. Light willing to risk getting closer to L to find the identity of L, as well as risking his own memory),
- arguably, "understands" that sometimes there is no perfectly right way of doing things, that every way can contain some wrong, but that little amount of wrong can justify the greater amount of good it brings in certain cases(e.g. a nation is willing to sacrifice some of it's land, probably considered evil by the people living on that land as they feel abandoned, but it may be considered to bring greater good if it brings an end to a long war as no more more people will die from the war)(e.g. in death note, Light believes that killing some people to achieve his ideal world is worth it as more people will benefit
- arguably, doesn't get side-tracked by power or greed. People who fall victim to either, usually take advantage of his citizens by heavily taxing them for more money, or kill anyone who does something the leader doesn't like or agree with. Light didn't use his power to threaten or blackmail rich people for more money, and then use that money for his own gain. He didn't use his power to kill whoever didn't support Kira, and it's not like he killed all the people who tried to catch him. If I remember correctly, I believe that most of the governments were after Kira, but Light didn't kill the politicians nor threaten them so they would accept Kira. Because the politicians were not criminals, even though they didn't like Kira, Kira did not kill them. Kira was to kill criminals not people Kira didn't like on a whim. Light wanted to slowly gain control and shape the world to his "ideal" one. So he stuck to the "original" plan, that people who fall victim to power or greed might not be able to do
- he realizes, that people need time to accept Kira, and doesn't force the fact that Kira won the battle against L upon the public masses. He wanted the people to slowly accept that Kira was right, that his world was indeed the better one. I mean he could have just said "L lost. I, Kira am the ruler of the world, and you all must obey my rule: all criminals die." That would instill fear among other things, but he didn't do that and gave time to the people to accept his ideals. Whether they accept is another thing, but the point is, he said instead "I, Kira exist, and am delivering justice by killing all criminals. I will save the good people. L may still be after me, but wait and see, as I continue delivering justice, the world will be a better place. Slowly, you all will be rooting for Kira and not L". That was why, even though L lost, he continued relaying the fact that L was still alive.
Working on the ideal, for the world's sake, while he didnt gain anything from doing it. He sacrificed many things in his life.
First, Light is not like all GREAT FAMOUS Kings, rulers or revolution leaders etc..., getting worshippers, forming army, creating authority, setting his own position, getting his own benefit. Instead, he didnt get anything from doing it, but lots of negative things. He didnt come out and take the creadits (Well u can say he doesnt want to expose himself) and so it proves that he isnt doing that for his own benefit.
Second, in the manga, the reason Yagami Raito setting that fire trap in his desk is becasue he doesnt want to end up killing his own family. He would rather let the Death note get burnt than end up killing his own family.
Well in the anime is more like eliminating evidences, but then he would also lose the power to create the utopia world -_-; If he really gone mad about the power to become God, he wouldnt use such a way to hide the death note.
When people say killing is wrong regardless of intention, and that that is murder no matter what. How about euthanasia? Someone who lives in pain and wants to die but cannot...A person sees this and wants to end that person's misery. Is that person committing murder? That person's intent was to help relieve that person of pain and let that person die..leaving that person live on in pain can arguably also be seen as cruel....
Since the "victim" actively makes a choice to terminate his life, it's better to equate euthanasia with suicide than with murder. Suicide does not actually harm any other parties, it's not really morally wrong.
So u guys are saying Light is a murderer because u dont like the Death penalty he gave for criminals? Then all executers in the world are murderers... Like I mention before, this is the penalty problems. All police put human being in jail, treating them like an animals in Zoo. What are they lol?
PLEASE dont come up with the "right" problem again -_-. all human are the same.
What Light did and what executioners are essentially different. In the case of condemned criminals, they are deemed to have committed a crime that deserves the punishment of execution. Thus when executioners carry out their duty, they are only doing so as that act of punishment. On the other hand, Light's killings don't have that veneer of legitimacy, and they are nothing more than Light exercising his power. The problem is that just because Light has power doesn't mean that he is also accorded the authority to wield it against other people.
When it comes to jailing criminals, society does so as a punishment for crimes committed. By committing a criminal act, they effectively forfeited their freedom. In effect, they are no longer treated as having the same rights as everyone else.
In addition, we have nothing more than Light's word that the people he killed deserved to die. While he may be right in some cases, he is unlikely to be right in all of them. Another way of looking at it is if Light thought that you deserved to be written in the Death Note, would you die willingly, or would you think that this is unfair?
First, Light is not like all GREAT FAMOUS Kings, rulers or revolution leaders etc..., getting worshippers, forming army, creating authority, setting his own position, getting his own benefit. Instead, he didnt get anything from doing it, but lots of negative things. He didnt come out and take the creadits (Well u can say he doesnt want to expose himself) and so it proves that he isnt doing that for his own benefit.
Even if someone selflessly commits an immoral act, it's still an immoral act. It's quite possible to do horrible things, that will not benefit the perpetrator personally, in the name of good intentions. In the real world, we tend to call such people monsters. I don't think that it would be inappropriate to equate Light with this kind of person.
But the point is Light doesn't have to find L. He just has to evade him. The only reason he really wants to find L is because of his ego.I think you're underestimating L. Evading him isn't an easy thing to do.
And Light's ego? Sure, Light is confident of his abilities. If he is planning to change the world to a "better" place, he better be confident and have thought things out. If you're a general leading an army, and you better be confident of your battle plans and not hesitate among other things, or else the general is gonna find himself on the losing side pretty quickly. He is going after L because he knows L is a very perceptive person, who is not to be underestimated.
Anyways, Kira's goal isn't to run and hide like a coward, Kira is supposed to be a powerful, maybe even God-like figure in the eyes of the public to be able to kill criminals anywhere anytime, so he can't be hiding from someone like L. If Kira stops delivering "justice", the criminals won't fear Kira anymore, and his plans will have gone to waste. Light had to maintain Kira's image as an all powerful figure who will deliver judge criminals.
If Light wanted to he could have killed his father when he said that he was gonna catch Kira no matter what. Light wasn't happy that his father said that, but he wasn't gonna kill his father because he didn't share his ideals. He even made a promise to himself: if Kira kills his father, he will take himself down. Of course, you could also say that he wanted to keep his father alive to get L but, Light probably said that because he knows that will never happen...that he will never take himself out because he will never go after people like his father.
Since the "victim" actively makes a choice to terminate his life, it's better to equate euthanasia with suicide than with murder. Suicide does not actually harm any other parties, it's not really morally wrong.That's not always true. Sometimes they "victim" can't speak or communicate that they want to die. But they are in a lot of pain. Anyways, euthanasia is murder in some places....and is against the law. After all, another person knowing does something to kill someone...that is murder to some people, even if it's "assisted suicide"
In addition, we have nothing more than Light's word that the people he killed deserved to die. While he may be right in some cases, he is unlikely to be right in all of them.Same thing with the jury system. They don't always make the right choices and can be susceptible to bribes among other things. Neither system is perfect, and no human is perfect. The question is whether the end result will be better or worse.
It would certainly be easier to evade him if Light didn't keep on giving him huge hints about himself and his habits. L is hard to evade, but killing the FBI agents just makes L realize that he was on the right track. Any tactical advantage Light gained by forcing L to make a move is lost when you realize he just narrowed down who Kira could be substantially. The smartest move in this case is to evade and deflect L's probes as best he can, not meet them with a reaction that lets L know when he's getting close.
The problem with Light is that he has too much pride to do that. The gauntlet has been thrown, and it wounds Light's ego too much to go into a defensive position. The stupid idiot...
It would be better for Kira's image if he could keep on killing and ignore L, which is what I mean when I say he should go on the defense. As time goes on without results, L would begin to look bad. If Light was smart enough and willing enough to play the waiting game longer, L might even have been taken off the case officially, and lost the support of the police forces.
Sinestra
2006-11-03, 19:33
This is a question that has been asked for centuries and i for one dont think there a solid answer to it. One could argue the fact that Kira is only killing criminals (so far) thats all well and good but being a citizen of whatever country you happen to be in obligates you to follow the rules. Take justice into your own hands only causes more problems imo. Also who gave Kira the right to take life and to pass judgement on these people. The crimianals that were in prison were already convicted which means they are doing their time they are being punished. I dont think anyone has the right to take a life on their own sense of justice.
One could also aruge the fact that crime has gone down since Kira has started his killings. But are people not commiting crimes out of fear or have they really tried to turn over a new leaf. People who live in fear usually rebel in the end.
Example are people who killed or persacuted for religious belief. Some people think its ok to kill people women and children because their god commands them too. The end result is world free from what ever religion that group hates or fears but would god really command people to kill innocents in him name?
So I think in some cases the end does justify the means but not in the case of Kira i think he is only causing more harm than good in the long run. If a person has killed a person stands trail and is convicted by his peers in a court of law and sentence to the death penlty then yes the ends justify the means because that person was found guilty in a court of law that has been established and recongnized by the govornment. Kira kills who HE feels is guilty thats murder not justice
It would certainly be easier to evade him if Light didn't keep on giving him huge hints about himself and his habits. L is hard to evade, but killing the FBI agents just makes L realize that he was on the right track. Any tactical advantage Light gained by forcing L to make a move is lost when you realize he just narrowed down who Kira could be substantially. The smartest move in this case is to evade and deflect L's probes as best he can, not meet them with a reaction that lets L know when he's getting close.Those hints were intentional, and were meant to lure out L, and make L lose some of his advantage in terms of having a sizable police force working with him. How else are you going to find someone like L, who no one knows about.
Evading as long as possible...is not a viable long term solution. If Light waits it out, L may be brought off the case...but if he's gonna do that, Light might as well and pray for a better world instead of him trying to create one himself. Light wants to take things into his own hands and not rely on fate and luck..
Anyways ignoring L will be difficult. If L prevents Kira from knowing the names of criminals, how else is Kira gonna continue doing what he's doing? Besides, if Kira ignores L, L may take longer to find Kira, but eventually he will. Building his world is gonna take time, and Kira is thinking of creating a "better" world now and not sometime in the future.
Good one.
Whatever it is, do you think Light would be an ideal God of Justice, this way?
How else are you going to find someone like L, who no one knows about.
My point is you don't. Go on the defensive, make him work to find you. If he can't, eventually it'll be a moot point since he'll be taken off the case if he fails to get results. Time is on Kira's side, not L's.
Evading as long as possible...is not a viable long term solution.
It most certainly is, especially in this situation, where Light will be leaving absolutely no physical evidence to tie him to the crimes.
If Light waits it out, L may be brought off the case...but if he's gonna do that, Light might as well and pray for a better world instead of him trying to create one himself. Light wants to take things into his own hands and not rely on fate and luck..
Luck? I'm talking about logic. The police want Kira caught. L can't catch Kira? Bye bye L. What better way to discredit someone than to prove that you can't be caught? Oh, sure, L might continue on his own, but without anyone on his side and with no tangible leads, he'll have a hard time of it.
If L prevents Kira from knowing the names of criminals, how else is Kira gonna continue doing what he's doing?
Media blackouts cannot be sustained indefinitely. There are other avenues of getting information.
Besides, if Kira ignores L, L may take longer to find Kira, but eventually he will.
How? Without Light's "help", L wouldn't be nearly as far on the path as he is now. Of course, L has also taken Kira's personality into consideration, so...
That's not always true. Sometimes they "victim" can't speak or communicate that they want to die. But they are in a lot of pain. Anyways, euthanasia is murder in some places....and is against the law. After all, another person knowing does something to kill someone...that is murder to some people, even if it's "assisted suicide"
This is only partially true. In the cases where the "victim" is unable to communicate, he usually has given someone the authority to speak on his behalf. In addition, doctors are generally brought in to determine if euthanasia is actually called for. In any case, euthanasia is only supposed to be performed after all other alternatives are considered impossible. Done properly, it definitely qualifies as suicide.
If you claim that euthanasia is morally wrong in the areas where it is illegal, but morally right where it is legal, then that is a moral system called legalism. Since it's possible for laws to be immoral, I don't think that legalism is a valid moral system.
Same thing with the jury system. They don't always make the right choices and can be susceptible to bribes among other things. Neither system is perfect, and no human is perfect. The question is whether the end result will be better or worse.
This is more an argument against capital punishment or the jury system than it helps Light's case. The thing is that no system is going to be perfect, and that this lack of perfection is not the problem with Light's actions.
The jury system has two moral advantages over Light: authority and due process. Society gives juries the authority to weigh the guilt and innocence of suspected criminals. Light has no such authority: he has only power. It would be no different if he had an assault rifle and an invisibility cloak. Why would anyone want to place their trust into his judgments?
The jury system is also relatively fair: they study all the aspects of a case before pronouncing a verdict. Also, the more severe the case, the more it is the onus of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if convicted, a criminal is often still given chances to prove his innocence. This system exists to cut down on the number of people punished unjustly. There are no checks on Light. He simply punishes whomever he feels is guilty. He doesn't even take the time to make certain that those he kills deserves it (this is impossible to do in just 5 days). And the punishment is always the same - death. By no measure of the imagination can this be considered fair. Again, Light is little more than a serial killer who preyed upon the equivalent of a prison population. This does nothing to mitigate the severity of his crimes.
This is only partially true. In the cases where the "victim" is unable to communicate, he usually has given someone the authority to speak on his behalf. In addition, doctors are generally brought in to determine if euthanasia is actually called for. In any case, euthanasia is only supposed to be performed after all other alternatives are considered impossible. Done properly, it definitely qualifies as suicide.
If you claim that euthanasia is morally wrong in the areas where it is illegal, but morally right where it is legal, then that is a moral system called legalism. Since it's possible for laws to be immoral, I don't think that legalism is a valid moral system. I am not gonna take sides on whether euthanasia is morally right or wrong. My point is that, the act of killing by itself does not mean it's automatically evil as some people were saying. That different people think that some forms of killing is acceptable and that some don't. For example euthanasia. But, you say qualified doctors determine whether that needs to be done...just because the person can't communicate, what gives the doctors the right to decide if the person should die or live? Even if that person can communicate that he or she wants to die, who knows if the person is just not thinking properly and doesn't really want to die? For example, if that person has some mental illness and says he or she wants to commit suicide but cannot do so. Anyways, I'm not taking sides, I"m just pointing this out.
The jury system is also relatively fair: they study all the aspects of a case before pronouncing a verdict. Also, the more severe the case, the more it is the onus of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if convicted, a criminal is often still given chances to prove his innocence. This system exists to cut down on the number of people punished unjustly. There are no checks on Light. He simply punishes whomever he feels is guilty. He doesn't even take the time to make certain that those he kills deserves it (this is impossible to do in just 5 days). And the punishment is always the same - death. By no measure of the imagination can this be considered fair. Again, Light is little more than a serial killer who preyed upon the equivalent of a prison population. This does nothing to mitigate the severity of his crimes.I agree, and I have mentioned some of what you mentioned before, but I would say that what Kira is doing is similar to capital punishment. They both use that as a means to deter criminals from doing crimes. Whether they are effective, is another matter. But something doesn't have to be fair to work. And not everything is fair in real life.
My point is you don't. Go on the defensive, make him work to find you. If he can't, eventually it'll be a moot point since he'll be taken off the case if he fails to get results. Time is on Kira's side, not L's.Take the defensive? Until when? Wait 10 years? 20? 30? Why even assume L will be taken after the case, what if instead L gathers even more support from the police until it's too much for Kira to handle? Again, I would call that wishful thinking. "...wait until L gets taken off the case...hopefully...whenever that may be"
Media blackouts cannot be sustained indefinitely. There are other avenues of getting information.The other avenues can also be blocked. L has almost unlimited access to the police all over the world and has a lot of influence. Another reason why L cannot be underestimated.
It most certainly is, especially in this situation, where Light will be leaving absolutely no physical evidence to tie him to the crimes.The death note is evidence. Giving time (especially long term) to someone like L to find Kira and his book is just asking for trouble. Even if there's no physical evidence, doesn't mean there aren't other kinds, or that Light is uncatchable.
Whatever it is, do you think Light would be an ideal God of Justice, this way?Well, considering his ideals, I guess would fit the description as I said in another post. But I suppose, if he was one, he would show no mercy to criminals no matter what (no bribery would make him change his mind etc), and I guess, that's one of the reasons why some people don't like that type of justice. Because he is merciless to the criminals, among other reasons. But, personally, I would not call him the "ideal" God of Justice. His justice is a bit too "extreme" for my liking.
Take the defensive? Until when? Wait 10 years? 20? 30? Why even assume L will be taken after the case, what if instead L gathers even more support from the police until it's too much for Kira to handle? Again, I would call that wishful thinking. "...wait until L gets taken off the case...hopefully...whenever that may be"
I think you might have confused Death Note with Lupin III. L is not Zenigata. If he doesn't get results he will be taken off eventually. It's completely illogical to think that the entire world will give L ten years without progress to catch Kira. It's not a hope or a wish, it's a logical assumption. And one that is borne out by the manga, though that was also due to political pressure.
The other avenues can also be blocked. L has almost unlimited access to the police all over the world and has a lot of influence. Another reason why L cannot be underestimated.
You think all media outlets can be blocked indefinitely? Even the internet? You think L is going to shut down the world until Light is caught? L is powerful, but not that powerful.
The death note is evidence. Giving time (especially long term) to someone like L to find Kira and his book is just asking for trouble. Even if there's no physical evidence, doesn't mean there aren't other kinds, or that Light is uncatchable.
That's too nebulous. What other kinds of evidence would Light be leaving behind? Brainwaves? About the only thing is patterns of movement, but the Death Note itself can compensate for that. Also, Light already has the notebook rigged when he's not using it. That isn't an issue.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-03, 22:46
For people who are going to continue posting Raito doesnt have the "Right" to do this or that, Raito breaks the "LAW", he killed "innocent" people such as FBi agents, something call "unfair" exist in the "Kira world" etc........
I am not going to repost or requote again.
For people who are going to think hard and expose more Raito's mistake go ahead. LOL I understand people are demanding perfection :). Something like Raito got provoked and kill the Fake L, so L can narrow down the location etc.... Even Raito himself know he made a mistake, and he said to himself "the same tricks wont work twice" when L was trying to sending a msg on tv 1500 agents to scare him and see his reaction.
And for people like 4Tran, using ur "moral" or the NOwaday Current world "moral" "Law" to judge Yagami Raito. Like I said this is a REVOLUTION.
4Tran, Raito is not killing the people HE think is guilty
For people who gonna compare Countries Vs Countries, Nations Vs Nations etc.. to Yagami Raito, it is a little bit different.
European taking other people lands, colonized areas, destroying other nationals' cultures, Hitler eliminating Jews, White people slaving different skin's colour people, a country invading another country for own benefits, Communist Vs Capitalism, Liberalism VS Conservative etc......... Compare to Yagami Raito eliminating "Criminals"
As you can see the differences
- First are a group of people (I am right) VS a group of people (I am right)
- Second are "Criminals" which are Everyone (or most ppl? Some may think Criminals are good who knows) in the world recognize as "Criminals" - People who are doing Bad, evil things. It is really hard and rare for Everyone to accept on one thing or come up with a same statement.
However, u can say is majority judge minority.
Ok now lets move on to the next step. Since "Criminals" exist, everyone will think what actions should take and it will be the penalty problems.
Some will say this crime should stay in the jail for 3 years, some say 4, some say stay in jail forever, some may even say kill them, torture them etc............What Yagami Raito is doing. Yagami Raito was killing major criminals, and yea he did kill some minor criminals, Yagami Raito is not perfect. May be we should find a "Perfect" human being to do this :)
(Note) : if u gonna come up with the "right" problems, please read earlier posts.)
I am not gonna take sides on whether euthanasia is morally right or wrong. My point is that, the act of killing by itself does not mean it's automatically evil as some people were saying. That different people think that some forms of killing is acceptable and that some don't. For example euthanasia. But, you say qualified doctors determine whether that needs to be done...just because the person can't communicate, what gives the doctors the right to decide if the person should die or live? Even if that person can communicate that he or she wants to die, who knows if the person is just not thinking properly and doesn't really want to die? For example, if that person has some mental illness and says he or she wants to commit suicide but cannot do so. Anyways, I'm not taking sides, I"m just pointing this out.
This is why I always differentiate between killing and murder. In the case of euthanasia, the doctors don't determine what needs to be done. They are there to determine whether there is an hope of recovering from what seems to be a terminal illness. It's the patient's spokesman who makes the final decision - this is taken to be representative of what the patient would have wanted for himself. If a person has a mental illness, then they are declared incompetent; and their rights, including that of self-determination, are severely curtailed.
Euthanasia is completely different from what Light does. Euthanasia is the ultimate expression of self-determination while Light doesn't give a damn about what his victims want. Murder is the illegal act of taking away someone's right to live - this is essentially what Light does. Euthanasia is quite the opposite: it is the act of allowing a patient to choose his manner and timing of death.
I agree, and I have mentioned some of what you mentioned before, but I would say that what Kira is doing is similar to capital punishment. They both use that as a means to deter criminals from doing crimes. Whether they are effective, is another matter. But something doesn't have to be fair to work. And not everything is fair in real life.
Light's actions are also quite different from capital punishment. Capital punishment is merely the most serious type of punishment in a wide series forms of punishment after progressing through the legal system. Deterrence is really only secondary to goal of punishment. Light's actions ape this only in the intent of deterrence. However, intent is no defense against evil actions. Killing a man because you think he's a criminal is no more moral than killing a man because you don't like him.
The one gives you a trial and then sentences you. The other simply offers a summary execution. While they may seem to serve similar ends, the latter has no basis in morality.
In general, killing is murder. There are a few caveats, and euthanasia and capital punishment meet the conditions of qualifying; the way Light kills falls far short.
And for people like 4Tran, using ur "moral" or the NOwaday Current world "moral" "Law" to judge Yagami Raito. Like I said this is a REVOLUTION.
Why not? Why shouldn't we use our understanding of morality to judge Light? Besides, a single jerk declaring that it's a revolution doesn't make it so; and revolution doesn't absolve his acts of murder.
4Tran, Raito is not killing the people HE think is guilty
Irrelevant. As I've said before, intent has no bearing on the morality of an action.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-04, 00:22
When did i say u shouldn't do that -_-?? I was just pointing out the fact.
He simply punishes whomever he feels is guilty.
Not he feels, but EVERYONE in the world think, so ur "intent" should go to everyone in the world. He erased "Major Criminals"
May be u skipped this part
"Criminals" which are Everyone (or most ppl? Some may think Criminals are good who knows) in the world recognize as "Criminals" - People who are doing Bad, evil things. It is really hard and rare for Everyone to accept on one thing or come up with a same statement.
However, u can say is majority judge minority.
So, like I mention before, the penalty problems.
Not he feels, but EVERYONE in the world think, so ur "intent" should go to everyone in the world. He erased "Major Criminals"
Intent is still irrelevant to morality. You should have posted more of my statement: "There are no checks on Light. He simply punishes whomever he feels is guilty." I wasn't trying to use it as an argument that Light was immoral, I was using to show how a jury system works differently from Light's. If want to be more precise, I could have worded it as "He simply kills whomever he feels deserves to die." The former is a little more artful in the context of the rest my post, but the latter is more accurate.
In addition, there's no indication that those people were guilty of anything outside of Light's words. At best, this is shaky justification; at worst, it's nothing more than wanton slaughter. Even if they were, murder of a "major criminal" is no better than murdering someone like you. The question isn't whether Light is "perfect", it's how much of a monster he is.
May be u skipped this part
Incorrect. What you posted earlier wasn't an argument; it was just a tautology. I read it, and I dismissed it without second thought.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-04, 00:58
Ok he kill "major criminals" Why they are "major criminals"? Because they were judge by the jury system u mentioned, and that is why they are "major criminals".
Now return to the penalty problems, and the reason u are saying he is a murderer is probably because what have people mentioned before, he doesnt have the "right".
Ok he kill "major criminals" Why they are "major criminals"? Because they were judge by the jury system u mentioned, and that is why they are "major criminals".
Pay attention to the actual show. They are only "major criminals" (please note the quotation marks) because Light deemed them to be. We have no proof besides this. If they had already been convicted of their crimes, then haven't they already been judged as deserving something other than the death penalty?
Now return to the penalty problems, and the reason u are saying he is a murderer is probably because what have people mentioned before, he doesnt have the "right".
Incorrect. He is a murderer because it is the default definition of someone who deliberately kills another human being. There are mitigating cases where the default doesn't apply, but Light does not qualify for any of them. If you are really interested, I could go into the philosophy of why murder is considered to be so heinous, and how it differs from lawful killing, but it's rather irrelevant to the topic.
I'm sort of curious; why do you think that Light has the right to kill people?
ThisIsDream
2006-11-04, 01:23
They are only "major criminals" (please note the quotation marks) because Light deemed them to be.
Well, I kind dont get it. Some Criminals are already in jails (which judge by the jury system), or they are actually committing the crimes and (the jury system send) police to arrest them(in some situation the police can kill them).
We have no proof besides this.
Some people who have committed crimes and escape from the court, some people who are innocent and they went to jail or even eletric chair. Unfair judge do exist
If they had already been convicted of their crimes, then aren't they already judged as deserving something other than the death penalty?
yea, I can see u are not satisfied with the penalty problems ^^.
I could go into the philosophy of why murder is considered to be so heinous, and how it differs from lawful killing, but it's rather irrelevant to the topic.
So Raito wasin't lawful killing, he broke the laws. And that is why i think this is a revulotion. "Law" created by human being.
Well, I kind dont get it. Some Criminals are already in jails (which judge by the jury system), or they are actually committing the crimes and police are arresting them(in some situation the police can kill them).
Some people who have committed crimes and escape from the court, some people who are innocent and they went to jail or even eletric chair. Unfair judge do exist
I'm not sure if you get it. Light said that all of the people he killed were the worst kind of criminals and that they all deserved to die. However, while he may be right in some cases, there's no proof of it other than what he claimed. Light's judgment is not necessarily reliable (he's a little on the unhinged side), so there's no reason to believe that his victims were major criminals in the first place.
Whether or not the current justice systems are perfect has no bearing on Light's actions.
So Raito wasing lawful killing, he broke the laws. And that is why i think this is a revulotion. "Law" created by human being.
You don't have any arguments here - it's just a series of tautologies. Why would Light simply claiming a revolution make his murders moral all of a sudden? What if an American declares a revolution and goes on a killing spree - would this be moral as well?
ThisIsDream
2006-11-04, 03:08
I'm not sure if you get it. Light said that all of the people he killed were the worst kind of criminals and that they all deserved to die.
Yea, I know u are not agree with the die thing.
However, while he may be right in some cases,
OK, so u think some crimes really deserve to die. (penalty problem)
there's no proof of it other than what he claimed.
What do u mean by no proof ? Those criminals were judge by the current jury system. And that is why they are criminals in jail and have criminals records. Those criminals wasnt judge by Light to put them in jail. So it will come down to the penalty problems.
Whether or not the current justice systems are perfect has no bearing on Light's actions.
Wow, perfect !! Did i just see this word lol. Alright there are no holes in this jury system(law) everyone are happy and satisfied with the law today, no one can escape from the current system ^^
What if an American declares a revolution and goes on a killing spree - would this be moral as well?
For people who gonna compare Countries Vs Countries, Nations Vs Nations etc.. to Yagami Raito, it is a little bit different.
European taking other people lands, colonized areas, destroying other nationals' cultures, Hitler eliminating Jews, White people slaving different skin's colour people, a country invading another country for own benefits, Communist Vs Capitalism, Liberalism VS Conservative etc......... Compare to Yagami Raito eliminating "Criminals"
As you can see the differences
- First are a group of people (I am right) VS a group of people (I am right)
- Second are "Criminals" which are Everyone (or most ppl? Some may think Criminals are good who knows) in the world recognize as "Criminals" - People who are doing Bad, evil things. It is really hard and rare for Everyone to accept on one thing or come up with a same statement.
However, u can say is majority judge minority.
Why would Light simply claiming a revolution make his murders moral all of a sudden?
What do u mean by murder? It was because Light didnt have the law to support him to execute criminals? There are people executing or doing something to anther human being according to some laws(they are allow to).
There are people(police) who kill criminals from harming innocent. (short term)
Criminals after sitting in the jail and go out harming innocent again. (long term)
No one can guarantee those criminals will go harm people again or not for the 2nd or more times.
Light's way is just more effective and frighten, which preventing people from committing crimes for the first time. People will be more aware of their attitude and actions.
There are people demanding penalty stronger to prevent more people committing crimes.
NoSanninWa
2006-11-04, 04:26
What do u mean by murder? It was because Light didnt have the law to support him to execute criminals? There are people executing or doing something to anther human being according to some laws(they are allow to).
Murder is when one human being kills another human being. The execution of criminals is law. The difference is that when the law decides to do this, it is only at the end of a process where humans only act as mediators. In the end, a criminal's execution is not because of a human deciding to kill another human, but only because humans are acting in accordance with law. You could argue that the law kills the criminal using humans as its medium. The death is not the result of human desire. (Even if some people desired the criminal's death, that desire didn't cause the death.)
Alternately you could define the difference in another way. (This is complementary to the above paragraph, not contradictory.) Murder is a selfish act while lawful execution is a selfless act. It seems a nice tag-line, but perhaps that's way too simplistic.
OK scales problem :), but i dont know what the possibly revenge has anything do with kira and ya "eventhough they symphatize with the intention, they would probably prefer that the vigilante gets caught." is true, but light is not going to kill them like a dictator.
Actually, when Light kill the criminals which L used to test where Kira located. The msg is kind shown - Who ever want to find "Kira" out and stop him he will hunt them down.
Hate to say it, but you're making absolutely no sense by bringing in irrelevant points over and over again. It doesn't matter what spurred on the vigilante in my example, it could have been for similar reasons as Light or it could have been revenge. It's about the situation that is created as a result. And just like that example, Light would kill off innocent people (investigators or other people accidentily finding out something) caught in the crossfire and turn him from someone people would sympathize with into someone people would start being wary of. If it were made public that he killed off those FBI agents I'm sure support for him would drop dramatically.
He even made a promise to himself: if Kira kills his father, he will take himself down.
That was just an act, I can't imagine he was serious about that. I think he'd kill off his father if it turned out to be necessary. But for now, he's using him to get information on the police investigation.
Wow, perfect !! Did i just see this word lol. Alright there are no holes in this jury system(law) everyone are happy and satisfied with the law today, no one can escape from the current system ^^
No offense, but it's getting obvious your understanding of english is far from perfect, which makes it hard to have a proper discussion because you regularly misunderstand what is being said. In this case, it was never said the current system is perfect, because no system is perfect. The point was that discussing the current justice systems is irrelevant to discussing Light's actions.
Nightengale
2006-11-04, 07:29
To be completely honest, I hardly found Light any subject to moral ambiguity at all. I don't know about anyone else, but it's extremely obvious half his actions are driven solely by his egoistic nature and his need to prove that his penis is bigger than L's, or whoever is challenging him in a direct manner.
First off, there's no proof that judging by law, all of the criminals Light killed deserve murder. Clearly there's even some who's not in prison, but just because a criminal does a crime and is sentenced to decades, that is because the law deems a criminal whether that person deserves inprisonment, death or any other punishment as deemed by law. Each nation has their own appliance of how they treat criminals as judged by their moral laws and unless someone tells me Light is murdering while taking into account technicalities of criminal and human rights, then Light's acts are far from even gauging the moral line.
The weakness of the justice system is hardly relevant. Every society system written by humans are undoubtedly flawed, be it government bodies to justice systems. Our world is far from perfect, but that doesn't give Light the right to murder people. He has the power to, but this hardly equates to morality. Being humans, there are always time when people wished "criminal A" would just die, etc etc etc, but there's a large gap of right, human ethicalism, and other factors between actually thinking and doing it. Light crossed that gap.
Some more musings on Light... I forgot how he phrased his original intentions but ridding the world of evil is essentially a good goal. However, his desire to rule the world as a malevolent god is already a huge indication that he's not as righteous as he likes to think. He's essentially a tyrant acting on his own, eventhough he does gain supporters that sympathize with his actions. However, he has already crossed the line by killing off law enforcers to protect his own desire, and from there I imagine it can only get worse. Where does it end? It doesn't seem unlikely that he might start killing off people that commited light crimes at some point, and eventually even people that speak out against him openly, or other petty reasons. Ofcourse in his own mind, he does this to protect his "justice" but he's really protecting his own perverse desire to play god and will truely have become the evil dictator. Might makes right, as they say, but doesn't necessarily make righteous. And history is written by the victors, but is always biased.
OK, so u think some crimes really deserve to die. (penalty problem)
You are completely missing the point.
What do u mean by no proof ? Those criminals were judge by the current jury system. And that is why they are criminals in jail and have criminals records. Those criminals wasnt judge by Light to put them in jail. So it will come down to the penalty problems.
Why should we believe that this is true?
Wow, perfect !! Did i just see this word lol. Alright there are no holes in this jury system(law) everyone are happy and satisfied with the law today, no one can escape from the current system ^^
You are completely missing the point.
As you can see the differences
- First are a group of people (I am right) VS a group of people (I am right)
- Second are "Criminals" which are Everyone (or most ppl? Some may think Criminals are good who knows) in the world recognize as "Criminals" - People who are doing Bad, evil things. It is really hard and rare for Everyone to accept on one thing or come up with a same statement.
However, u can say is majority judge minority.
You didn't answer the question. Would a random person declaring a revolution and going on a rampage be acting morally?
What do u mean by murder? It was because Light didnt have the law to support him to execute criminals? There are people executing or doing something to anther human being according to some laws(they are allow to).
There are people(police) who kill criminals from harming innocent. (short term)
Criminals after sitting in the jail and go out harming innocent again. (long term)
No one can guarantee those criminals will go harm people again or not for the 2nd or more times.
Light's way is just more effective and frighten, which preventing people from committing crimes for the first time. People will be more aware of their attitude and actions.
It is murder because Light deliberately killed people. ThisIsDream, do you actually know why it's wrong to kill people? The reason doesn't actually have anything to do with the law, you know.
Can you address the actual point? Intent is irrelevant to morality, so you can't use it as an excuse for committing murder.
Let me put it in a different context. Let's say that you are caught littering. This is obviously a (minor) crime. The police are afraid that you will commit more crimes in the future. Would they then be justified in executing you?
ThisIsDream
2006-11-04, 12:20
It doesn't matter what spurred on the vigilante in my example, it could have been for similar reasons as Light or it could have been revenge.
What do u mean it doesnt matter, revenge is not what light is doing, u can say it has the same result - killing. He is trying to protect more people from getting harm, and revenge is personal hatrad.
It's about the situation that is created as a result. And just like that example, Light would kill off innocent people (investigators or other people accidentily finding out something) caught in the crossfire and turn him from someone people would sympathize with into someone people would start being wary of. If it were made public that he killed off those FBI agents I'm sure support for him would drop dramatically.
No one saying Light is right, I was just saying this is inevitable. L (power) sending (innocent) people go after "Kira", while Light can't send anyone to find L out.
In this case, it was never said the current system is perfect, because no system is perfect.
"the current justice systems are perfect" - ok it means is not perfect :), u can say is much more perfect or much better etc...
The point was that discussing the current justice systems is irrelevant to discussing Light's actions.
Ok, the current justice systems is irrelevant, Light action also is irrelevant. No one is perfect.
However, while he may be right in some cases.
OK I miss ur point, what is the meaning of "he may be right in some cases."?
Why should we believe that this is true?
No one saying this is true, just those people were judge by the current system today and they are criminals.
Would a random person declaring a revolution and going on a rampage be acting morally?
"going on a rampage" is not what Light is doing.
"Right" is something created by human
"LAw" - create by human, it also create some "right"
"Moral" - create by human, something like a being taking another being life - That being doesnt have the right to. We are all the same.
"Law" and "Moral" create by human which are running the current system today.
But what Light is seeing is there are many crimes innocent ppl getting hurt under this system, so he take the action (NO one saying he is right) (more effective).
According to the "Law" today.
A human(Light) taking other human life to prevent more innocent people getting harm - wrong. A human(police, judge, people who following the law, or lawfully etc..) taking other human life or punishing other people to prevent more innocent people getting harm - Right.
Ok nothing to do with "Law", morally
WIthout "Law" what are police, executer, judge etc... ? they are same as light - Human.
Some may agree with Light, about using the DN to kill criminals. But Light is relying on the Law to kill his criminals, and we must remember that the Law is never fool-proof. As in, one maybe be wrongfully accused and jailed (and then killed by Light) when one is actually innocent. And now I hear that he's starting to kill off innocent people in his way. Morality has gone to the dogs. (I got the shivers when he said that he would have to kill his family if need be.) The stupid SOB doesnt see where he is going, Morality wise. IMO, he is going down the same path those people he kills in the name of "Justice" went; no, he has gone down much further than them.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-04, 12:45
he has already crossed the line by killing off law enforcers to protect his own desire
dont know how many time need to explain this lol, if u insist Light made mistake, he is not perfect, then I cant help it. :)
However, he has already crossed the line by killing off law enforcers to protect his own desire, and from there I imagine it can only get worse. Where does it end? It doesn't seem unlikely that he might start killing off people that commited light crimes at some point, and eventually even people that speak out against him openly, or other petty reasons.
What u are saying is more like the 2nd kira was doing on sakura TV, Light could careless about critics, he spend his time to erase major criminals not people who say he is wrong.
In the manga
After L died, 6 years of "Kira" world, the world move even faster than light expect to the "Ideal" direction. There are more people support "Kira", and even some countries began to declare that they accept the work of Kira. (Note I am not saying kira is right) The point is what people seeing is the result, but not the process.
Alternately you could define the difference in another way. (This is complementary to the above paragraph, not contradictory.) Murder is a selfish act while lawful execution is a selfless act. It seems a nice tag-line, but perhaps that's way too simplistic.
It's not a bad way of simplifying it. To expand on the idea, execution is the last recourse of the legal system. It's only exercised when all other options are inadequate for dealing with a criminal. Murder does not satisfy this condition.
It doesn't seem unlikely that he might start killing off people that commited light crimes at some point, and eventually even people that speak out against him openly, or other petty reasons.
Actually, he started doing so from the very beginning. He toyed with the idea of killing his classmate as his first experiment. Light only decided not to do so because it's a bad idea to kill someone in such close proximity rather than because it was wrong.
Ofcourse in his own mind, he does this to protect his "justice" but he's really protecting his own perverse desire to play god and will truely have become the evil dictator.
Many dictators did horrible things in the belief that it would benefit their country. This by no means excuses their actions, and we tend to label them as evil monsters. Light fits in quite well with this company.
ThisIsDream, you're going to really have to improve your reading skills before you can contribute much to this thread:What do u mean it doesnt matter, revenge is not what light is doing, u can say it has the same result - killing. He is trying to protect more people from getting harm, and revenge is personal hatrad.
Trax never said that Light was doing it out of revenge. He specifically said that the motive is irrelevant - it's the end result that's important. Nitpicking his statements without addressing its point will get you nowhere.
"the current justice systems are perfect" - ok it means is not perfect , u can say is much more perfect or much better etc...
Ok, the current justice systems is irrelevant, Light action also is irrelevant. No one is perfect.
You missed the point again. Please try understanding a post instead of trying to pick out a few key words. This discussion is in English, it's not a hunt-the-word exercise.
OK I miss ur point, what is the meaning of "he may be right in some cases."?
My original point was that Light claiming that he only targetted the worst criminals is not proof that he actually did so. However, I'm willing to give him the benefit of assuming that he may have been right on occassion. This was emphaticaly not a statement of my personal feelings towards capital punishment.
No one saying this is true, just those people were judge by the current system today and they are criminals.
You misunderstood the question - I want to know why you think that Light's victims had been judged "by the current system today and they are criminals."
"going on a rampage" is not what Light is doing.
You didn't answer the question. Is my example acting morally? I haven't tried to equate Light with it yet.
"Right" is something created by human
"LAw" - create by human, it also create some "right"
"Moral" - create by human, something like a being taking another being life - That being doesnt have the right to. We are all the same.
These statements are effectively meaningless.
"Law" and "Moral" create by human which are running the current system today.
But what Light is seeing is there are many crimes innocent ppl getting hurt under this system, so he take the action (NO one saying he is right) (more effective).
The question is whether Light's response is proportional to the problem. Look at my earlier example: society would definitely benefit if no-one would ever litter. However, is executing all litterers a reasonable solution?
According to the "Law" today.
A human(Light) taking other human life to prevent more innocent people getting harm - wrong. A human(police, judge, people who following the law, or lawfully etc..) taking other human life or punishing other people to prevent more innocent people getting harm - Right.
This is also a tautology. Nothing in this statement suggests that Light's actions are equivalent to that of the law.
Ok nothing to do with "Law", morally
WIthout "Law" what are police, executer, judge etc... ? they are same as light - Human.
Incorrect. When your parents told you that it was wrong to kill other people (assuming that they did that in the first place), did they couch it in terms of legality? It is immoral to murder people, and the laws stem from this fact. Since morality is the original source, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the law. As a collorary, if it all of a sudden becomes legal to kill whomever you choose, that still doesn't make it moral to do so.
AvatarST
2006-11-04, 13:20
The question is whether Light's response is proportional to the problem. Look at my earlier example: society would definitely benefit if no-one would ever litter. However, is executing all litterers a reasonable solution?
The difference there is that litter doesn't cause anywhere as much harm.
Rapists and murderers do nothing but harm people so we're better off without them. I think execution is only acceptable for the worst scum. By getting rid of that kind of scum, even if Light is commiting "evil" actions himself, he's removing more "evil" from the world than he's putting into it.
Light sucks at what he was doing anyway. It's all ego.
And by the way, while law stems from morality, all morality is relative. Moreover, politics are a joke...most people are simply ignorant and easily manipulated by the higher classes so the number that is in control is pathetic compared to the number of the total population.
The difference there is that litter doesn't cause anywhere as much harm.
That's exactly my point. It's not as serious a crime so it doesn't merit as harsh a reaction. Every commission of crime has to be treated separately, and the proper punishment has to be meted out accordingly. That's why Light's blanket slaughter is utterly wrong.
Rapists and murderers do nothing but harm people so we're better off without them. I think execution is only acceptable for the worst scum.
This line of reasoning is outright rejected by most systems of morality. It's entirely possible for a murderer or rapist to be a good person outside of the crime they committed. Also, every case is treated separately. This is reflected by the way Western legal systems do not treat rape as seriously as murder, and there are differing degrees of murder.
We also do not base our judgments on whether the world would be better off without certain people (at least we don't do so if we're acting morally). For example, a person who suffers a debilitating injury may well end up requiring much more out of society than they will ever be able to contribute. Technically speaking, the world would objectively benefit from their deaths. However, only the morally bankrupt would actually execute them.
And by the way, while law stems from morality, all morality is relative.
Morality isn't really relative. While people may use different systems of morality, most of the valid ones agree on what's important. They may differ in their details, but they tend to have similar goals and similar methods. That's why crimes like murder and theft are universally considered to be wrong.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-04, 14:01
You missed the point again. Please try understanding a post instead of trying to pick out a few key words. This discussion is in English, it's not a hunt-the-word exercise.
What is ur MAIN point then.
You didn't answer the question. Is my example acting morally? I haven't tried to equate Light with it yet.
Then why say something unrelate? What is the point if it has nothing to do with Light, death note? Want me to use ur way of "moral to judge people?
What if an American declares a revolution and goes on a killing spree - would this be moral as well?
American(single group of people or nation) (iam right) vs other people (another group) (iam right)
Criminals (iam right) vs everyone (everyone in the world) (im right)
u can say (jury system penatly) VS (Kira penatly)
The person kill someone he has a motive (revenge)
executer kill someone his motive (reason) (following the law, saving more innocent people from getting harm, frighten people to not commit crimes etc.)
Light kill someone his motive (saving more innocent people from getting harm, frighten people to not commit crimes etc..)
That analogy was comparing vigilante and Kira while they have different motive, if u skip the motive part, jst go straight to Kill = wrong. Then not only Light is wrong.
Incorrect. When your parents told you that it was wrong to kill other people (assuming that they did that in the first place), did they couch it in terms of legality? It is immoral to murder people, and the laws stem from this fact. Since morality is the original source, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the law. As a collorary, if it all of a sudden becomes legal to kill whomever you choose, that still doesn't make it moral to do so.
Parents saying something is wrong is base on their way of thinking "MORAL" just like u are saying it is immoral to do this or do that.
I can see ur point, but why do u put immoral and moral there? It was because u think so (u have ur own definition of moral, immoral), human creating this MORAL IMMORAL. Where did moral came from?
I am talking about the root problem - moral, immoral
What people seeing is not how it process, but how effective and the result.
ex : There are police using violence or immoral action to make criminals talk or get information
Morality isn't really relative. While people may use different systems of morality, most of the valid ones agree on what's important. They may differ in their details, but they tend to have similar goals and similar methods. That's why crimes like murder and theft are universally considered to be wrong.I disagree. Morality is relative. There is no fixed "morally' right way of doing things. Stealing is universally accepted as morally wrong right? Then how about Robin hood stealing from the poor. Is Robin hood now a monster who has no morals because he steals? People say ignore intent, so forget the fact that Robin Hood is doing it for the poor.
Actually, he started doing so from the very beginning. He toyed with the idea of killing his classmate as his first experiment. Light only decided not to do so because it's a bad idea to kill someone in such close proximity rather than because it was wrong.Perhaps, but from Light's perspective, that classmate was harassing another of Light's classmate. He thought for a brief moment if he could save that classmate from the other one by using the death note. He wasn't out on a killing spree as people are making it out to seem. Light was merely thinking of how to test the death note, then that scene happened right in front of Light. The though of killing that classmate hadn't entered his mind until that scene where that classmate started harassing another classmate.
Many dictators did horrible things in the belief that it would benefit their country. This by no means excuses their actions, and we tend to label them as evil monsters. Light fits in quite well with this company.Even if the country prospers? Sometimes evil must be done to do good. Lying is bad, but sometimes lying is necessary to do good. The intent is important, contrary to what people say. If lying to a person makes an otherwise sad person happy, is that morally wrong? They are lying to that person after all... or is lying good after all?
In general, killing is murder. There are a few caveats, and euthanasia and capital punishment meet the conditions of qualifying; the way Light kills falls far short.My point is that what Light is doing may also fit as one of those caveats. There are already a number of caveats, and this may well be another one. Sometimes a wrong is needed to do a right.
I would refer to this as a war between two ideal worlds: Light's and L's. How often is declaring war morally right? Wars will result in deaths, yet there is usually a reason behind the war. Perhaps the war itself is morally wrong, but the reason behind it may justify it. The hard part is finding a reason to justify the deaths from the war. The person who said that Light is just starting a "revolution" and going on a killing spree...that is not what Light is doing. Sure, some people have died from his "revolution", but deaths can be unavoidable in wars. If you have a war where no one dies, I'll be surprised. Light isn't intentionally, madly killing person after person without rhyme or reason as someone has suggested, they die for a certain purpose in Light's plan. He isn't doing this out of his own enjoyment. You can argue that Light's plan is flawed, and I won't debate about that, but I disagree he's just going crazy and killing people left and right. Light has pretty much stuck to his plan almost perfectly and killing only criminals, maybe a few caveats, but those caveats were necessary to see his plan succeed and bring L down. Look at L now, he has lost support from the FBI, and the Japanese police force, and now he has forced L to reveal himself to other people.
And as ThisIsDream pointed out, killing people who doesn't agree with Kira is what that person did, but this is not what Light is doing. I'm sure the anime is gonna change that scene to make Light seem to be evil once again...when it should be more in the gray area
And I would say the justice system does have bearing. Light is unsatisfied with the current system, and that is why he is trying to change it. I would say, that is his motivation for doing what he's doing. So it does have relevance.
he has already crossed the line by killing off law enforcers to protect his own desireThat may be one of his motives, but his main motive for doing that was to cripple L's police force and forcing L to reveal himself. It's a war between L and Kira, and they were caught in the cross fire. The deaths are important to Kira's plan to get to L. They weren't meaningless deaths that Kira killed on a whim.
About L. L won't have to shutdown the internet. Countries today have the power to censor the internet, why can't L do the same. He only has to prevent Kira access to records of criminals. L should have the power to do at least that. Governments all over the world seem to respect L a lot, and they most likely comply with any requests that L makes.
L being taken off the case. I've never seen Lupin before...is it good? Anyways, what you said to me is only an assumption. Even if it most likely will come to pass, there's a chance that it won't and then there is the question of when. I still don't think ignoring someone of L's calibur is a wise thing to do.
EDIT: haha, nice pic ThisIsDream. Just so people know, I'm also taking a neutral stance.
Deathkillz
2006-11-04, 15:39
oki...imo in the world there will be right and wrong...you cannot have a world that is completely right because if you do then you wont know what is wrong...
what light is doing...is trying to get rid of the "wrong" part of the world...but in doing so with disrupt the "balance" and this itself is morally wrong (cheezy i know :heh:)
think of it as ying and yang...you cannot have ying (white) without yang (black)...what light is trying to do is to get rid of the black and L is trying to prevent the light (white) from taking over...so one cout argue that L will be fighting for the black (criminals etc) and accuse L for doing wrong in stopping light...but what i see here is that L is trying to prevent the inbalance created by light in killing all those criminals...kinda like L is the neutral observer (God?) that actually takes action towards evil (light)
funnily enough this situation reminds me of DN angel...where we would normal picture the "white" angel to be good and the "black" angel to be bad (dark) in actual fact the roles are swapped...
from the moment light killed his first person he has broken the rule of "thou shall not harm others" (or something similar from the 10 commandmants) and is therefore evil...
from the moment light killed his first person he has broken the rule of "thou shall not harm others" (or something similar from the 10 commandmants) and is therefore evil...But what happens if that person is not a Christian. There is no such thing as breaking the 10 commandments for them because there is no such thing.
Second, think about euthanasia as I said before. You say killing someone means to break that rule, so that person is evil. Then the person who does euthansia ("assisted suicide") is also evil even if they do it for a good cause. I'm sure someone said that euthansia is morally right....so.....and it wasn't me.
The same goes for soldiers. They kill other people as part of their "duty". Many of them in fact, so are soldiers just serial murderers who are using duty as an excuse to kill people? Are soldiers evil? Should we not honor the soldiers who risked their lives to fight for their country?
Deathkillz
2006-11-04, 16:15
But what happens if that person is not a Christian. There is no such thing as breaking the 10 commandments for them because there is no such thing.
Second, think about euthanasia as I said before. You say killing someone means to break that rule, so that person is evil. Then the person who does euthansia ("assisted suicide") is also evil even if they do it for a good cause. I'm sure someone said that euthansia is morally right....so.....and it wasn't me.
The same goes for soldiers. They kill other people as part of their "duty". Many of them in fact, so are soldiers just serial murderers who are using duty as an excuse to kill people? Are soldiers evil? Should we not honor the soldiers who risked their lives to fight for their country?
ah but the point of euthanasia is that the person wants to die...as a request you can either help or not...if they are going to commit suicide they can do it on their own anyway...but in this case the criminals that are being killed by light do not want to die...which is murder...euthanasia comes out as a point where that the person is happy dying and requests you help him/her out...
ofc this is wrong...and sick minded but if the person wants to die who gives you the right to stop him/her? there isnt much moral in euthanasia...
as for the soldiers...yes they do go out and kill each other but this is literally an agreement...by going out as fight a war it means that both sides agree to being killed and therefore they do so...do you honestly think that if a person dont want to kill someone they will still do it? and the answer is yes...this is because humans are cowards...nobody wants to die and in defense they defend themselves by killing others...i wont say that this is evil but rather selfish...but who attacks in the first place is obviously evil...those who willingly go to wars just for the fun and to kill and see people dying are evil...those who go to war cause they are being threatened or are blackmailed (usually with their lives ~mutiny execution) are victims...
Euthanasia is for people who can't commit suicide. They can't do it by themselves because they are mentally or physically handicapped., so they need other people to kill them. Anyways, just because someone tells you to kill them, doesn't mean you should. And remember, the person who does this is *killing* another human being. That by definition to some people is *murder*. What gives them the right to kill someone even if that person asks for it? And shouldn't the person be trying to convince that person to stay alive instead of trying to kill that person? How do you even know that person really wants to die even? Just because they said so? People say a lot of things, doesn't mean they actually want to die. And this is why there's a lot of debate on whether on whether euthanasia is right or wrong, and moral does play a very big part in euthanasia.
You say mutual agreement. No one is forcing the criminals to commit crimes. One can argue that criminals mutually agree the moment they do a crime that they are willing to accept all the risk involved in doing that crime. This may include jail, fees or maybe a death sentence. Kira's ideal is to raise the risks to do a crime as high as possible to deter crime, so if someone who does crime, they accept the risk of getting the death sentence. Kira doesn't want the criminals to feel safe, he doesn't want criminals to think it's OK to do a crime because they will "only" get a jail sentence. Kira wants them to know that if they do a crime, there is no turning back.
Deathkillz
2006-11-04, 16:53
Euthanasia is for people who can't commit suicide. They can't do it by themselves because they are mentally or physically handicapped., so they need other people to kill them. Anyways, just because someone tells you to kill them, doesn't mean you should. And remember, the person who does this is *killing* another human being. That by definition to some people is *murder*. What gives them the right to kill someone even if that person asks for it? And shouldn't the person be trying to convince that person to stay alive instead of trying to kill that person? How do you even know that person really wants to die even? Just because they said so? People say a lot of things, doesn't mean they actually want to die. And this is why there's a lot of debate on whether on whether euthanasia is right or wrong, and moral does play a very big part in euthanasia.
You say mutual agreement. No one is forcing the criminals to commit crimes. One can argue that criminals mutually agree the moment they do a crime that they are willing to accept all the risk involved in doing that crime. This may include jail, fees or maybe a death sentence. Kira's ideal is to raise the risks to do a crime as high as possible to deter crime, so if someone who does crime, they accept the risk of getting the death sentence. Kira doesn't want the criminals to feel safe, he doesn't want criminals to think it's OK to do a crime because they will "only" get a jail sentence. Kira wants them to know that if they do a crime, there is no turning back.
thats why i said that they can either choose to help or not...
and nothing gives them the right to kill...but as a final wish of a loved one who is suffering would you?
and you say that maybe they dont want to die...true but how will they say that the do want to die in the first place? they did...if a person know that their mental/physical condition is going to deterierate in 30 years time to the point that he/she wont be able to move and will experience pain everyday even through paralysis then they could make the decision to be killed when they reach that condition...but you never know...even if you reach that condition at that point you may not want to die and stick it out to the end but cannot say anything about it...waiting for the deadline of that contract...thats the downside if you have a change of heart...
this is where freedom of will smacks you back in the face imo...its such a big gray area its impossible to say its right or wrong/just or unjust...just depends on the situation imo...
back to light...yea he is warning criminals about another risk that comes with doing crimes (death) but in doing so hes giving up on his own santity...hes murdering anyone that gets in his way to achieve his "ideal world" which is wrong...while the plus point is that crime falls the minus point is that light is still killing for his own fantasies and hes sacraficing himself to achieve it...
Euthanasia, is a gray area as you said. And that was exactly my point. There's no clear right or wrong.
back to light...yea he is warning criminals about another risk that comes with doing crimes (death) but in doing so hes giving up on his own santity...hes murdering anyone that gets in his way to achieve his "ideal world" which is wrong...while the plus point is that crime falls the minus point is that light is still killing for his own fantasies and hes sacraficing himself to achieve it...
But arguably, if Light doesn't kill those people, he will never be able to create his "ideal world". From his perspective, it was either he doesn't kill them and turn his back on the innocent by abandoning his idea of building a "better" world, or kill them for the sake of greater good and create his "ideal" world. And you're right, he is sacrificing himself to do it and he is doing it for his dream or goal.
The people who gets in Kira's way. Kira usually doesn't kill them, and he most likely could care less. It's people like L who are a true threat to his "ideal" world, so Kira has to make way in his plan to take down L. If L didn't exist, none of the agents would have been involved, and none of them would have died. I'm sure many governments around the world will be angry that Kira is killing people, even though they are criminals, but Kira has not threatened or killed them in any way. He has ignored those people. Since there are websites saying that Kira is a saviour, there are also probably websites that say Kira is a murderer. Kira has pretty much ignored them as well. Not to mention his entire family seems to be against Kira. While his father may be his connection to L, his mother and sister didn't seem to object at the fact that his father was gonna catch Kira. And Light didn't kill them either.
FatPianoBoy
2006-11-04, 17:43
Some may agree with Light, about using the DN to kill criminals. But Light is relying on the Law to kill his criminals, and we must remember that the Law is never fool-proof. As in, one maybe be wrongfully accused and jailed (and then killed by Light) when one is actually innocent. And now I hear that he's starting to kill off innocent people in his way. Morality has gone to the dogs. (I got the shivers when he said that he would have to kill his family if need be.) The stupid SOB doesnt see where he is going, Morality wise. IMO, he is going down the same path those people he kills in the name of "Justice" went; no, he has gone down much further than them.
For what it's worth, I think that was a bluff. I doubt Light bothered (or needed) to look up any more information on Ray than the fact that he was engaged. The possibility would be enough to manipulate Ray, so Light didn't need to actually make good on his threat.
What bothers me is that Light knew that Ray didn't suspect him at all and still did what he did. Heck, even when Ray's fiancee suggested that someone on the bus may be Kira, he completely rejected the idea despite the high possibility. After Ray filed his report, the police and the FBI would be off Light's back for good, and Light could keep up with his crusade. Now he's got several genuinely motivated people on his back (Ray's fiancee in particular), and has probably caused more trouble by killing those agents than he saved.
I agree that it was a bluff. Light just told Ray that he'll kill someone he knew, and Ray just said "not her...". So from what Ray uttered, Light being so smart, was able to figure out that Ray had a fiance, and Light just used that to his advantage and make it seem like Light really was going to hurt his family. Light had to be convincing after all to fool Ray.
If Light lets Ray off, the FBI agents may be off Light's back, but that will not solve the problem of L still suspecting that Kira is within the 151 odd people. L will simply need more time to find Kira within the 151 odd people. Finishing Ray off was his way of getting to his goal as possible to get rid of L, and with that one move, decimated L and forced him to reveal his identity to his father.
FatPianoBoy
2006-11-04, 19:12
If Light lets Ray off, the FBI agents may be off Light's back, but that will not solve the problem of L still suspecting that Kira is within the 151 odd people. L will simply need more time to find Kira within the 151 odd people. Finishing Ray off was his way of getting to his goal as possible to get rid of L, and with that one move, decimated L and forced him to reveal his identity to his father.
Ah, I see. Light wasn't guarding his own pieces, he was moving in for the checkmate. Taking that into consideration, it does make much more sense. L and those five officers are now 100% on their own in all this. That alone is worth it's weight in gold for intimidation and demoralizing. Light is trying to make L slip up, which he's trying to bring about by forcing L into a corner and hoping he panicks.
Man, I love this show.
Anyway... as to not be totally off-topic (even though I promised to stay out of this discussion)... both sides have obviously made good points either way. Just for the record, I don't believe what Light did falls within the realm of moral even the slightest. He had good intentions, but he became somewhat misguided along the way. I'm not a big fan of the "ends justifying the means" statement, as there are very few times when such can actually be applied to anything that actually happens.
Regardless, both parties (Light and L) did what they both, as individuals, thought were the "right" thing to do. So as previously mentioned, the one who is "right" is the victor, and while...
Light may have won the battle between himself and L, he lost the war so to speak.
I disagree. Morality is relative. There is no fixed "morally' right way of doing things. Stealing is universally accepted as morally wrong right? Then how about Robin hood stealing from the poor. Is Robin hood now a monster who has no morals because he steals? People say ignore intent, so forget the fact that Robin Hood is doing it for the poor.
There may not be a fixed morality per se, but it's still possible to measure how good moral systems are at determining right from wrong. It's mostly just a question on deciding on what criteria you want to use. The results should indicate how the different moral systems compare. In practice, most morality systems deal with the concept of murder in the same way so it doesn't really matter for our purposes.
In your example, you're making a couple of errors. The first is that murder is far more grevious than theft. This means that an action that can excuse the latter may have no influence on the former. Most of the longer tellings of Robin Hood explore this very idea. Second, you aren't describing one action, you're talking about two different actions: stealing from the rich, and giving to the poor. If it can be ascertained that the amount of harm generated by the former action is outweighed by the latter, then allowances may be made to lower the overall amount of immorality. However, theft in general is still a immoral (and harmful) act. After all, how would you feel if a modern-day Robin Hood were to steal all of your belongings, sold them, and gave the proceeds to an orphan in Cambodia?
In general, morality isn't always strictly about defining right and wrong. Utilitarianism, for example, is more of a decision-making tool which we use to determine which of the possible actions will lead to better consequences. An action that will lead to greater harm is considered immoral, and an action that leads to greater benefit is considered moral. Often, all of the choices will lead to harm. In this case, the least harmful of these choices is considered more moral than the others. The opposite is also possible.
Perhaps, but from Light's perspective, that classmate was harassing another of Light's classmate. He thought for a brief moment if he could save that classmate from the other one by using the death note. He wasn't out on a killing spree as people are making it out to seem. Light was merely thinking of how to test the death note, then that scene happened right in front of Light. The though of killing that classmate hadn't entered his mind until that scene where that classmate started harassing another classmate.
Trax was originally talking about the way that Light may start killing people who commit relatively petty crimes. No moral person would seriously entertain the idea of killing an acquaintance for the sake of experimentation. That Light would do so indicates that Trax's suspicion is well justified.
Even if the country prospers? Sometimes evil must be done to do good. Lying is bad, but sometimes lying is necessary to do good. The intent is important, contrary to what people say. If lying to a person makes an otherwise sad person happy, is that morally wrong? They are lying to that person after all... or is lying good after all?
They are monsters even if the country prospers. Stalin is pretty much the poster boy for this.
My point is that what Light is doing may also fit as one of those caveats. There are already a number of caveats, and this may well be another one. Sometimes a wrong is needed to do a right.
Why would Light qualify? What has he done that deserves more moral allowance for his actions?
I would refer to this as a war between two ideal worlds: Light's and L's.
I based all of my arguments on the very first episode (I haven't even seen the others yet). L doesn't enter into the picture yet, so his ideas and actions are irrelevant for my purposes. Light simply saying that it's a war doesn't mean anything, nor does it justify anything.
Whether Light is crazy or not doesn't have any real bearing on the morality of his actions. In fact, he is more culpable if he is indeed sane.
And I would say the justice system does have bearing. Light is unsatisfied with the current system, and that is why he is trying to change it. I would say, that is his motivation for doing what he's doing. So it does have relevance.
Why would the justice system have any bearing on morality? Shouldn't it be the other way around? As I've said before, intent is irrelevant. Please try to argue otherwise before basing any arguments off of it.
Euthanasia is for people who can't commit suicide. They can't do it by themselves because they are mentally or physically handicapped., so they need other people to kill them. Anyways, just because someone tells you to kill them, doesn't mean you should. And remember, the person who does this is *killing* another human being. That by definition to some people is *murder*. What gives them the right to kill someone even if that person asks for it? And shouldn't the person be trying to convince that person to stay alive instead of trying to kill that person? How do you even know that person really wants to die even? Just because they said so? People say a lot of things, doesn't mean they actually want to die. And this is why there's a lot of debate on whether on whether euthanasia is right or wrong, and moral does play a very big part in euthanasia.
It's isn't quite that simple. In general, killing is still wrong. The difference in the case of euthanasia is that more harm is endured by the patient living than if he were to die. Euthanasia is a moral choice only when all the other choices are worse.
Kira's ideal is to raise the risks to do a crime as high as possible to deter crime, so if someone who does crime, they accept the risk of getting the death sentence. Kira doesn't want the criminals to feel safe, he doesn't want criminals to think it's OK to do a crime because they will "only" get a jail sentence. Kira wants them to know that if they do a crime, there is no turning back.
It's a little off-topic, but do you really think the world would be a better place if all semi-serious crimes were given the death penalty?
In your example, you're making a couple of errors. The first is that murder is far more grevious than theft. This means that an action that can excuse the latter may have no influence on the former. Most of the longer tellings of Robin Hood explore this very idea. Second, you aren't describing one action, you're talking about two different actions: stealing from the rich, and giving to the poor. If it can be ascertained that the amount of harm generated by the former action is outweighed by the latter, then allowances may be made to lower the overall amount of immorality. However, theft in general is still a immoral (and harmful) act. After all, how would you feel if a modern-day Robin Hood were to steal all of your belongings, sold them, and gave the proceeds to an orphan in Cambodia?You're right, murder is more serious than theft, or at the very least accepted to be. But why should one the seriousness of the action have anything to do with whether something is moral or immoral? Just something being more serious in nature, doesn't make it more moral or more immoral than something that is less serious. Or are you implying that there are things that are neither serious nor non-serious are neither moral nor immoral, since they the action is right in the middle.
Robin Hood Example. Arguably, it is one action. If he steals from the rich, then as an afterthought decides to give to the rich is two actions as you say. But if the *intent* is to help the poor by giving them money from the rich, then it's really one action consisting of sub-steps. You say that what is moral or immoral is determined by how much harm is determined by how much damage is done? OK. But damage done isn't always the same, and differ from time to time, and who is the recipient of the action. Someone can perform the same deed twice, and the results will differ. So morals for a given action will depend on context. Then there is no universal moral because damage for a given action will always change, and so the universal moral will also change. You may be right that Robin Hood may be immoral, but then the scary thought is that there are so many children's cartoons that depict Robin Hood as a hero, and not an evil immoral "monster"....;)
It's isn't quite that simple. In general, killing is still wrong. The difference in the case of euthanasia is that more harm is endured by the patient living than if he were to die. Euthanasia is a moral choice only when all the other choices are worse.More harm being endured by the patient? How would the killer know this? The killer somehow knows what's best for the patient, because they are somehow authorized? Even if they have been authorized, and they have the legal power to decide whether someone should live or die, it doesn't mean the patient has given up his/her right to live to that person. And I think people would agree that morality is generally, independent of law. The person being authorized to decide whether the person can live or die means nothing. Without the authority, which means nothing since it has nothing to do with morality, that person is just someone who will kill another human being like any other killer. The only difference is that they are intentionally killing that person because they think it's somehow better for the patient, that it's for a "good cause". But the patient may not want to die, and cannot say so, but the person thinking that they are right and think it's best for the victim to die, kill the patient anyway. Is that really moral? I'm not so sure it is....it may be more acceptable, but that does not mean it's a moral thing. And this somehow seems similar to what Kira is doing.
Trax was originally talking about the way that Light may start killing people who commit relatively petty crimes. No moral person would seriously entertain the idea of killing an acquaintance for the sake of experimentation. That Light would do so indicates that Trax's suspicion is well justified.But you forget to mention that person was still doing something that could be considered as harassment. Let me say this, according to Light's own morals, there was enough justification to "judge" that person. He wasn't killing people randomly, he said he'll kill criminals, and to him, "harassment is a crime", so he thought I can judge him. Everything he did fit in with his own morals. That may not be the in perfect alignment with the majority of what everyone thinks is moral, but to Light, to himself, it was moral. Hence, I was saying that Light is "Chaotic Good": Trying to do good by doing evil (irrespective of current law). And that L was "Lawful Good" because he is trying to do good by following the current law. Two ideals fighting it out in one big chess match, where the world is their chess board.
They are monsters even if the country prospers. Stalin is pretty much the poster boy for this.Sometimes, a monster is needed to get rid of another monster. "Fight fire with fire". There are good monsters and evil monsters is my point I guess. I don't lump all "monsters" under one "evil" label I guess. But I guess this might be a terminology issue than anything else. (however, this does not mean I'm a Stalin supporter)
I based all of my arguments on the very first episode (I haven't even seen the others yet). L doesn't enter into the picture yet, so his ideas and actions are irrelevant for my purposes. Light simply saying that it's a war doesn't mean anything, nor does it justify anything.I agree, just saying it's a war doesn't justify anything. It's the reasons behind the war that matter, and even that may not justify the war. My point is that wars themselves are not usually right, but sometimes morals don't apply in a war situation. That some morals will not apply to Light in this situation. Like the morals regarding a soldier killing another solder, or a group of assassins hired to kill an evil tyrant. Or at the very least, they are some grounds for doing something immoral. As in thinking that Light is a general who kills countless people with no mercy, as opposed to serial killer murdering people. But maybe, this is just terminology.
Why would the justice system have any bearing on morality? Shouldn't it be the other way around? As I've said before, intent is irrelevant. Please try to argue otherwise before basing any arguments off of it.My point is that Light started doing what he was doing because he was unsatisfied with the justice system. And that he is supposedly trying to setup a better justice system, and these are the things that motive his actions. His motive isn't to become God per se.
It's a little off-topic, but do you really think the world would be a better place if all semi-serious crimes were given the death penalty?Nope. I'm quite against death penalty actually for the reasons that most people have said. I'm merely trying to present the other side of the debate. I've said it before, Light has good intentions but has an evil way of doing them. But I just disagree that Light himself is evil, his methods are evil, but he himself is not evil. :heh:
EDIT: The other anti-hero in Code Geass....I wonder what people think of him compared to Kira.
You're right, murder is more serious than theft, or at the very least accepted to be. But why should one the seriousness of the action have anything to do with whether something is moral or immoral? Just something being more serious in nature, doesn't make it more moral or more immoral than something that is less serious. Or are you implying that there are things that are neither serious nor non-serious are neither moral nor immoral, since they the action is right in the middle.
The reason depends on your system of morality, but you're thinking too much in terms of black and white. If there are only two options open to you: to either steal from a man or to kill him, then theft is the lesser of the two evils, so it's moral by comparison. There's also a possiblity of mitigating this act through other actions. Murder, on the other hand is so grevious that it's universally considered evil, with little in the way of mitigation.
The question of morality doesn't apply to most decisions you make: what you decide to eat for lunch, whether you say "good morning" to your neighbor, etc. The only ones that deal with morality are the ones where you can potentially harm/benefit someone else. Note that anything you do to yourself doesn't count.
Arguably, it is one action. If he steals from the rich, then as an afterthought decides to give to the rich is two actions as you say. But if the *intent* is to help the poor by giving them money from the rich, then it's really one action consisting of sub-steps. You say that what is moral or immoral is determined by how much harm is determined by how much damage is done? OK. But damage done isn't always the same, and differ from time to time, and who is the recipient of the action. Then there is no universal moral because damage for a given action will always change, and so the universal moral will also change.
Again, intent really isn't an issue. You still bring up a good point about the results being potentially different. That's why it's important to look at things on a case-by-case basis. It's also the reason why Light's blanket actions are so heinous.
I'm not sure where you got the idea of a universal morality from, or how it's supposed to be relevant.
More harm being endured by the patient? How would the killer know this? The killer somehow knows what's best for the patient, because they are somehow authorized? Even if they have been authorized, and they have the legal power to decide whether someone should live or die, it doesn't mean the patient has given up his/her right to live to that person.
You've hit on the reason why euthanasia is only to be practised on terminal patients. Doctors have to conclude that there's no hope of recover before it can be considered as an option. Appointing a spokesman explicitly gives him the authority to decide life and death. The patient has concluded that he may be unable to make the choice, so he's granting someone he trusts to make that choice for him.
But the patient may not want to die, and cannot say so, but the person thinking that they are right and think it's best for the victim to die, kill the patient anyway. Is that really moral? I'm not so sure it is....it may be more acceptable, but that does not mean it's a moral thing. And this somehow seems similar to what Kira is doing.
Incorrect, properly done, euthanasia is effectively a form of suicide. Suicide carrys very little weight morally because it's something that you do to yourself. Are you somehow assuming that Light's victims all wanted to die?
But you forget to mention that person was still doing something that could be considered as harassment. Let me say this, according to Light's own morals, there was enough justification to "judge" that person. He wasn't killing people randomly, he said he'll kill criminals, and to him, "harassment is a crime", so he thought I can judge him. Everything he did fit in with his own morals. That may not be the in perfect alignment with the majority of what everyone thinks is moral, but to Light, to himself, it was moral. Hence, I was saying that Light is "Chaotic Good": Trying to do good by doing evil (irrespective of current law).
But littering is a crime as well, would it be right to execute litterbugs as well? Dungeons and Dragons makes for a very poor way to classify morality.
Sometimes, a monster is needed to get rid of another monster. "Fight fire with fire". There are good monsters and evil monsters is my point I guess. I don't lump all "monsters" under one "evil" label I guess. But I guess this might be a terminology issue than anything else. (however, this does not mean I'm a Stalin supporter)
Uhh... By labeling someone as a monster, we're already saying that this person is one of the most heinous and evil people in all of history. I can see how a monster can occasionally do good deeds, but I can't fathom how one can ever be called "good".
I agree, just saying it's a war doesn't justify anything. It's the reasons behind the war that matter, and even that may not justify the war. My point is that wars themselves are not usually right, but sometimes morals don't apply in a war situation. That some morals will not apply to Light in this situation. Like the morals regarding a soldier killing another solder, or a group of assassins hired to kill an evil tyrant. Or at the very least, they are some grounds for doing something immoral. As in thinking that Light is a general who kills countless people with no mercy, as opposed to serial killer murdering people. But maybe, this is just terminology.
How in heck does Light's reasons justify it as a war? And why shouldn't Light's actions make him a serial killer?
Note that some moral systems regard war itself as an evil act.
My point is that Light started doing what he was doing because he was unsatisfied with the justice system. And that he is supposedly trying to setup a better justice system, and these are the things that motive his actions. His motive isn't to become God per se.
You've got to explain why intent should matter to morality before that argument can work.
Nope. I'm quite against death penalty actually for the reasons that most people have said. I'm merely trying to present the other side of the debate. I've said it before, Light has good intentions but has an evil way of doing them. But I just disagree that Light himself is evil, his methods are evil, but he himself is not evil.
Shouldn't a person's actions define whether or not he's good or evil? After all, lots of monsters in the past also had good intentions.
The reason depends on your system of morality, but you're thinking too much in terms of black and white. If there are only two options open to you: to either steal from a man or to kill him, then theft is the lesser of the two evils, so it's moral by comparison. There's also a possiblity of mitigating this act through other actions. Murder, on the other hand is so grevious that it's universally considered evil, with little in the way of mitigation.
The question of morality doesn't apply to most decisions you make: what you decide to eat for lunch, whether you say "good morning" to your neighbor, etc. The only ones that deal with morality are the ones where you can potentially harm/benefit someone else. Note that anything you do to yourself doesn't count.True, but eh, well, you are talking in relative terms, whereas I was talking in more absolute terms.
Again, intent really isn't an issue. You still bring up a good point about the results being potentially different. That's why it's important to look at things on a case-by-case basis. It's also the reason why Light's blanket actions are so heinous.
I'm not sure where you got the idea of a universal morality from, or how it's supposed to be relevant. I'm not sure if you said it, but I think someone said that an act is universally moral or immoral. I think that person said "There's no such thing as a case by case thing, it's either moral or immoral".
Incorrect, properly done, euthanasia is effectively a form of suicide. Suicide carrys very little weight morally because it's something that you do to yourself. Are you somehow assuming that Light's victims all wanted to die?You say it's another form of suicide, but someone can just as easily conclude that it's another form of murder. And of course I'm not saying the the victims wanted to die. I'm saying they are somewhat similar since in both cases someone else's opinion decides whether someone else is to live or die.
But littering is a crime as well, would it be right to execute litterbugs as well? Dungeons and Dragons makes for a very poor way to classify morality.It would not be, in my opinion right, but that is the nature of the justice system that Light is proposing to deter crime. Whether that is right or wrong is beside the point, that is how his system works. It issues death sentences even to little crimes to deter people from doing it. If anything is evil, it is the system itself that is evil. Not the people within that system.
Anyways, that may be a poor way to classify morality, but that can get the point across that not everything is black and white, good and evil. That within good and evil there are sub categories as well.
Uhh... By labeling someone as a monster, we're already saying that this person is one of the most heinous and evil people in all of history. I can see how a monster can occasionally do good deeds, but I can't fathom how one can ever be called "good".Well, I guess we have a different definition of the word "monster" then.
How in heck does Light's reasons justify it as a war? And why shouldn't Light's actions make him a serial killer?
Note that some moral systems regard war itself as an evil act.As I have said before. In the same sense that a soldier who kills countless other people on the battle field isn't necessarily a serial murderer, Light isn't necessarily one either. I suppose you have a very broad interpretation of what serial murderer means to encompass a lot of things.
You've got to explain why intent should matter to morality before that argument can work.I just stated that as a fact as to what Light's motives was. It was not an argument for morality.
However, intent can sometimes justify actions. Lying can be considered immoral, but if telling the truth hurts more, even if lying is immoral, it may be justified. That is something can be immoral, but it can be considered the right thing to do because it causes less harm
Shouldn't a person's actions define whether or not he's good or evil? After all, lots of monsters in the past also had good intentions.If you did one immoral thing, perhaps you lied about something to someone, are you now evil. Are you now an immoral person. You may have done an immoral act in lying, but you are not an immoral person just because of that act.
A person's actions define whether that person is good or evil? I hope you're not a person who only judges people on their actions alone. Because I try to take into consideration what their intent and action is and not solely on their action. Just like how I don't only look at the cover of the book, I actually open it and read some of it.
A politician may be trying his best to fight for a good cause, say build a dam. By building that dam he will do good, maybe help the economy somehow, but by building that dam can be said to be evil because it will cut down forests. Because the politician cuts down the forest, even if he builds the dam for a good reason, the politician is now evil? The politician is now immoral, and should be kicked out of office? I would have to disagree. The politician had a hard choice to make, and he only did what he thought was right.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-05, 16:11
There are so many people who cant step out of the circle, see and think. They just stubbornly, conservatively stay inside. Seriously, how many people would step out of the "cicrle"?
There were even a periods people would scorn about "flying" "Landing on the moon" "the earth is circle" etc...
How many great inventors and scientists out there? Not to mention moral issue. For an example, Bruce Lee. One of the reason he is so outstanding is not he is a superstar, but he step out of the "circle". While people are confined with the fighting style, but he step out of it. He learnt all kind of fight style, and he found out Chinese kung fu style is a much better system. But, he still step out of this "style" and combine all the goods from different style and make it much more effective.
True, but eh, well, you are talking in relative terms, whereas I was talking in more absolute terms.
Morality is basically a decision-making tool, so you may be misconstruing the way it works.
I'm not sure if you said it, but I think someone said that an act is universally moral or immoral. I think that person said "There's no such thing as a case by case thing, it's either moral or immoral".
That is an overgeneralized statement. There are some moral systems which ascribe to the view that certain acts are always immoral, but any actions still must be examined to see what end of the spectrum they fall within.
You say it's another form of suicide, but someone can just as easily conclude that it's another form of murder. And of course I'm not saying the the victims wanted to die. I'm saying they are somewhat similar since in both cases someone else's opinion decides whether someone else is to live or die.
On what basis would euthanasia be considered murder? Their locus of controls are completely different, as are their conditions.
There's still no similarity between this and Light. After all, the terminal patient has to first decide to die after a point of no return is reached, and appoint someone to make that final decision on his behalf only if he's unable to do so himself. Light satisfies neither condition. I've already explained how euthanasia differs from murder, can you do the same thing for Light?
It would not be, in my opinion right, but that is the nature of the justice system that Light is proposing to deter crime. Whether that is right or wrong is beside the point, that is how his system works. It issues death sentences even to little crimes to deter people from doing it. If anything is evil, it is the system itself that is evil. Not the people within that system.
If that's the case, then why do you try to defend Light's actions?
Anyways, that may be a poor way to classify morality, but that can get the point across that not everything is black and white, good and evil. That within good and evil there are sub categories as well.
It not only fails to do that, but it gives the wrong impression that people are good, or evil, or neutral. The reality is that people should be judged solely by their actions, and that it's quite possible (and expected) that good people occasionally do evil things, and that evil people occasionally do good things.
Well, I guess we have a different definition of the word "monster" then.
OED defines it (for people) as "an inhumanly cruel or wicked person". How could a good person possibly fit that description?
As I have said before. In the same sense that a soldier who kills countless other people on the battle field isn't necessarily a serial murderer, Light isn't necessarily one either. I suppose you have a very broad interpretation of what serial murderer means to encompass a lot of things.
Light isn't fighting a war. A serial killer is just one who kills people repeatedly - Light does this to a large scale. Just because he supposedly sticks to criminals doesn't change that.
However, intent can sometimes justify actions. Lying can be considered immoral, but if telling the truth hurts more, even if lying is immoral, it may be justified. That is something can be immoral, but it can be considered the right thing to do because it causes less harm
At best, this is just an excuse for acting immorally. Your analogy doesn't work because a minor lie does not cause any harm, so it's hard to think of it as immoral.
The other problem is that if a good intention can justify an immoral act, then won't a selfish or evil intention do the opposite? Think of this scenario:
Three men save some children from a burning house.
The first man does so selflessly because it's just natural for him to do so.
The second man does so merely because he thinks that it will make him famous, and he hopes to profit from it.
The third man would just as soon see the children burn, but he saves them knows that his enemy would be upset to know that the children survived.
They have very different motives for saving the children, but does it really alter the fact that they performed a good deed?
If you did one immoral thing, perhaps you lied about something to someone, are you now evil. Are you now an immoral person. You may have done an immoral act in lying, but you are not an immoral person just because of that act.
That's vastly oversimplifying things. A person's morality is hardly defined by a single act unless it was an act of extraordinary evil.
A person's actions define whether that person is good or evil? I suppose you only judge people on their actions alone I take it However, I try to take into consideration what their intent and action is and not solely on their action. Just like how I don't only look at the cover of the book, I actually open it and read some of it.
Another reason why intent is unimportant is that people often do things that work counter to what they intended. If we step aside from morality for the moment, people in Europe killed cats because they thought that they were responsible for the Black Death. In reality, the bubonic plague was spread by rats (or more accurately, the fleas on the rats) which the cats would have otherwise killed. If we take intent into account, the Europeans surely did what they could to fight against disease... Do you really think that intent matters in this case?
A politician may be trying his best to fight for a good cause, say build a dam. By building that dam he will do good, maybe help the economy somehow, but by building that dam can be said to be evil because it will cut down forests. Because the politician cuts down the forest, even if he builds the dam for a good reason, the politician is now evil? The politician is now immoral, and should be kicked out of office? I would have to disagree. The politician had a hard choice to make, and he only did what he thought was right.
Building a dam isn't really a question of morality. It's more a question of whether the costs outweigh the benefits.
There's still no similarity between this and Light. After all, the terminal patient has to first decide to die after a point of no return is reached, and appoint someone to make that final decision on his behalf only if he's unable to do so himself. Light satisfies neither condition. I've already explained how euthanasia differs from murder, can you do the same thing for Light?You don't seem to understand. You keep on saying the patient gets to decide. There are cases where the patient can't. In those cases, what to do? Kill the patient or not? The patient hasn't agreed in any way, but the patient seems he/she might be better off dead because of the pain if he/she were to continue living. From one view, if you kill, you are the one murdering the patient without the patient's consent. The same as what Kira is doing
It not only fails to do that, but it gives the wrong impression that people are good, or evil, or neutral. The reality is that people should be judged solely by their actions, and that it's quite possible (and expected) that good people occasionally do evil things, and that evil people occasionally do good things.So you would convict someone in court only because of their actions without knowing the reason behind it? That's kind of troubling, and I hope you really don't believe that.
OED defines it (for people) as "an inhumanly cruel or wicked person". How could a good person possibly fit that description?Please don't quote from a dictionary. The dictionary does not contain all meanings for words, and there are always new meanings and words being created by people all the time. That definition you quoted is someone's definition of the word, but it does not represent all the possible meanings of the word. Nor does a definition from a dictionary mean it's right, nor is it free from bias, since the author of that dictionary may also be biased. Words can have multiple interpretations, not just the one you think is right.
Light isn't fighting a war. A serial killer is just one who kills people repeatedly - Light does this to a large scale. Just because he supposedly sticks to criminals doesn't change that.By that same definition, executors on the side of the law are also serial killers. Executors are on the law's side, they only kill criminals, and they can do it repeatedly.This fits in perfectly with your definition of a serial killer. And soldiers also kill repeatedly on the battlefield do they not? So you are saying soldiers who fight to protect a country are also serial killers. This I don't agree with.
At best, this is just an excuse for acting immorally. Your analogy doesn't work because a minor lie does not cause any harm, so it's hard to think of it as immoral.At the very least, a reason to justify it. So something that doesn't cause harm, is hardly immoral? How do you even define "harm". Is it OK to steal from the local store, so long as they won't notice it? Is it OK to cheat on tests, even though it causes no direct physical harm? Is it OK to take someone else's work for credit? To download movies?
Anyways, philosophically speaking, one can argue that a person isn't inherently good or evil...that is they aren't born that way. "Good" and "Evil" are just words people use to label one another. That "Good" and "Evil" is what one thinks of someone else, but that doesn't actually mean that that person is actually has an attribute "Evil" or "Good". In fact, these two labels aren't even enough. Things aren't just "Evil" or "Good", there are other sub categories of "evil" and "good". The point of the d&d reference.
Sinestra
2006-11-05, 17:30
If morality is a man made thing and man is flawed who is to say that the whole idea of morality is warped. Some have the theory that mans laws dont work or wont work for very long because since man is flawed any institution man may create will be flawed from the start. Can this work in favor on Lights ideals?
Deathkillz
2006-11-05, 17:44
If morality is a man made thing and man is flawed who is to say that the whole idea of morality is warped. Some have the theory that mans laws dont work or wont work for very long because since man is flawed any institution man may create will be flawed from the start. Can this work in favor on Lights ideals?
thats quite a good point on the surface but...Light is human himself...his ideals could also be warped...
i think a lot of morality comes down to your Conscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience) and your feelings of right and wrong...ofc you will have none at all if you are a crazy psyco bent on killing :heh:
Sinestra
2006-11-05, 18:02
thats quite a good point on the surface but...Light is human himself...his ideals could also be warped...
i think a lot of morality comes down to your Conscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience) and your feelings of right and wrong...ofc you will have none at all if you are a crazy psyco bent on killing :heh:
Good point i think the idea of morality in lights eyes is one the reasons hes ended the way he is now. if you a strong sense of anything thats too far left or too far right usually it will end up warped. The problem is as u pointed out conscience and perception. Since Kira views the world according to his perception he thinks what he is doing is right but we view the world diffrently hence we think what he is going is wrong because of conscience. Perception is reality its too bad in Kira's case that perception makes you a crazy ass psycho
The other problem is that if a good intention can justify an immoral act, then won't a selfish or evil intention do the opposite? Think of this scenario:
Three men save some children from a burning house.
The first man does so selflessly because it's just natural for him to do so.
The second man does so merely because he thinks that it will make him famous, and he hopes to profit from it.
The third man would just as soon see the children burn, but he saves them knows that his enemy would be upset to know that the children survived.
They have very different motives for saving the children, but does it really alter the fact that they performed a good deed?But isn't that one way of saying that the ends justifies the means. As long as they do the good deed, why does it matter why they chose to do it, even with selfish intentions.
AvatarST
2006-11-05, 18:47
It's entirely possible for a murderer or rapist to be a good person outside of the crime they committed.
I could perhaps see it for a murderer, but how can a rapist be a good person?
And by "we're better off without them", I was of course considering people who are, mm, how to put it...guilty of commiting evil acts (specifically rape or murder). Sick people did nothing wrong, so why should they be punished?
ThisIsDream
2006-11-05, 20:17
Let say u dont know the existense of "Raito" "death note". You are seeing major criminals dying naturally, and u are not satisfied with it, who are u gonna blame to? GOD:D? May be u can make up something to blame, like a name, "Kira", "Jesus" etc..
You don't seem to understand. You keep on saying the patient gets to decide. There are cases where the patient can't. In those cases, what to do? Kill the patient or not? The patient hasn't agreed in any way, but the patient seems he/she might be better off dead because of the pain if he/she were to continue living. From one view, if you kill, you are the one murdering the patient without the patient's consent. The same as what Kira is doing
You'd have to be a little more specific, since I've already address the question of giving someone else the authority to make the final decision.
Yet another way of looking at it is that euthanasia is a decision made for the sake of benefiting the patient. Murder is totally different. You're placing far too much emphasis on the fact that they both involve killing.
So you would convict someone in court only because of their actions without knowing the reason behind it? That's kind of troubling, and I hope you really don't believe that.
Actually, court cases are decided by action. They are decided by what the defendent did, not by how he thought. Intent only factors in a small number of cases; mostly at sentencing.
Please don't quote from a dictionary. The dictionary does not contain all meanings for words, and there are always new meanings and words being created by people all the time. That definition you quoted is someone's definition of the word, but it does not represent all the possible meanings of the word. Nor does a definition from a dictionary mean it's right, nor is it free from bias, since the author of that dictionary may also be biased. Words can have multiple interpretations, not just the one you think is right.
This is just a long tautology. In the case of "monster", the definition is universally agreed upon.
By that same definition, executors on the side of the law are also serial killers. Executors are on the law's side, they only kill criminals, and they can do it repeatedly.This fits in perfectly with your definition of a serial killer. And soldiers also kill repeatedly on the battlefield do they not? So you are saying soldiers who fight to protect a country are also serial killers. This I don't agree with.
This isn't an issue. The usage of the phrase "serial killer" exclusively refers to the people who murder. Executioners don't murder people (or at least they aren't supposed to), they execute them. Ditto for soldiers.
At the very least, a reason to justify it. So something that doesn't cause harm, is hardly immoral? How do you even define "harm". Is it OK to steal from the local store, so long as they won't notice it? Is it OK to cheat on tests, even though it causes no direct physical harm? Is it OK to take someone else's work for credit? To download movies?
The first part is correct. If there's no harm, then it's not immoral either. Your examples don't quite work with that: stealing harms the store owner financially, cheating on tests harms those the others who took it academically, stealing credit takes it away from the one who did the work, and downloading movies harms the movie companies financially. Harm doesn't have to occur in a physical sense, but the hierarchy is that the more harm inflicted, the more immoral the action is considered.
If morality is a man made thing and man is flawed who is to say that the whole idea of morality is warped. Some have the theory that mans laws dont work or wont work for very long because since man is flawed any institution man may create will be flawed from the start. Can this work in favor on Lights ideals?
The fact that morality is a human construct doesn't have any bearing on how effective it is. The fact that it isn't necessarily perfect doesn't have any bearing on whether it achieves the desired effect. Systems of morality are practical tool, so if there are flaws in the way one operates, then they should show up readily - and it is these errors should be the basis for rejecting the particular system.
By way of comparison, engineering is a man made construct. It's also not always perfect. However is that sufficient reason to stop using it altogether?
But isn't that one way of saying that the ends justifies the means. As long as they do the good deed, why does it matter why they chose to do it, even with selfish intentions.
No, it isn't saying that the ends justify the means. I'm saying that the means themselves have to be justified. Your second statement is accurate: it doesn't really matter why people perform good deeds; it's enough that they do.
I could perhaps see it for a murderer, but how can a rapist be a good person?
The rapist can still be good in all other particulars except for committing his crime. It's not exactly probable, but it isn't entirely impossible.
And by "we're better off without them", I was of course considering people who are, mm, how to put it...guilty of commiting evil acts (specifically rape or murder). Sick people did nothing wrong, so why should they be punished?
That's because you're using "we're better off without them" as a criteria. If you just want to execute people who commit rape or murder, then you'd be doing so because their crimes merit capital punishment. In this case, the question of society benefiting from their deaths is sort of redundant. Still, the punishment has to be proportional to the severity of the harm inflicted. I can sort of see the case for murder, but it doesn't make sense for rape - after all, the victim is still alive. It can prove extremely difficult to determine exactly what crimes merit the ultimate punishment.
Keep in mind though, that Light isn't executing people, he's murdering them.
You'd have to be a little more specific, since I've already address the question of giving someone else the authority to make the final decision.
Yet another way of looking at it is that euthanasia is a decision made for the sake of benefiting the patient. Murder is totally different. You're placing far too much emphasis on the fact that they both involve killing.No you haven't addressed it. Repeatedly saying you addressed it means nothing. And you aren't placing enough emphasis on that fact that it involves killing someone without their consent. You say benefit, that is only someone's opinion, not the patient's. The killing is pre-mediated and intentional, and kills someone when they don't want to die (without their consent). That can be argued as being similar to murder.
Actually, court cases are decided by action. They are decided by what the defendent did, not by how he thought. Intent only factors in a small number of cases; mostly at sentencing.In the end, action is not the only thing looked at. Which was my point.
This is just a long tautology. In the case of "monster", the definition is universally agreed upon.And you are dismissing it why? Because it's true. That definition is not universally agreed on. There are lot's of children's show where a child will have a monster friend. In this case, "monster" does not mean "a cruel person" but some supernatural being which is usually good. There are lot's of definitions of "monster". Also, someone could say someone is a monster because that person is exceptionally good at something. Get your facts straight.
This isn't an issue. The usage of the phrase "serial killer" exclusively refers to the people who murder. Executioners don't murder people (or at least they aren't supposed to), they execute them. Ditto for soldiers.Execution is different how? Because law makes it lawful, it's different. True, legally execution is not murder, but morally this isn't necessarily true.
The first part is correct. If there's no harm, then it's not immoral either. Your examples don't quite work with that: stealing harms the store owner financially, cheating on tests harms those the others who took it academically, stealing credit takes it away from the one who did the work, and downloading movies harms the movie companies financially. Harm doesn't have to occur in a physical sense, but the hierarchy is that the more harm inflicted, the more immoral the action is considered.Again, what is your definition of "harm". You may think something is not immoral because you think it does no harm, but where in fact, it does cause harm. You have to note that something that is harmful to someone may not be harmful to someone else. Morals are again, relative. And most often than not, acts will not only be good or only be bad. An act usually has it's fair share of people who will be hurt and it's fair share of people who will be helped by that act. If an act both helps some people and hurts some people, is that act now immoral? Because it's no longer true that act no longer hurts people, although it is now true that act also helps people.
No you haven't addressed it. Repeatedly saying you addressed means nothing. And you aren't placing enough emphasis on that fact that it involves killing someone without their intent. You say benefit, that is only someone's opinion, not the patient's.
I've already explained that euthanasia is tantamount to suicide - what part of it do you not understand? Why do you keep saying that it's not the patient's opinion, when in fact, that's exactly what drives the impetus for euthanasia?
In the end, action is not the only thing looked at. Which was my point.
Your point is misplaced. We don't always judge actions solely on the basis of ethics. Where intent does come in, is in how society reacts to it. We instinctively try to help out the people who have good motives, while we try to stifle those who have selfish motives. However, this is an emotional response, not one based on morality. Laws usually understand this, which is why intent generally is only important in sentencing.
And you are dismissing it why? Because it's true. That definition is not universally agreed on. There are lot's of children's show where a child will have a monster friend. In this case, "monster" does not mean "a cruel person" but some supernatural being which is usually good. There are lot's of definitions of "monster". Also, someone could say someone is a monster because that person is exceptionally good at something. Get your facts straight.
Your nitpicks aren't particularly relevant. The only definition of "monster" that is pertinent to a discussion of morality is that of "an inhumanly cruel or wicked person".
Execution is different how? Because law makes it lawful, it's different. True, legally execution is not murder, but morally this isn't necessarily true.
This is a fairly complicated subject, but a valid argument for the morality of captial punishment can be made. The same cannot be said for murder. Legality doesn't really come into play here.
Again, what is your definition of "harm". You may think something is not immoral because you think it does no harm, but where in fact, it does cause harm. You have to note that something that is harmful to someone may not be harmful to someone else. Morals are again, relative.
Harm is simply affecting someone in a negative way. It's not a particularly controversial term. On the other hand, what do you mean by morality being relative?
And most often than not, acts will not only be good or only be bad. An act usually has it's fair share of people who will be hurt and it's fair share of people who will be helped by that act. If an act both helps some people and hurts some people, is that act now immoral? Because it's no longer true that act no longer hurts people, although it is now true that act also helps people.
In that case, all we really have to do is draw up metrics for weighing the harm and benefit of that complex action. Your argument would be stronger if you can come up with an example.
I've already explained that euthanasia is tantamount to suicide - what part of it do you not understand? Why do you keep saying that it's not the patient's opinion, when in fact, that's exactly what drives the impetus for euthanasia?You haven't explained anything. Why do you say it's the patient's opinion in the first place? The patient can't communicate whether the he or she wants to live or die. Someone is killing them only out of their *own* belief that that is what the patient wants. The belief is not the patients. All I can say, is that some people views this as murder some don't. You may be one of the people who view it as OK. There are people who don't.
Your nitpicks aren't particularly relevant. The only definition of "monster" that is pertinent to a discussion of morality is that of "an inhumanly cruel or wicked person". That is "a" definition, and not the *only* definition that is relevant in this context. I just listed some other common usages of the word "monster".
This is a fairly complicated subject, but a valid argument for the morality of captial punishment can be made. The same cannot be said for murder. Legality doesn't really come into play here.Once again, you haven't explained yourself at all. I agree it's a complicated subject, but don't just say a point can be made without saying what it is and then say my points are somehow invalid.
And please, stop saying my points are nitpicks, not relevant, incorrect, not an issue. It's getting annoying and irritating. Other people can have views that are different than yours. You could simply say "I disagree", "I don't think so". "That doesn't seem right". "Most people would agree"
ThisIsDream
2006-11-05, 22:45
In fact, when officers using all kinds of immoral, violence actions to make someone (this may not be a criminal) to get info or be witness, so it can hunt down a bigger immoral, harmful organization to prevent more innocent people getting hurt :(. That officer is still wrong :(, but the biggest immoral wrong organization is gone :).
In fact, when officers using all kinds of immoral, violence act to make someone (this may not be a criminal) to get info or be witness, so it can hunt down a bigger immoral, harmful organization to prevent more innocent people getting hurt :(. That officer is still wrong :(, but the biggest immoral wrong organization is gone :).Actually, good point. How about under-cover cops. Sometimes to maintain their cover, they have to do immoral things so that they don't blow their cover. They are doing it for justice, even if they have to do those things.
FatPianoBoy
2006-11-05, 22:56
Actually, good point. How about under-cover cops. Sometimes to maintain their cover, they have to do immoral things so that they don't blow their cover. They are doing it for justice, even if they have to do those things.
So, can we equate this to what Light is doing?
Light had to do an immoral thing (kill the FBI agents) in order to maintain his cover. He is doing it for justice, even if he is forced to do some unjust things.
That just scrapes against every moral fiber in me :uhoh:
ThisIsDream
2006-11-05, 23:00
I can understand people who can't bear somthing :(, but when they see the result they will be :).
Do you really think Light would be worried about blowing his cover to the agents? What he did seemed awfully well planned to get to L. Just by that one move, L lost U.S support and the agents, and L also lost the trust of the Japanese police force, and forced the police force to give up on the search on Kira, save for a select few. And in doing so, force L to reveal himself to the police for the first time ever in L's history. Seemed too well-planned for his motive to be simply not blowing his cover. Of course, as a result of what he did, it also helps Light keep his cover I guess. But that probably wasn't his prime motive.
But believe what you like.
You haven't explained anything. Why do you say it's the patient's opinion in the first place? The patient can't communicate whether the he or she wants to live or die. Someone is killing them only out of their *own* belief that that is what the patient wants. The belief is not the patients. All I can say, is that some people views this as murder some don't. You may be one of the people who view it as OK. There are people who don't.
Where do you get that strawman for euthanasia from? If the patient hasn't given his consent, then it's no longer accurate to term it euthanasia in the first place. In appointing a spokesman, the patient has already committed himself to that course of action. This has everything to do with what the patient wants.
Are you thinking about specific examples that are exceptions to this?
That is "a" definition, and not the *only* definition that is relevant in this context. I just listed some other common usages of the word "monster".
... which aren't pertinent to the question of morality. Simply pointing out that other definitions exist doesn't make them pertinent unless you can show why they are more accurate within the context of the argument. After all, lots of definitions exist for words like war; but if the discussion is about soldiers, then it's important to discard all the irrelevant ones.
Once again, you haven't explained yourself at all. I agree it's a complicated subject, but don't just say a point can be made without saying what it is and then say my points are somehow invalid.
Why is there a need to explain anything? Executions have some merits, while murders don't. The legal system only resorts to capital punishment only when all other forms of punishment are deemed inadequate for the crime committed. Hence, it can be seen as more moral than any other action. There's room for debating whether this stance is correct, but there's none for whether murder is correct. Do you have any complaint about the accuracy of my argument?
And please, stop saying my points are nitpicks, not relevant, incorrect, not an issue. It's getting annoying and irritating. Other people can have views that are different than yours. You could simply say "I disagree", "I don't think so". "That doesn't seem right". "Most people would agree"
No. Nitpicks and irrelevant points are just distractions that have no place in a debate. I use statements like "incorrect" purposefully to come across more forcefully than a statement like "I disagree". There's a distinction in tone between the times I do and the times I don't use that kind of forceful language, and it's a distinction I'd like to preserve. If you find issue with the accuracy of using that language, then feel free to point it out.
In fact, when officers using all kinds of immoral, violence actions to make someone (this may not be a criminal) to get info or be witness, so it can hunt down a bigger immoral, harmful organization to prevent more innocent people getting hurt . That officer is still wrong , but the biggest immoral wrong organization is gone .
Torture is not a valid form of police work. If police officers employ it on a suspect, then they too should be arrested and charged. Indeed, in Western countries,they would be.
Actually, good point. How about under-cover cops. Sometimes to maintain their cover, they have to do immoral things so that they don't blow their cover. They are doing it for justice, even if they have to do those things.
This is a more complicated matter. Still, intent doesn't really come into play. Other considerations like self-preservation tend to be far more important.
What does this have to do with Light though?
ThisIsDream
2006-11-06, 00:40
Yup >_< that officer is in jail and getting charge :(. That officer sacrifice himself for the the biggest immoral wrong organization >_<. He gained my respect .
Where do you get that strawman for euthanasia from? If the patient hasn't given his consent, then it's no longer accurate to term it euthanasia in the first place. In appointing a spokesman, the patient has already committed himself to that course of action. This has everything to do with what the patient wants. Do some research on euthanasia yourself. It's not true that they always get consent. I don't have time to explain every single detail until you understand. Some consider euthanasia as murder some as mercy killing.
... which aren't pertinent to the question of morality. Simply pointing out that other definitions exist doesn't make them pertinent unless you can show why they are more accurate within the context of the argument. After all, lots of definitions exist for words like war; but if the discussion is about soldiers, then it's important to discard all the irrelevant ones.Why is the definition of "monster" even that important. Why are you so determined to make a point that only your definition is correct? I simply said we have a different definition of the word "monster". Are people not allowed to have different definitions for words now? Geez. And I've already said so before, I don't label all monsters under the "evil category", that monsters can simply be people with lot's of influence or power. For example, lot's of shows say someone is a monster when they really mean that person is really powerful and shouldn't be messed around with or something like that. The word monster may usually be associated with "evil people", but the word monster does not only apply to evil people, at least to me. I will say this again, this is my definition that this word can be associated to both good and bad people. Understand? I am not saying your definition is wrong.
Why is there a need to explain anything? Executions have some merits, while murders don't. The legal system only resorts to capital punishment only when all other forms of punishment are deemed inadequate for the crime committed. Hence, it can be seen as more moral than any other action. There's room for debating whether this stance is correct, but there's none for whether murder is correct. Do you have any complaint about the accuracy of my argument?So I have to explain everything, yet you don't. Just because you call executions moral, doesn't mean it is. Even if it is more moral, doesn't justify that it's right. Executions are still killing people. And you do realize a lot of people are against death sentences, and executions. Just because you say it's more moral, doesn't mean the act itself is moral. Even if it goes through some process, it may be more acceptable, but it does not suddenly make it moral. No matter what process is involved, someone can say that it isn't enough, that no matter what process, killing is unjustifiable and that killing another person is immoral: that executions and murders are the same. The only difference is that the law officially supports one form of murder over another.
No. Nitpicks and irrelevant points are just distractions that have no place in a debate. I use statements like "incorrect" purposefully to come across more forcefully than a statement like "I disagree". There's a distinction in tone between the times I do and the times I don't use that kind of forceful language, and it's a distinction I'd like to preserve. If you find issue with the accuracy of using that language, then feel free to point it out.Whether it is relevant or not, other people can decide. Just because your opinion is that it's not relevant, doesn't make it so. If it is not relevant, you and everyone else can simply ignore them. That was just uncalled for, and unnecessary. And surely you could have gotten the point across in a less forceful manner if it was true. Besides, something may seem irrelevant, but may in fact bear a lot of relevance and shed some light on the issue.
This is a more complicated matter. Still, intent doesn't really come into play. Other considerations like self-preservation tend to be far more important.Again, you say something is complicated yet you do not say why...
What does this have to do with Light though?This deals with morality. And the question is whether what Light is doing is moral, and whether or not Light himself is moral. Some of the things are analogies to certain moral and immoral things as a comparison to what Light is doing.
Do some research on euthanasia yourself. It's not true that they always get consent. I don't have time to explain every single detail until you understand. Some consider euthanasia as murder some as mercy killing.
If there's no consent given then it's more accurate to call it murder. If you have any specific examples for what you're inferring, please bring them up. I shouldn't have to look up examples for your arguments.
Why is the definition of "monster" even that important. Why are you so determined to make a point that only your definition is correct? I simply said we have a different definition of the word "monster". Are people not allowed to have different definitions for words now? Geez. And I've already said so before, I don't label all monsters under the "evil category", that monsters can simply be people with lot's of influence or power. For example, lot's of shows say someone is a monster when they really mean that person is really powerful and shouldn't be messed around with or something like that. The word monster may usually be associated with "evil people", but the word monster does not only apply to evil people, at least to me. I will say this again, this is my definition that this word can be associated to both good and bad people. Understand? I am not saying your definition is wrong.
In that case, you're simply applying a definition that isn't universally accepted. It shouldn't be unexpected to get called out for things like that.
So I have to explain everything, yet you don't.
That is incorrect. It's only necessary to explain one's reasoning if it is under contention. It's readily apparent that capital punishment is a complicated and contentious issue, so there's no need to explain why it is. However, it's still good form to provide further details or examples upon request as long as those requests are made in good faith .
Just because you call executions moral, doesn't mean it is. Even if it is more moral, doesn't justify that it's right. Executions are still killing people. And you do realize a lot of people are against death sentences, and executions. Just because you say it's more moral, doesn't mean the act itself is moral. Even if it goes through some process, it may be more acceptable, but it does not suddenly make it moral. No matter what process is involved, someone can say that it isn't enough, that no matter what process, killing is unjustifiable and that killing another person is immoral: that executions and murders are the same. The only difference is that the law officially supports one form of murder over another.
You just proved my point: "There's room for debating whether this stance is correct, but there's none for whether murder is correct". However, if you thought that my argument is that capital punishment is moral or right, then you are quite mistaken.
Whether it is relevant or not, other people can decide. Just because your opinion is that it's not relevant, doesn't make it so. If it is not relevant, you and everyone else can simply ignore them. That was just uncalled for, and unnecessary. And surely you could have gotten the point across in a less forceful manner if it was true. Besides, something may seem irrelevant, but may in fact bear a lot of relevance and shed some light on the issue.
It's not a matter of opinion - it's a matter of expression. It is not at all unnecessary to place emphasis on certain points, and indicating irrelevant points is an extremely important part of keeping debates on-topic. If you truly think that they had some bearing on the debate, you shouldn't have any difficulty explaining why as well.
Again, you say something is complicated yet you do not say why...
Can't you read? "Other considerations like self-preservation tend to be far more important." That means that intent is not the primary issue, thereby making the matter more complicated than torture is.
This deals with morality. And the question is whether what Light is doing is moral, and whether or not Light himself is moral. Some of the things are analogies to certain moral and immoral things as a comparison to what Light is doing.
Let me rephrase the question. In what way is Light analogous with the undercover cop that you brought up?
Sinestra
2006-11-06, 14:02
The fact that morality is a human construct doesn't have any bearing on how effective it is. The fact that it isn't necessarily perfect doesn't have any bearing on whether it achieves the desired effect. Systems of morality are practical tool, so if there are flaws in the way one operates, then they should show up readily - and it is these errors should be the basis for rejecting the particular system.
By way of comparison, engineering is a man made construct. It's also not always perfect. However is that sufficient reason to stop using it altogether?
I see your point and i do agree with it but im not saying that moralit is not a practical tool and by no means should we abandon or stop using morality. I for one dont share Lights ideals in my mind what he is doing is murder plain and simple. I was just using this as an example of what some people have said through history main religious groups and how something thats practical and makes sense can be distorted to someones warped view of the world. I beleive that morality does achieve the desired effect majority of the time unless you get someone like Light whose views on the world is so damn messed up that it henges on insanity. but your point is well taken
If there's no consent given then it's more accurate to call it murder. If you have any specific examples for what you're inferring, please bring them up. I shouldn't have to look up examples for your arguments.Even if it is more accurate to call it murder, it is still euthanasia. Euthanasia and Murder are not mutually exclusive. There are many forms of murder, and euthanasia may be one of them. Just because something is murder doesn't make it separate from euthanasia.
And I have given examples. And I shouldn't have to keep repeating the same points to you over and over again, only to have you say you don't understand something I just said a short while ago. Euthanasia in itself is also a complicated issue. If you're not gonna take the time to explain why certain things are complicated, why should I? And you don't even seem to understand what euthanasia even is. If you are going to spend time looking for definitions in the dictionary to prove me wrong, why don't you actually spend time looking for references on what euthanasia actually is before dismissing my points.
In that case, you're simply applying a definition that isn't universally accepted. It shouldn't be unexpected to get called out for things like that.What is your point? "Universally accepted" doesn't mean that it's right and that everyone thinks that way. You shouldn't throw a fit because someone has a different opinion than you, they have their right to believe what they want.
The reason why I didn't go further and ask what your definition was, was because I realize that people can have different definitions, and they can both be right. And I don't see how this is so important to this morality issue. Definitions vary from place to place. Someone living in Europe can have a different definition of something in the U.S. Even the word "God" has different meanings in different religions. And I don't force people to believe that my definition of "God" is correct. Insisting certain definitions are right will only start meaningless fights.
That is incorrect. It's only necessary to explain one's reasoning if it is under contention. It's readily apparent that capital punishment is a complicated and contentious issue, so there's no need to explain why it is. However, it's still good form to provide further details or examples upon request as long as those requests are made in good faith .Because it is a complicated issue, that is why people should discuss it. And not avoid it like you are.
You just proved my point: "There's room for debating whether this stance is correct, but there's none for whether murder is correct". However, if you thought that my argument is that capital punishment is moral or right, then you are quite mistaken....I'm saying that could just be as wrong as murder. That any killing regardless of purpose or means can also be immoral.
It's not a matter of opinion - it's a matter of expression. It is not at all unnecessary to place emphasis on certain points, and indicating irrelevant points is an extremely important part of keeping debates on-topic. If you truly think that they had some bearing on the debate, you shouldn't have any difficulty explaining why as well.
Can't you read? "Other considerations like self-preservation tend to be far more important." That means that intent is not the primary issue, thereby making the matter more complicated than torture is.
It doesn't mean you should force your views on other people or insult people who don't agree with you. What is with "Can't you read"? comment anyways. There are countless other ways to say the same thing and make it sound less insulting. I'm saying you what you wrote needs more explaining. Instead of saying something is complicated, and avoid answering, you could actually explain yourself.
Let me rephrase the question. In what way is Light analogous with the undercover cop that you brought up?The undercover cop may have to do some bad things to do good. Light is doing bad things in order to do "good". Get the analogy? And this brings up the question of does the ends justify the means? Should that cop not go undercover to bring down a large criminal organization. Doing so will mean the cop may have to do immoral things to maintain his cover. So, is the cop evil? Or is the cop good because even though he is doing evil, his intentions are good: to bring down a large criminal organization. Again, this isn't exactly identical to what Light is doing, but on some grounds it may be the same. Before putting down on someone as immoral or moral, isn't it important to look at other moral issues and understand what moral really means? Does morality even exist? Or is morality merely a concept that humans, as imperfect beings, made up?
ThisIsDream
2006-11-06, 16:49
There are people who sound more like a dictator than Raito ^^;; Even Raito knows there are people who can have different opinions. lOl Well I understand there are people who believe in something but cant explain it ^^, it is toooooo complicated :D.
Let me get into ur circle ^^. Raito is evil, he want to become a "God", he is so pround of himself etc.. His expressions we all can see it from the manga and anime. BUT, did Raito show this to the other people beside shinigami? Remeber we are the audience, Raito is the protagonist and that is why we can see it.
Ok next question. Why Raito didnt do that? Was it because he afraid he will exposing himself ?? Yes, that is one of the reason, but also if he comes out and take the creadits, and there are many worshippers supporting him. He will create "positions" "authority" "Money" etc.. all major elements of corruption. As long as he doesnt come out and take the creadit, he wont become a dictator. He didnt get blind by money power and authority and such ...
Raito is like everyone else, when he first took someone's life, he thought, Do i have the right to do this ? (he felt guilty, he knows this is wrong).
Conclusion: He gotta have a strong mind to bear this "immoral action" while he needs a clean conscience to not get blind by "Money" "authority" and such .... and he can not share his "success" or feeling to anyone else.
Is there anything wrong to just make proud of himself? He can not share his happiness, excitement, guilty and feeling to other people. he gotta put everything inside in his hearts:rolleyes:
Suna no tate
2006-11-06, 18:13
He kills people after they have been punished. Whose to say these prisoners haven't repented for their sins? In the recent episode he killed an ex serial rapist. Who's to say that rapist isn't a priest now? Or has a family and a wife now? That Light... he kills too indescriminately and his methods are too inefficient in effecting change. People will not get the message until he makes a big show, something that everyone will always forget. Do the ends justify the means? Perhaps... we trade lives everyday. An American soldier or a iraqi child. Who to save?... Perhaps. But his methods need work. It'd be better if he forced the criminals to repent before they died. That would send a stronger message. Read 1984 to see why.
He kills people after they have been punished. Whose to say these prisoners haven't repented for their sins? In the recent episode he killed an ex serial rapist. Who's to say that rapist isn't a priest now? Or has a family and a wife now? That Light... he kills too indescriminately and his methods are too inefficient in effecting change. People will not get the message until he makes a big show, something that everyone will always forget. Do the ends justify the means? Perhaps... we trade lives everyday. An American soldier or a iraqi child. Who to save?... Perhaps. But his methods need work. It'd be better if he forced the criminals to repent before they died. That would send a stronger message. Read 1984 to see why.A lot of good points. I'm not too sure if he was an ex, but point taken. Though, I'm not really sure how Light would force the criminals to repent given that the death note's power mostly revolves around death. And perhaps, I should read 1984 someday. I've only skimmed the first few chapters. I only remember something about good speak or something. Again, good points.
Sinestra
2006-11-06, 19:07
He kills people after they have been punished. Whose to say these prisoners haven't repented for their sins? In the recent episode he killed an ex serial rapist. Who's to say that rapist isn't a priest now? Or has a family and a wife now? That Light... he kills too indescriminately and his methods are too inefficient in effecting change. People will not get the message until he makes a big show, something that everyone will always forget. Do the ends justify the means? Perhaps... we trade lives everyday. An American soldier or a iraqi child. Who to save?... Perhaps. But his methods need work. It'd be better if he forced the criminals to repent before they died. That would send a stronger message. Read 1984 to see why.
Agreed I cant see Lights methods as they are now accomplishing anything good let a lone what he wants.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-06, 19:34
Though, I'm not really sure how Light would force the criminals to repent given that the death note's power mostly revolves around death..
They should have a notebook call good note which whoever name in it, he//she will become a good person :D. There are no such a thing call perfect punishment which are effective and extremely moral. In Asia parents use physical punishments to their children while some western countries do not. Both contain good and bad. No such a thing call perfect.
Agreed I cant see Lights methods as they are now accomplishing anything good let a lone what he wants.But somehow I'm still rooting for Light. Maybe it's because he's the protagonist, or maybe it's out of admiration for his cunning and abilities and what he is trying to do, despite it's morality issues. But I suppose people who can't get over the morality issues or are sensitive to death issues won't be able to enjoy this show as much, maybe they will even despise it.
Overall, I just think Light is a very complex and misunderstood character. To me, he has never strayed from his goal, except do what was needed to get to that goal for the sake of good. But I guess if one doesn't believe that the ends can justify the means, then I guess that person would most likely disagree. Of course, as someone has mentioned, finding a suitable end that warrants those means is difficult, and most likely, the end in death note does not warrant it. But, for the sake of story-telling, I'll believe that it does warrant it, but not in real life.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-06, 19:53
Overall, I just think Light is a very complex and misunderstood character. To me, he has never strayed from his goal, except do what was needed to get to that goal for the sake of good.
I agree. This author didnt fall in this trap. Most protagonist doing good thing first then suddenly become bad (mostly corruption, emotional, blind by "money" "power" etc..), but Light has not fall in all those traps.
Suggestion, when u listen to the op//ed themes, take a look at those lyric. May be u will understand Raito more.
But I suppose people who can't get over the morality issues or are sensitive to death issues won't be able to enjoy this show as much, maybe they will even despise it.
I'm going to ask you to clarify this. Did you honestly just say that if someone doesn't approve of Light there's no way they can enjoy Death Note? Because, uh...I have huge issues with Light and his "morality", but I love the series. Just because I have a strong sense of what I feel is right or wrong and I'm "sensitive to death issues" doesn't mean I don't enjoy the series.
EDIT: BTW, my personal morality isn't black and white. I definitely lean more towards the L side of the spectrum, and he's hardly a lily-white pure angel.
Do you want to seriosly discuss morals with me? There iis only one way. Read the book Childhood's End. If you read this book or have read it me and you can have a talk. Now if you are too lazy to read the book that shows me you ain't serious. It should take you like 3 days to read it. It is only 200 something pages long.
For the lazy ones: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/childhoodsend/
So in Childhood's End did the Overlords do the right thing? Well that is such a debatable issue. In the book they take the personal freedom of humans but they completely change the world and it becomes a great place to live. Free of disease, crime, etc, etc. The Overlods created an uptopia. For that they took our greatest thing. They took our freedom of choice, but in the end they restored it.
Well let's look at it this way. They took our freedom away for a betterment of us. How does that apply to our world? Well let's look at several examples:
Driving: We can argue; "Hey why can't i drive at 12. It is against my freedom of choice." Well the reason is because we are not mature enough at that age to decide on our own. We are not grown up enough yet to make the right choices while driving among other things that are concerned with driving, so we are detered from driving until 16 or so.
Drinking: Same thing
Voting: Same thing
So there are many choices. Would one call them taking away freedom of choice? No we call them protective measures. So we have these protective measures in place to protect the young. To protect those who do not understand enough yet to make the right choice. Well then concerning the Overlods is it not the same thing? They, being much more advance than us, understood in a much different light the world we precieve. They decided they need to take many of our everyday choices inorder to better our society.
In the end when they decided we were matured enough they gave us our freedom to govern ourselves. However then we were changed as a species and crime was out. Disease and starvation were out of the window as well.
Now we look at Death Note:
We take a extremely smart kid. No challenge at school for him. He is bored shitless. He has pretty much reached the pinaccle of his existance (#1 on exams) and he is extremely popular amongst the girls. Well what the hell more can ya want? His parents are caring. He lives in a good house. He has a nice little sister. He is so smart he sees the world in a slightly different light. When i say slightly i would not call him a genious, but he is close to that. The reason i say a bit differently is because it is not pointed out that he is one, nor that he looks upon the world in a different light. However to be honest that is part of it.
So now he is suddenly given the powers of a god? He is a human do not forget. What do you with these powers? Do you use them? When answering do not forgeting his current position as a human being.
Now he says he wants to be a God. This is where it seems that the Overlords and he differ. They want a better society, but he wants a better society and be ruler of it. Those two ideologys are quite different. However we must look at them differently. The Overlords see the world completely different. Their intelligence completely and totaly surpases ours. They view the world completely differently. He on the other hand is a human being with circustances above the average guy. Now they both want to change the world, but they want the outcome to be different. One wants prosperity while the other prosperity and control.
So if the Overlords were not wrong in what they wanted to do why is he? Well they didn't use any force nor did they kill, but then why not? Is his way that much worse. He takes a life they take freedom. Is life worse than taking freedom? We as Americans view our freedom as pretty much the most holiest thing. Would you want to live without freedom? Yes? No? Maybe? See these are the questions. we need to look at.
In the end both parties want pretty much the same goal, but one uses more extreme measures to achieve it. You say "Killing is not right no matter what" . That is such nice ideology. Now lets see. If i put a knife in your hand and say to you "Knife these 20 strangers or your kids/father/mother/w/e your choice is dies" How many are you willing to sacrafice? Should it be ok because they are people you do not know? Should it be ok to kill them because family is most important to you? Well what is the right answer? Yes? No? Maybe?
Light wants to create a better world by killing criminals. If he kills a few innocent guys on the way to create an utopia is that correct or not? Well then if you say it is ok to kill a few then how many? How do you decide the actual number? It should be none or as many as he needs to. No inbetween answer. We are talking about extreems here so we deal with extreems. Either all they way or not even an inch will be the princiipal here.
So again he wants a society rid of bad people? Who decides who the bad people are? Well nobody gets to. Nobody can decide who is bad and who is good. Well if we say that then why do we imprison murderes? Why do we execute them? Because we deem them as bad people. Well what is Lught doing. Is it not the same up to the part where he starts killing innocent people?
I am tired of arguing so to be honest there are ONLY two answers. A logical and a moral.
Moral answer: He has no right to choose who dies and lives. It is not his choice to play with people's lives. Killing is wrong, It is wrong and can not be justified in any possible way (except self-defense but that is another case) and should never be done. Light is wrong and that is the end of it.
Logical: What is light trying to do? He is creating an utopia or trying to at least. A choice needs to be made where more people benefit than loose (btw we work Democracy that way. Majority rules anybody?). He wants a society without immoral people. His choice is right. Sarcraficing a few to reach the end which will benefit many is right.
The actual logical answer: He can not possibly do what the Overlords did. He has the power to kill and that is it. They had the power to control. With his killing of innocent people is where it got out of hand. He should have also understood that he can not create an utopia, because even if he kills criminals the reasons they are there will not be gone (poverty, etc, etc)
Now the answer we would give infront of an actual serious crowd? The moral one. We would not question it. Remember Light say we put a facade infront of others and we dare not thing of the logical answer. :)
That is it for tonight. Maybe tomorrow ill put in more.
I'm going to ask you to clarify this. Did you honestly just say that if someone doesn't approve of Light there's no way they can enjoy Death Note? Because, uh...I have huge issues with Light and his "morality", but I love the series. Just because I have a strong sense of what I feel is right or wrong and I'm "sensitive to death issues" doesn't mean I don't enjoy the series.
EDIT: BTW, my personal morality isn't black and white. I definitely lean more towards the L side of the spectrum, and he's hardly a lily-white pure angel.Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I just meant, that they may have a harder time enjoying it, if the main character Light is someone they don't like- as opposed to a main character they did like. After all, he gets most of the screen time. But, of course, someone may dislike Light and still like the show.
I mean there are movies that people don't watch because of it's content right? I mean there are some people who don't like foul language, and are turned off movies because they have foul language. Even if the movie is good, they might not watch it because they are offended by the content. There are people like that right?
ThisIsDream
2006-11-06, 21:00
Just an interesting observation, when i click on the replies in this 200 thread. Me and NExu have like about 75+ post and the other 100+ posts were post by the other 30+ posters. Not many people can see things from a neutral stance.
I mean there are movies that people don't watch because of it's content right? I mean there are some people who don't like foul language, and are turned off movies because they have foul language. Even if the movie is good, they might not watch it because they are offended by the content. There are people like that right?
Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying. I think it's possible that there are people that are so turned off by Light that they wouldn't watch the series, but perhaps even some of those that hate Light will watch it in hopes of seeing him get his just desserts. But I think it's possible for someone to be dramatically opposed to Light and still find him to be interesting.
I myself find him pretty much entirely repulsive, but I think he's an interesting, layered character.
Damn it. I wrote a lot. Recognize it or i will rite your name on my Word program and you might die.
The actual logical answer: He can not possibly do what the Overlords did. He has the power to kill and that is it. They had the power to control. With his killing of innocent people is where it got out of hand. He should have also understood that he can not create an utopia, because even if he kills criminals the reasons they are there will not be gone (poverty, etc, etc)Good point. Deterring crime does not eliminate the reason for crime such as poverty. But is it humanely possible to stop something like poverty? Maybe it's not possible to eliminate the reason for crime, and that the next best thing is to deter crime? As Kira is trying to do by raising the risks involved in making a crime as a means of deter crime.
Anyways, I wouldn't say Light is planning to become God (at least not literally, but maybe more metaphorically?), but be more of a leader to oversee, to make sure everything continues working in his system. Just like how political systems have Presidents or Prime Ministers as leaders in the government. He is trying to do the same to make sure everything works and to resolve conflict in his world. If no one is going to lead his "better" world, it may well fall into chaos. So he thought that he could fill the role as leader of that world. And least that is my interpretation.
Good point. Deterring crime does not eliminate the reason for crime such as poverty. But is it humanely possible to stop something like poverty? Maybe it's not possible to eliminate the reason for crime, and that the next best thing is to deter crime? As Kira is trying to do by raising the risks involved in making a crime as a means of deter crime.
Anyways, I wouldn't say Light is planning to become God (at least not literally, but maybe more metaphorically?), but be more of a leader to oversee, to make sure everything continues working in his system. Just like how political systems have Presidents or Prime Ministers as leaders in the government. He is trying to do the same to make sure everything works and to resolve conflict in his world. If no one is going to lead his "better" world, it may well fall into chaos. So he thought that he could fill the role as leader of that world. And least that is my interpretation.
I understand he means leader when he says God. That is pretty much given.
See the difference i was trying to make by compairing Death Note to Childhood's End is how the power in each source is applied. In the book a man questions the Overlord's leader by saying the logic the Overlord's were using was "Might makes right!" However the Overlord leader countered his statement by saying "We are not using might. We have power and are using it the right way. You as humans never had power nor know how to apply it"
The thing is they changed the roots of the problems he was trimming the branches. That is the best comparison i can give.
This show could have taken two roads. The "is it right" road and the current road it is taking. Both choices would have delivered a completely solid show. With the current path we are seeing a phsycopathic story develop now. He completely steered off the "right" thing to do and went after innocent people.
So now i am waiting how it will play out, but because i am a dumbass i accidentaly read what happened on wikipedia so it is a bit spoiled for me :(
That is a good point, Ptolemi. It's been vaguely touched upon, but no one really summed it up succinctly before you did. The power the Death Note gives is the power to put fear into the hearts of people. But many crimes aren't premeditated, but are in the heat of the moment. It doesn't help much if after you've killed your husband you realize "Oh shit, Kira might get me."
There's also the issue of the fact that Kira cannot "punish" all those that do evil. That murder case in Small Town might only only make the local or state news. It becomes a lottery system, and you will always find people willing to gamble.
I beleive that morality does achieve the desired effect majority of the time unless you get someone like Light whose views on the world is so damn messed up that it henges on insanity. but your point is well taken
Light's views are hardly unprecedented. Lots of people have thought that deterrence alone would be sufficient to eliminate (or drastically lower) crime. A few have even had the power to implement Light's goals seem to be: a society where obedience is enforced by terror.
Even if it is more accurate to call it murder, it is still euthanasia. Euthanasia and Murder are not mutually exclusive. There are many forms of murder, and euthanasia may be one of them. Just because something is murder doesn't make it separate from euthanasia.
While it may be possible for murder to be classified as euthanasia as well, the fact that the former so overshadows the latter, that the classification is trivialized. Ethically speaking, it's quite possible to regard to regard these as two separate categories. Your argument is little more than an attempt at obfuscation.
And I have given examples.
If you don't mind, can you repost them? Mind you, I'm actually looking more for case studies than hypothetical situations here.
The undercover cop may have to do some bad things to do good. Light is doing bad things in order to do "good".
Your analogy is flawed. The main impetus for the cop's action is self-preservation. Even so, it cannot justify all manner of immoral acts (like mass murder). Light is hardly compelled by the same kind of concerns.
Because it is a complicated issue, that is why people should discuss it. And not avoid it like you are.
Nonsense. It's only important to discuss it to a degree. The fact that capital punishment has properties which are morally debatable while murder does not already indicates that the two are not equivalent. Hence something that may mollify the former will have no bearing on the latter.
...I'm saying that could just be as wrong as murder. That any killing regardless of purpose or means can also be immoral.
If that really is the case, then how can a comparison with capital punishment justify what Light does?
What is your point? "Universally accepted" doesn't mean that it's right and that everyone thinks that way. You shouldn't throw a fit because someone has a different opinion than you, they have their right to believe what they want.
The definition of "monster" is a trivial point, and I won't belabor it further unless it comes up in a different context. However, you seem to be under the impression that all opinions are equally valid. I'm afraid that this is far from the truth.
Before putting down on someone as immoral or moral, isn't it important to look at other moral issues and understand what moral really means? Does morality even exist? Or is morality merely a concept that humans, as imperfect beings, made up?
No. Since we are really discussing the morality of deeds, it's only important to explore the morality of actions which are equivalent to those deeds. Murder is the best descriptor for Light's deeds; therefore, I've concentrated on the morality of murder.
There are several different ways of defining morality. My favorite is that morality is a decision-making system designed to weigh the relative worth of different courses of action. The fact that it's man-made has no bearing on anything as far as I can see. To question morality's existence is sort of silly - it's a little bit like asking "Do questions exist?"
My question to you is "how do you define morality?"
It doesn't mean you should force your views on other people or insult people who don't agree with you. What is with "Can't you read"? comment anyways. There are countless other ways to say the same thing and make it sound less insulting. I'm saying you what you wrote needs more explaining. Instead of saying something is complicated, and avoid answering, you could actually explain yourself.
I'm going to have to comment on your debating skills here. Get this straight: I haven't insulted you yet. Saying that your statements are incorrect or irrelevant does not amount to insults. It's fine to ask for more clarification, but don't expect it on every minor point. As far as I'm concerned the actual morality of euthanasia, capital punishment and undercover police officers are only relevant insofar as they relate to Light. I've been trying to establish that they are not equivalent to what Light did, hence an actual debate on those actions is relatively unimportant.
I asked you "Can't you read?" because so far, you seem to have been unable to understand my arguments. Heck, just look at this sentence: "This is a more complicated matter." You questioned why I didn't explain why it's a more complicated matter when I did so, just two sentences later: "Other considerations like self-preservation tend to be far more important." Isn't the implication here that there are more factors to consider? Isn't a situation with more factors more complicated than one with less? Do I really have to spell this out for you, or are you capable of understanding it on your own? This isn't an insult - I'm actually trying to find out what you can read.
While I'm at it, I've noticed that you haven't addressed a lot of my points. Are you conceding them?
If you really want to discuss this further, I suggest you take it to PM.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-07, 01:00
I understand he means leader when he says God. That is pretty much given.
Good thing ppl understand, and remebere we are the audience when raito saying he want become god and something proud he only said those to himself he cant share his feeling to other people. No matter what he thinks he is his action is doing the "big" good while it contains "many" immoral actions. :(
(Note: Raito knows he is killing which is wrong, but he had to overcome his guilty to do it for the "big" good.
Raito is like everyone else, when he first took someone's life, he thought, Do i have the right to do this ? (he felt guilty, he knows this is wrong).
He gotta have a strong mind to bear this "immoral action" while he needs a clean conscience to not get blind by "Money" "authority" and such .... and he can not share his "success" or feeling to anyone else.
Is there anything wrong to just make proud of himself? He can not share his happiness, excitement, guilty and feeling to other people. he gotta put everything inside in his hearts:rolleyes:
ThisIsDream
2006-11-07, 01:39
Light's views are hardly unprecedented. Lots of people have thought that deterrence alone would be sufficient to eliminate (or drastically lower) crime. A few have even had the power to implement Light's goals seem to be: a society where obedience is enforced by terror.
I just find out one thing, we are all using the "punishment" which done by human, but "haert attack" is just more natural thing, it doesnt seem like a human "punishment", but it more like "God" area thingy ... dO u get my point? We are the audience we know Raito is the one doing this, but other people didnt know, so they made up a name "Kira".
ThisIsDream, why are you insisting that we have to look at it from the perspective of someone in the world of Death Note? Death Note isn't real, it's a story. We are privy to this information for a reason. Telling us that Light is talking to himself when he says he'll become a god doesn't mean that he didn't actually say it and that we can't judge him by those desires.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-07, 02:58
nono, I am not saying u HAVE to, I am saying it is better to see things from a neutral stance ;) . I understand ppl can have different opinions, I am a human being myself sometimes I can see things from a neutral place, but I am leaning more on one side I know human sympathy and have emontional and such etc.
Light's views are hardly unprecedented. Lots of people have thought that deterrence alone would be sufficient to eliminate (or drastically lower) crime. A few have even had the power to implement Light's goals seem to be: a society where obedience is enforced by terror.You have only stated your opinion, not justifications on why it won't work. Saying it didn't work in the past is just like pointing out past examples, and not exactly justification, or if it is, it's a very weak way of justifying things.
Even if it doesn't work, sometimes, it may be a solution to certain problems we need solved. Of course, that solution isn't strictly better than all other solutions we have, since every solution will have its advantages and disadvantages. If you can't stop crime, then you may have to deter crime. And that is what some people think, and it's not like they don't realize it when they are trying to enforce something like that. They think it's best for them, considering their situation, their case, so they choose that system. Not necessarily that it's the best and perfect system, but instead that it's a better system for them.
Now, I would not say Kira's goal is the same as terror, and Kira realizes this.
There is an example of someone using terror later on in the manga, whose methods are different from Kira but is doing it for the same reasons: to kill only criminals. And Kira had to stop that person from using terror because he knows it will cause panic
And when you say can only be enforced by terror. Then how about jail, fees, death sentences. They can also be seen as fearful things that can induce terror to deter crime.
While it may be possible for murder to be classified as euthanasia as well, the fact that the former so overshadows the latter, that the classification is trivialized. Ethically speaking, it's quite possible to regard to regard these as two separate categories. Your argument is little more than an attempt at obfuscation.Obfuscation? Please. You are entitled to your opinion, but stop insisting I'm somehow hiding the truth, and you are not.
The end result is the same, and the means is the same. Yes, you can argue that, but it does not mean I can't either.
If you don't mind, can you repost them? Mind you, I'm actually looking more for case studies than hypothetical situations here.If you really wanted to know, and if you had time to look for definitions to prove me wrong, why can't you do a simple Google search. There are lot's of references on Euthanasia. I'm not going to spend time reiterating the same points or repeat stuff that can easily be found elsewhere. Doing, so and this will turn into a book on Euthanasia (from a simple point I was trying to make) which is not my intent.
Your analogy is flawed. The main impetus for the cop's action is self-preservation. Even so, it cannot justify all manner of immoral acts (like mass murder). Light is hardly compelled by the same kind of concerns.Flawed? Impetus? Again, you dismiss it so readily. It is not self-defense, what do you even mean by self-preservation. The cop didn't need to go undercover. Even if he was undercover, he could have quit. It was the cop's choice to do those things despite it's morals to do good to bring down a large criminal organization.
Nonsense. It's only important to discuss it to a degree. The fact that capital punishment has properties which are morally debatable while murder does not already indicates that the two are not equivalent. Hence something that may mollify the former will have no bearing on the latter.Nonsense? If no one discusses those complicated issues, when will they be resolved. If people only talk about trivial issues, what is there to discuss? The point of debates is to talk about these complicated issues. Otherwise it won't be much of a debate.
The definition of "monster" is a trivial point, and I won't belabor it further unless it comes up in a different context. However, you seem to be under the impression that all opinions are equally valid. I'm afraid that this is far from the truth.You're basically saying that the opinion of the majority is valid, but the opinion of the minority is invalid. I would say opinions are equally valid. People may feel the opinions of the minority are less important compared to opinions of the majority, but it does not make the opinions of the minority invalid.
No. Since we are really discussing the morality of deeds, it's only important to explore the morality of actions which are equivalent to those deeds. Murder is the best descriptor for Light's deeds; therefore, I've concentrated on the morality of murder.
There are several different ways of defining morality. My favorite is that morality is a decision-making system designed to weigh the relative worth of different courses of action. The fact that it's man-made has no bearing on anything as far as I can see. To question morality's existence is sort of silly - it's a little bit like asking "Do questions exist?"
My question to you is "how do you define morality?"I suppose I'm taking the philosophical approach to this moral issue. If you're not a fan of philosophy then, they may ask seemingly odd questions like "Do we really exist or are we just living in some matrix world and our bodies are just figments of our imagination". "Is there really morals, or is that an imperfect concept because we are imperfect beings who invented that concept?" "Can there be true justice where an act will only do good but no evil?"
I'm going to have to comment on your debating skills here. Get this straight: I haven't insulted you yet. Saying that your statements are incorrect or irrelevant does not amount to insults. It's fine to ask for more clarification, but don't expect it on every minor point. As far as I'm concerned the actual morality of euthanasia, capital punishment and undercover police officers are only relevant insofar as they relate to Light. I've been trying to establish that they are not equivalent to what Light did, hence an actual debate on those actions is relatively unimportant.
I asked you "Can't you read?" because so far, you seem to have been unable to understand my arguments. Heck, just look at this sentence: "This is a more complicated matter." You questioned why I didn't explain why it's a more complicated matter when I did so, just two sentences later: "Other considerations like self-preservation tend to be far more important." Isn't the implication here that there are more factors to consider? Isn't a situation with more factors more complicated than one with less? Do I really have to spell this out for you, or are you capable of understanding it on your own? This isn't an insult - I'm actually trying to find out what you can read.
While I'm at it, I've noticed that you haven't addressed a lot of my points. Are you conceding them?
If you really want to discuss this further, I suggest you take it to PM.You are forcefully insisting that your beliefs are correct, and are quick to dismiss points that are different from yours. Even if I misread your posts, that has nothing to do with debating skills. It is your writing that is causing someone to believe they are insulted. I have told you in the past, that they were insulting, but you knowingly continued to write in that way. You could have said, I'll try to use less forceful words, but instead, you still insisted that you were right in using those words. Not very considerate if you ask me.
Yes. In a debate it is not unusual to be called a wrong, but in the way that you are doing it can make a debate erupt into a fight. Just because it is a debate, does not mean you can use language like you have. You should at least show some respect and courtesy to the other debaters.
"This isn't an insult - I'm actually trying to find out what you can read." That is an insult! You are implying someone is illiterate and can't read! And your last statement, essentially, further suggests this.
Someone may not be able to understand you because your justifications were not convincing enough. The things you wrote may have been insufficient and not in-depth enough. You shouldn't attack the reader by questioning the reader's intelligence and literacy skills. That I call an insult.
If I do not address all points, then you should bring them up again if you feel it's important and think I have made a mistake. You have wrote a lot and it is not uncommon to miss a few points. I believe you have also not addressed all of my points either. Like I said, some points do not need to be addressed, and can be ignored. Some I agree, or disagree, yet I do not have to make a separate post do I. I'm sure there are a lot of people perusing this thread and do not make a reply. Are they wrong because they haven't addressed the points you make?
ThisIsDream, why are you insisting that we have to look at it from the perspective of someone in the world of Death Note? Death Note isn't real, it's a story. We are privy to this information for a reason. Telling us that Light is talking to himself when he says he'll become a god doesn't mean that he didn't actually say it and that we can't judge him by those desires.I think the point ThisIsDream is trying to make is that this story is a work of fiction and that it doesn't have to be realistic. That some people may be trying to too hard to think too deeply on how Light's actions affect the real world, and instead should think about how Light's actions apply to the world in death note. The (human) world in death note may be very similar to the world we live in, but it may theoretically have fundamental differences that make Light's actions more valid.
The thing is they changed the roots of the problems he was trimming the branches. That is the best comparison i can give.
So now i am waiting how it will play out, but because i am a dumbass i accidentaly read what happened on wikipedia so it is a bit spoiled for me :(Yep, I agree. But again, I'm not sure how Light could have done so considering the death note's power mostly revolves around death. And in your case, the "Overlords", aren't exactly human and have more power than Light could ever have, so they could have done more to ensure the right thing is done. And Light is only one person as opposed to many. Anyways, heh, so I guess you already know the "plot twist".
You have only stated your opinion, not justifications on why it won't work. Saying it didn't work in the past is just like pointing out past examples, and not exactly justification, or if it is, it's a very weak way of justifying things.
Nonsense. It's called learning from history.
You're not addressing the point: do you think that Light's views are historically unprecedented?
Do you think that his ideas have never been implemented before?
Exactly how is what Light is trying to do all that different from what Stalin did?
And when you say can only be enforced by terror. Then how about jail, fees, death sentences. They can also be seen as fearful things that can induce terror to deter crime.
And they are also proportional punishments for the severity of the crime committed. You can't say that they're the same thing and ignore half of the equation.
Obfuscation? Please. You are entitled to your opinion, but stop insisting I'm somehow hiding the truth, and you are not.
Obfuscation is not necessarily about hiding the truth, it's also about obscuring it by going off on unrelated tangents.
You didnt address the point: do you really not think that murder overshadows euthanasia?
Are they the same thing?
If you really wanted to know, and if you had time to look for definitions to prove me wrong, why can't you do a simple Google search. There are lot's of references on Euthanasia. I'm not going to spend time reiterating the same points or repeat stuff that can easily be found elsewhere. Doing, so and this will turn into a book on Euthanasia (from a simple point I was trying to make) which is not my intent.
That's not the way it works. You made the claim, you get to supply the evidence. If you prefer, you can simply drop the point altogether.
Flawed? Impetus? Again, you dismiss it so readily. It is not self-defense, what do you even mean by self-preservation. The cop didn't need to go undercover. Even if he was undercover, he could have quit. It was the cop's choice to do those things despite it's morals to do good to bring down a large criminal organization.
I'm not dismissing anything. I'm simply telling you that you were oversimplyfying the comparison to begin with. Are you trying to imply that self-preservation (among other things) is not a factor?
In addition, as Neux said earlier, "I'm saying that could just be as wrong as murder. That any killing regardless of purpose or means can also be immoral." If that's truly the case, then how does it justify Light's case?
Nonsense? If no one discusses those complicated issues, when will they be resolved. If people only talk about trivial issues, what is there to discuss? The point of debates is to talk about these complicated issues. Otherwise it won't be much of a debate.
The way to discuss complicated issues is to reduce them to their essential terms. Often this is done by eliminating the irrelevant points and cutting out the nonsense so that the effort is spent on the matters that are actually important to the issue. The thing is that nitpicking statements without actually addressing the points (even if it's only to show their irrelevance) is not discussing the issue, it's just more obfuscation.
You're basically saying that the opinion of the majority is valid, but the opinion of the minority is invalid. I would say opinions are equally valid. People may feel the opinions of the minority are less important compared to opinions of the majority, but it does not make the opinions of the minority invalid.
Incorrect. I'm saying that opinions that are based on less accurate information are less valid than those based on superior information. The question of majority and minority opinions are irrelevant.
I suppose I'm taking the philosophical approach to this moral issue. If you're not a fan of philosophy then, they may ask seemingly odd questions like "Do we really exist or are we just living in some matrix world and our bodies are just figments of our imagination". "Is there really morals, or is that an imperfect concept because we are imperfect beings who invented that concept?" "Can there be true justice where an act will only do good but no evil?"
You didn't answer my question: ""how do you define morality?"
The (human) world in death note may be very similar to the world we live in, but it may theoretically have fundamental differences that make Light's actions more valid.
Do you know what these fundamental differences are?
You are forcefully insisting that your beliefs are correct, and are quick to dismiss points that are different from yours. Even if I misread your posts, that has nothing to do with debating skills. It is your writing that is causing someone to believe they are insulted. I have told you in the past, that they were insulting, but you knowingly continued to write in that way. You could have said, I'll try to use less forceful words, but instead, you still insisted that you were right in using those words. Not very considerate if you ask me.
I haven't made any personal attacks, and I haven't tried to be insulting so far, but I also have no intention of modifying my language. I tend to use more forceful words to call to account the accuracy and relevance of your statements, which is altogether different from merely holding a different opinion. In these cases, I find more "considerate" language inadequate for my purposes.
"This isn't an insult - I'm actually trying to find out what you can read." That is an insult! You are implying someone is illiterate and can't read! And your last statement, essentially, further suggests this.
Someone may not be able to understand you because your justifications were not convincing enough. The things you wrote may have been insufficient and not in-depth enough. You shouldn't attack the reader by questioning the reader's intelligence and literacy skills. That I call an insult.
I'm not trying to imply that you are illiterate, I am, however, trying to question your reading comprehension. Now, a lot of times, people simply don't understand what's written. However, it's generally a good idea to try to get more understanding before proceeding to criticize a statement. Saying "I don't understand this. Can you clarify it?" is a perfectly legitimate way to do this. However, simply ignoring the point altogether to nitpick at unrelated details is not, and I will call attention to it.
By the way my last statement was a suggestion to move this to PMs. How does it suggest anything?
If I do not address all points, then you should bring them up again if you feel it's important and think I have made a mistake. You have wrote a lot and it is not uncommon to miss a few points. I believe you have also not addressed all of my points either. Like I said, some points do not need to be addressed, and can be ignored. Some I agree, or disagree, yet I do not have to make a separate post do I. I'm sure there are a lot of people perusing this thread and do not make a reply. Are they wrong because they haven't addressed the points you make?
Obviously, if people don't reply to my posts, then I don't expect them to address my points. However, you've been replying to them and yet failing to address them at the same time. I highlighted some examples above.
4Tran:
I am going to keep this is short and simple as possible.
Learning from history. Learning is one thing, but your statement implies that because it failed in history, it will never work. Which is not true.
My point is that there may not be a clear right or wrong answer to morality. The point in those cases is that the issue of morality is heavily debated, and that morality is a very complex issue. That the very concept of morality may not even exist. This is very relevant in knowing what morality even is, if you don't even know what morality even is, then what is the point of discussing morality. And as I have said before, morality is relative, what could be moral for someone could be immoral to another. It seems you only accept things as either moral or immoral, but it does not occur to you that some things may not be either or that it could be both.
If you don't see how it is relevant, or understand someone's intent, ask to clarify before accusing someone of "obfuscation", or stating that certain points are irrelevant like it's a fact. Those are your opinions not a fact. Even if you ask to clarify, and they don't, doesn't mean you're right.
The cases are to get people to think about certain issues, to know that they exist. They may be my opinions, and they may not. But you shouldn't ignore them and pretend they don't exist. Cutting down irrelevant points...sounds good in theory, but then you are overgeneralizing a complex issue. Cutting out points you think are wrong, and only keeping points you think are right until the answer is the same as yours. And who is to say they are irrelevant, and how do you even define irrelevant. What is irrelevant to someone may be relevant to someone else. Even relevant is a matter of opinion. You shouldn't treat relevance as fact.
Incorrect. I'm saying that opinions that are based on less accurate information are less valid than those based on superior information. The question of majority and minority opinions are irrelevant.Please, so you are implying you have superior information and that everyone who has a different opinion doesn't?
And even if I have replied to your posts, doesn't mean I suddenly have to respond to every single point you make. People respond to points they feel are important. If I don't respond, it may be the case I feel it's right or I feel it's wrong, don't just suddenly assume I "concede". I don't have time to respond to every single point you make, and I am within right to not respond to some points.
I do not drop my point on euthanasia. It seems to me, you are unwilling to make an effort to understand euthanasia. Until you show effort in understanding what it is, I won't go into this complex issue.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-07, 13:08
I dont know there were something like many Criminals died from a heart attack in history before =\.
AvatarST
2006-11-07, 16:06
And they are also proportional punishments for the severity of the crime committed.
Regarding this, since it's been brought up before, you do realize that law varies a lot in different countries, right? Which one do you take as the correct one? If in some countries rape merits the death penalty and in others it doesn't, why are those countries applying punishments not as proportionally well as the one you take as your legal frame?
Death penalty is forever abolished in my country in any case, and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but I thought I'd ask those questions to see where exactly you stand. You've been talking about this issue on more or less absolute terms (for example, "rape doesn't merit death penalty because the victim is still alive, murder I could see it", IIRC), when in the world there seems to be a lot of disagreement in these law, crime and punishment matters.
By the way, forgive my English if it's poor and please ask if there's anything you don't understand, I'd try to make it clearer. It's not my first language.
It doesn't help much if after you've killed your husband you realize "Oh shit, Kira might get me."
Yes, I agree, but does it help if the woman in question is like "Oh shit, I'm gonna get locked up."? Nope. Unless it was in self defense, she'll get punished, and in some countries she'll even get the capital punishment; and many people will think "she deserves it", without thinking about law. Kira is making decisions because he has the power to back them up; the difference between him and the justice system is that in the latter all of society is supposedly involved (rofl, ok, but at least more people than Kira, for sure). It's still arguable whether punishing, hurting people keeps on being a barbaric action or not. Why is killing "wrong"? Because we have no right to decide who lives or who dies? Before, people did have that right, and now we see it as "wrong". Will locking people up be considered "wrong" in the future? Will people look back at our society and think we were barbarians? The thing is that these are all relative matters, which is the reason why they're complicated.
Yes, I agree, but does it help if the woman in question is like "Oh shit, I'm gonna get locked up."?
Well, no, it doesn't, but that's not my point. My point is that since so much of violent crime is in a moment of passion and not premeditated, when these people are murdering other people, they're not thinking about what the future consequences will be. They're not stopping to think "If I kill or hurt or rape someone, Kira will punish me." And after the fact, the crime has been commited, so...
Chances are, if you're actually sitting there thinking of a way to kill someone, you're already going to try do it in a way that it can't be connected back to you and the police can't find you. And if the police can't find you, Kira can't find you.
AvatarST
2006-11-07, 17:33
Ahh, I see, that's what you meant, the failure of deterrence. Yeah, I agree. Especially on the second point; the police could find a premeditated crime with due time, resources and investigation - but what does Kira have at his disposal?
Especially on the second point; the police could find a premeditated crime with due time, resources and investigation - but what does Kira have at his disposal?
Oh, yeah, that's a good point too. Kira is dependent upon others in order to exact his "justice". A man could murder someone and hide it for several years without ever being caught unless the police find him. But even if they do, that man has still had many years of freedom even though he's broken one of Kira's laws.
The message Kira is sending isn't really "don't kill", it's "don't get caught."
Chances are, if you're actually sitting there thinking of a way to kill someone, you're already going to try do it in a way that it can't be connected back to you and the police can't find you. And if the police can't find you, Kira can't find you.True, Kira won't find them. And I think the reason why Light wants the public to view Kira as the God of Justice, is so people will think that he has supernatural power that allows him to judge them from anywhere anytime. The criminals may not fear the police finding them since they are only human, but they may fear an all-knowing God that supposedly watches over them, even when "Kira the God of Justice"is merely something Light invented. Maybe this similar to using hell as a means to deter people from doing "evil" acts, and heaven to entice people to do good acts?
But again, while that might stop superstitious people from doing bad things they might otherwise, it won't stop people caught up in the heat of the moment any more than the nebulous threat of "hell" has stopped crime throughout the centuries.
And there will always be intelligent bad people that will notice that Kira is only killing those that have been caught/are in jail and will continue on with whatever crime they're planning.
But again, while that might stop superstitious people from doing bad things they might otherwise, it won't stop people caught up in the heat of the moment any more than the nebulous threat of "hell" has stopped crime throughout the centuries.
And there will always be intelligent bad people that will notice that Kira is only killing those that have been caught/are in jail and will continue on with whatever crime they're planning.Heh, good point. Though the difference in "hell" is that "hell" is something they can't really see while living. They can't see someone else going to "hell". So they might not believe in "hell". But they can actually see what "Kira the God of Justice" is doing, as they will be seeing other criminals die in front of their eyes. So they may be more inclined to believe Kira, and not do those things.
But yeah, it won't stop certain at the moment type crimes.
My view on the issue is this:
Thesis:
A good dictator is better than a good democracy. That is it. No arguing about it.
Now we need to look at how things work in life. We need something to take care of the trash, We have the trashman for that. We need somebody to clean the room. We have the janitor for that. The list keeps going. Somebody has to take the great leap foward and be the one who does the dirty work for the society.
Now when i say dirty it isn't always the bad kind, but when we talk on a scale that involves the society and such it will be a major leap that the person/s take.
Example:
Forming of America. We need leaders to have the balls to take the revolution up. They were considered terrorist in their time (according to the defenition of a terrorist) and they were called immoral by the Loyalists and the British people, but somebody had to get the job done.
Conclusion:
Well i can keep going about revolutions but that would be pointless. So how far have we really as a society gone? That is the key difference here. We have only gone up to maybe mass murder, to wars, to revolutions. We never as a species had the power to accend those.
Maybe the nuke, but the difference is it is controlled by more than one person while Light has sole control of the Death Note. So the tables are turned in the fact now one man, who is bored and pretty much king of his world (that is extremely important to remember when we talk about his specific case, because in the end he is just human), has the most power in the world.
Is Light doing the right thing? Well let's look at it compared to other things in history. American Revolution i am sure innocent people died. French Revolution i know innocent people died. However in the end they were both for a better good for the people and society.
PERFECT example is Japan. We decided to nuke because that would be less casualties. Here we talk about two of the lesser evils. So is his sacrificing of a few to better the whole world comparable to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would have had less people die in the end?
Him wanting to be god of the new world (a.k.a ruler) viewed as greed overcoming his human side? You can argue he is too logical for that and only wants to ensure its success after it's birth. Maybe he wants to satisfy his sudden craving for power. To be honest all of those answers would apply. Even if it is greed do not forget he is human and in the end if you accept the end justifys the deeds then he is forgivable for power overcomming him.
I am sure that my logic is flawed somewhere or that somebody can easily argue it, but that is what i have in the end.
My view: He wants a better society. With his power it is impossible. He does not nearly have enough power to change the world. Fear works wonders, but he just can not uproot all of the problems with fear. His power is lacking and he needed to understand that and never have started the crusade.
EDIT: However if he reveals his identity to the public and he is not listened to and commits a mass murde he could possibly gain control, but it would be very hard. If he mass-murders and gets people to actually listen to him then hell it just might work.
It's not the fact that innocent people died, it's that innocent people were murdered.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-07, 18:55
My view: He wants a better society. With his power it is impossible. He does not nearly have enough power to change the world. Fear works wonders, but he just can not uproot all of the problems with fear. His power is lacking and he needed to understand that and never have started the crusade.
Yea, in the manga it also said there are some crimes which will never end such as impulsive and such... He knows that, Dream, turn into ideal Working on an impossible Dream ;) it kind remind me of there were people who working on "flying" which was an impossible thing at that period.
EDIT: However if he reveals his identity to the public and he is not listened to and commits a mass murde he could possibly gain control, but it would be very hard. If he mass-murders and gets people to actually listen to him then hell it just might work.
IMO, if he reveal himself, the beginning of corruption will start.
Yea, he is too logical that what i am gonna to say when i click here :D.
Sinestra
2006-11-07, 19:51
But somehow I'm still rooting for Light. Maybe it's because he's the protagonist, or maybe it's out of admiration for his cunning and abilities and what he is trying to do, despite it's morality issues. But I suppose people who can't get over the morality issues or are sensitive to death issues won't be able to enjoy this show as much, maybe they will even despise it.
Overall, I just think Light is a very complex and misunderstood character. To me, he has never strayed from his goal, except do what was needed to get to that goal for the sake of good. But I guess if one doesn't believe that the ends can justify the means, then I guess that person would most likely disagree. Of course, as someone has mentioned, finding a suitable end that warrants those means is difficult, and most likely, the end in death note does not warrant it. But, for the sake of story-telling, I'll believe that it does warrant it, but not in real life.
I disagree i like light on some levels i love how cunning he his i love his intellgience but i disagree with his morality and i still enjoy the show. But i dont know how you can say he has never strayed from his goal. Front what i remember killing innocents was never in his plan and i cant root for someone that is willing to kill someone who disagrees with him. Thats like me killing you since i disagree with some of the things you have stated how is that justified? Hes foing whatever it takes to get to his goal of good thats true but to me Kira has blended good and evil togther to the point where even he couldnt recognize it anymore
Regarding this, since it's been brought up before, you do realize that law varies a lot in different countries, right? Which one do you take as the correct one? If in some countries rape merits the death penalty and in others it doesn't, why are those countries applying punishments not as proportionally well as the one you take as your legal frame?
This is sort of off-topic as it doesn't really pertain to morality, but.I don't think that I'm familiar enough with the different laws in the world to be able to tell you which is the correct one. In fact, I doubt that there's any "correct" one at all. The reason that I think that making rape a capital offense is disproportional is that it most definitely surpasses the severity of the crime. Death has a finality to it that supersedes all other types of punishment by a large degree, and it should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes.
Death penalty is forever abolished in my country in any case, and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but I thought I'd ask those questions to see where exactly you stand. You've been talking about this issue on more or less absolute terms (for example, "rape doesn't merit death penalty because the victim is still alive, murder I could see it", IIRC), when in the world there seems to be a lot of disagreement in these law, crime and punishment matters.
I may come off in slightly absolutist terms, but that's mostly because we're dealing in terms of life and death. When it comes to subjects with a little more room for interpretation, it makes sense to be more discerning. I personally am against capital punishment altogether, both for moral and for practical reasons. However, I don't really have any trouble understanding where its advocates are coming from, and I think that there's a case to be made for it.
Part of the reason why there is so much disagreement over these matters is that a lot of people don't think things through thoroughly. A lot of times, the issues become far more clouded by emotional appeals, and the like. Finally, a lot of the disagreement stems from the fact that different people hold different views. The latter makes it especially important to frame the debate as clearly as possible.
By the way, forgive my English if it's poor and please ask if there's anything you don't understand, I'd try to make it clearer. It's not my first language.
No, you came across quite clearly. In fact, I think that your English is quite decent.
Well, no, it doesn't, but that's not my point. My point is that since so much of violent crime is in a moment of passion and not premeditated, when these people are murdering other people, they're not thinking about what the future consequences will be. They're not stopping to think "If I kill or hurt or rape someone, Kira will punish me." And after the fact, the crime has been commited, so...
A corollary to this is that, often people don't think about the consequences even when facing decisions that could endanger their lives. A prime example of this is smoking: every year, millions of people take up this habit knowing that it dramatically increases their chances of getting cancer, and that it will likely lower their life expectancy. That criminals are even more likely to do things without thinking through the consequences only makes deterrence all that much weaker.
Ptolemi has done a great job. Very detailed analysis of what I was trying to get at with the war analogies, only I had explained it more abstractly, and Ptolemi explained it more concretely. Anyways, Ptolemi's analysis should be a lot easier to understand for people who don't like abstract logic.
I disagree i like light on some levels i love how cunning he his i love his intellgience but i disagree with his morality and i still enjoy the show. But i dont know how you can say he has never strayed from his goal. Front what i remember killing innocents was never in his plan and i cant root for someone that is willing to kill someone who disagrees with him. Thats like me killing you since i disagree with some of the things you have stated how is that justified? Hes foing whatever it takes to get to his goal of good thats true but to me Kira has blended good and evil togther to the point where even he couldnt recognize it anymoreBut I would say that he isn't killing people who disagree with him. A point I was making before was that there are a lot of people that disagree with Kira, but Kira has not killed any of them. This includes the police, his father, and the members of the ICPO. And they are all still alive, and Light has had plenty of opportunity to kill them.
The exceptions you could say are the agents, and the fact that he is trying to kill L. The agents were killed not because they disagreed with him, but because Light needed to use them to lure out L. And he is trying to get rid of L because he views him as the ultimate threat to his plan of building a better world.
One could say that Light is simply so determined to build that better world he believes in, he'll do it no matter the cost. Even at the cost of sacrificing himself, his own morality, and even some innocent people. This is where "does the ends justify the means" comes in.
To me, Light's plan was always "create a better world by only killing criminals....no matter the cost". This includes killing a few innocent to create that better world where more people will benefit. In that light, I don't think he has strayed from his goal. That was what he was planning from the very beginning.
Just for the record, I don't view his actions as moral, despite liking him as an anti-hero. And for clarity, I never said that people who don't like the show won't enjoy the show. I meant someone who likes the main character may enjoy the show more than someone who dislikes the main character. They both will enjoy the show of course, just that, maybe, and I emphasize maybe that one of them will enjoy the show more than the other was what I was getting at. Of course, this is probably just be an over-generalization.
A good dictator is better than a good democracy. That is it. No arguing about it.
This is a little off-topic, but why is this necessarily true, and what would you consider to be a good dictator?
Now we need to look at how things work in life. We need something to take care of the trash, We have the trashman for that. We need somebody to clean the room. We have the janitor for that. The list keeps going. Somebody has to take the great leap foward and be the one who does the dirty work for the society.
That isn't completely true. Society has managed to improve in many ways without having to resort to an enlightened dictator. Besides, the last person who tried to achieve a "great leap forward" failed quite spectacularly, and created one of the greatest disasters of the 20th century.
Forming of America. We need leaders to have the balls to take the revolution up. They were considered terrorist in their time (according to the defenition of a terrorist) and they were called immoral by the Loyalists and the British people, but somebody had to get the job done.
Even if "the job" must be done, there are many ways to accomplish it. The question of morality addresses whether the way chosen is appropriate. It's not a case of black and white; it's more about weighing the different options.
There's always the problem of the cure being worse than the disease.
PERFECT example is Japan. We decided to nuke because that would be less casualties. Here we talk about two of the lesser evils. So is his sacrificing of a few to better the whole world comparable to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would have had less people die in the end?
A better way would be to compare the different options open to the United States and Light, with an eye towards determining whether their respective actions were justifiable in that context. Note also that the United States had fought a long and hard war against Japan, and that they were quite concerned by the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific War. Light has nothing akin to these two concerns.
Sinestra
2006-11-08, 20:18
Ptolemi has done a great job. Very detailed analysis of what I was trying to get at with the war analogies, only I had explained it more abstractly, and Ptolemi explained it more concretely. Anyways, Ptolemi's analysis should be a lot easier to understand for people who don't like abstract logic.
But I would say that he isn't killing people who disagree with him. A point I was making before was that there are a lot of people that disagree with Kira, but Kira has not killed any of them. This includes the police, his father, and the members of the ICPO. And they are all still alive, and Light has had plenty of opportunity to kill them.
The exceptions you could say are the agents, and the fact that he is trying to kill L. The agents were killed not because they disagreed with him, but because Light needed to use them to lure out L. And he is trying to get rid of L because he views him as the ultimate threat to his plan of building a better world.
One could say that Light is simply so determined to build that better world he believes in, he'll do it no matter the cost. Even at the cost of sacrificing himself, his own morality, and even some innocent people. This is where "does the ends justify the means" comes in.
To me, Light's plan was always "create a better world by only killing criminals....no matter the cost". This includes killing a few innocent to create that better world where more people will benefit. In that light, I don't think he has strayed from his goal. That was what he was planning from the very beginning.
Just for the record, I don't view his actions as moral, despite liking him as an anti-hero. And for clarity, I never said that people who don't like the show won't enjoy the show. I meant someone who likes the main character may enjoy the show more than someone who dislikes the main character. They both will enjoy the show of course, just that, maybe, and I emphasize maybe that one of them will enjoy the show more than the other was what I was getting at. Of course, this is probably just be an over-generalization.
Point well taken i think i misunderstood how your pharsed it. So basically in Lights eyes the Many out weigh the needs of few therefore sacrifcing an innocent here and there is no problem as long as goal of a perfect world in realized right? So for him his morality is doing what he can do now will ensure a better future in the long wrong so it makes sense
This is a little off-topic, but why is this necessarily true, and what would you consider to be a good dictator?
That isn't completely true. Society has managed to improve in many ways without having to resort to an enlightened dictator. Besides, the last person who tried to achieve a "great leap forward" failed quite spectacularly, and created one of the greatest disasters of the 20th century.
Even if "the job" must be done, there are many ways to accomplish it. The question of morality addresses whether the way chosen is appropriate. It's not a case of black and white; it's more about weighing the different options.
There's always the problem of the cure being worse than the disease.
A better way would be to compare the different options open to the United States and Light, with an eye towards determining whether their respective actions were justifiable in that context. Note also that the United States had fought a long and hard war against Japan, and that they were quite concerned by the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific War. Light has nothing akin to these two concerns.
You need to read the whole post. All the points connect. A good dictator was explained further down the post.
When i said somebody has to make the great leap foward it was tied into the next paragraph as well as the janitor/trash man comment/
Light's actions are perfectly justifiable by his point of view. Creating an utopia when we have a few thousand die is not worth it? This is where my trashman/some one to take the leap/lesser of two evil thing tie into.
Another great example is the book Brave New World. To have your worries and choice taken away for a disease free, worrie free, limited choice world is ok or not ok?
Two choices as i see it:
What he is trying to do is noble. Sacraficing a few people on the way to create a good society is excusable.
What he is doing is wrong. It is not allright to kill. The ends do not justify the means.
This is pretty much a God exists/God doesn't exists argument. Neither side can prove it right or wrong. This is pretty much pick a side deal.
It's not the fact that innocent people died, it's that innocent people were murdered.
For a greater good?
You need to read the whole post. All the points connect. A good dictator was explained further down the post.
When i said somebody has to make the great leap foward it was tied into the next paragraph as well as the janitor/trash man comment/
I did, but the closest I managed to figure out was that a good dictator was whomever managed to address a problem that other people were unwilling to. There are a few problems with this though. First, you have to show that it's a problem that is necessary to tackle. Second, you have to show that it is a deed that other systems or people are indeed unwilling or incapable of handling. Third, you have to show that the method used is appropriate for addressing the problem. Finally, doing a good and necessary deed does not necessarily justify all that a person does. For an example of the last, Stalin was extremely essential to defeating the Nazis, but he's still considered a monster; not least for the way he did it.
Light's actions are perfectly justifiable by his point of view. Creating an utopia when we have a few thousand die is not worth it? This is where my trashman/some one to take the leap/lesser of two evil thing tie into.
I'd imagine that the vast majority of murderer also think that their actions are justified according to their point of view. What Light thinks is pretty immaterial because it is his justifications which we are challenging. It's also highly questionable whether his course of action is the lesser evil; it most certainly is not the least evil of the possible courses of action.
This is pretty much a God exists/God doesn't exists argument. Neither side can prove it right or wrong. This is pretty much pick a side deal.
This is little more than a golden mean argument. The problem is twofold: the question that you bring up is the is issue of morality that is subject of this thread, and the question of whether the goal Light wants to do accomplish is even desirable.
What he is trying to do is noble. Sacraficing a few people on the way to create a good society is excusable.
This argument actually means that what he wants to do is immoral, but it's still a good idea.
guiltygearxt
2006-11-10, 22:04
k i havent read 12 pages so i dont no wut u guys think but theres my opinion on Light's morality
I believe theres no true justice in this world. Every1 believes in their own judgement and only the strongest with most ppl agreeing w/ his/her point of view can be the "true" justice. Just like how Americans r forcing Iraq into democracy. They believe in freedom and they r the strongest nation in this world thus other nations fear them. Not saying democracy is bad, i mean it is a pretty good system. However, the thing is U.S. has been carrying the "big stick" 4 a long time now and they believe the world is their responsibility so they acting as the world police. Those who oppose them strongly will be invaded cept the ones who have nuclear weapons like China and russia who r still communists (but they r slowly changing into democracy as well); which is y the americans will stop any nation who creates more nuclear weapons since its a threat 2 them and the world. Do u c it? Only the U.S. and those who already discovered nuclear weapons r allowed 2 have them. Dont u think its bit like dictator as well? Isnt it just like Light killing those who oppose him 2?
Light is just lucky that he has a weapon thats far more deadly than any other weapons out there. A notebook that can kill ppl w/o any contact. His ideal is pure but the way he does is immoral. However, like he said, in order 2 make a new world sacrifices r needed. Just like how wars r, countries send out soldiers 2 fight and have them killed. Its pretty much the same thing.
Heres another point, in the society we live in today those who commit crimes will be punished. How we punish them? We either send them 2 prison or give them death penalty. By using death note, light will give them no other choice but death. Is it cruel? Yeah it is but after awhile ppl will realize and accept the fate thus crime rate will decrease. Think about it, if the world we live in today r like this, sooner or later ppl will accept it either its immoral or not. Thats the way the world goes, the rules r set by the strongest. If u think it is immoral then is death penalty moral? Is sending ppl 2 prison making them suffer moral?
Is sending ppl 2 prison making them suffer moral?
At least they have something to look forward to then (unless it's a life sentence). Death is final. And Light is even using light criminals that didn't warrant such punishment for his experiments. Conducting human experiments isn't very moral either is it?
guiltygearxt
2006-11-11, 10:59
At least they have something to look forward to then (unless it's a life sentence). Death is final. And Light is even using light criminals that didn't warrant such punishment for his experiments. Conducting human experiments isn't very moral either is it?
nope, im not saying Light's action is moral, it is not. However, his goal is. Wuts his goal? Living in a world w/o crimes, a world of peace where every1 works hard. Now thats a pretty good world 2 live in isnt it? Just that the way he does it is a crime itself, but u cant blame him since thats the only way 4 him 2 change the world; thats how Death Note works. Light is a person who would use any method 2 reach his goal, if he gets something that doesnt kill ppl, he would of course use it.
anyway, all im saying is that theres no true justice in this world, every1 has their own ways of doing it.
Asphyxiate
2006-11-11, 11:02
Death is final, but in the bigger picture we're nothing at all. ^_^ Humanity's advancement is more important than an individual's life.
As long as he's willing to deal with the consequences, to me it doesn't matter if it's moral or not. Morality is just the general public's perception. It rises from the inherent need to know WHY some laws is in place. There is no true basis behind the laws we have today, however they are in necessary in order protect the structure of our society.
(I am 100% behind anything that passes from legislation into law, I just don't care much for anyone who wants to say, 'Oh don't do this because it's not moral!')
Death is final, but in the bigger picture we're nothing at all. ^_^ Humanity's advancement is more important than an individual's life.
But for what sake? Would you willingly let someone kill you if he said that it was to advance humanity?
As long as he's willing to deal with the consequences, to me it doesn't matter if it's moral or not. Morality is just the general public's perception. It rises from the inherent need to know WHY some laws is in place. There is no true basis behind the laws we have today, however they are in necessary in order protect the structure of our society.
That's not necessarily true. Morals are actually the basis for laws, the raison d'etre, if you will. A better question may be to examine what the purpose of morality is.
I don't think many of you seem to understand that Kira is the villian of the story.
Unless of course, thoughts like "Dare you go against God?!" is something anyone remotely heroic, let alone sane, would think. And also the completely pointless murder of the FBI agents. Even before that, from like the 2nd episode, he's been fixated on killing L. I mean hello, his D&D alliagnment isn't exactly a secret, and is probably somewhere between Neutral and Chaotic Evil.
Cai Calamigarde
2006-11-14, 03:22
Light or who ever, JUSTICE we are in NEED... Yeah!!!
whatever...
Caliph Ali says: "If there is a boat with hundreds of evil people and just one just man or woman, you should not hit that boat. Because that only just man or woman also has his/her rights."
So killing innocent is no thing acceptable, everyone knows this.
To kill wicked, we should argue? Right?
I don't think many of you seem to understand that Kira is the villian of the story.
Unless of course, thoughts like "Dare you go against God?!" is something anyone remotely heroic, let alone sane, would think. And also the completely pointless murder of the FBI agents. Even before that, from like the 2nd episode, he's been fixated on killing L. I mean hello, his D&D alliagnment isn't exactly a secret, and is probably somewhere between Neutral and Chaotic Evil.
Light is so very lawful evil. There's nothing chaotic about his actions at all. In fact, his goal is to basically eliminate chaos as much as possible.
AvatarST
2006-11-14, 16:13
If you ask me, from the descriptions I've read on those alignments, Light is chaotic good.
After watching episode 5 and 6, I absolutely fail to see how "morality" can be associated with Light in any stretch of the imagination.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-14, 20:52
Light is the protagonist and that is why u are seeing from his view how he is eliminating his enemies. I dont blame u, if u cant stand on a neutral stance. The anime didnt focus on how many innocent ppl were saved when the criminals just got pwnt or the story of how criminals commtting crimes and sitting in jail a few months, then come out freely and suddenly got owned. However, take a look at earlier posts, I guess some issues are tooo complicated for some ppl to explain, may be forceful language is the only choice ^^.
The anime didnt focus on how many innocent ppl were saved when the criminals just got pwnt or the story of how criminals commtting crimes and sitting in jail a few months, then come out freely and suddenly got owned.
That's because Light hasn't actually saved many people, at least in no way that can be shown. Light doesn't stop crimes from happening, in that he sees one taking place and stops it. (He only did this twice in the very beginning) He only kills people after the crime has been committed; how is that "saving" those that have already been raped or murdered?
Furthermore, by killing criminals in jail as he is wont to do, Light isn't "saving" anyone either. Those criminals have already been removed from the general population. They are not a current threat to us.
If Light goes after suspects shown on the news, Light could be killing innocent people, as they have not yet been tried by a court of law. That's the opposite of "saving" people.
Light's goal is to deter people from commiting crimes by making examples of those who do. My previous posts have already gone into how this plan is flawed. The only people Light will actually be able to deter are those who are planning premeditated murder or crimes. Since the majority of violent crimes aren't premeditated, his perfect world is an impossible construct.
Chaotic Good
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit
Chaotic good characters act as their conscience directs them with little regard for what others expect. They believe firmly in making their own way in life, and dislike others who try to intimidate or use their authority on them. They are kind and benevolent, and are strong individualists, hostile to the claims of rules, regulations, and social order. These people will actively work to bring down unjust rulers and organizations and to liberate the oppressed. They find lawful societies distasteful and will often avoid them, living as nomads or hermits.
Noble rebel leaders fighting corrupt or venal regimes, vigilantes acting for what they see as the greater good, mercenaries who only work for the good guys, and anyone who "robs from the rich to give to the poor" are all examples of chaotic good characters.
Lawful Evil
Lawful evil is the methodical, intentional, and frequently successful devotion to a cruel organized system.
Lawful evil characters methodically take what they want within the limits of their personal code of conduct (which are frequently their laws, as this alignment tends to only work for people in positions of power) without regard for whom it hurts. They care about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. They play by the rules, but do so without mercy or compassion. They are comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but are willing to serve. They loath to break promises, and are therefore very cautious about giving their word unless a bargain is clearly in their favour.
This reluctance comes partly from their nature and partly because they depend on order to protect themselves from those who oppose them on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They feel these personal morals put them above unprincipled villains but also know that they are protected by the orderly, systematic structure they exist in.
An example of a lawful evil organisation would be a cult practising human sacrifice and torture, with a strict code of conduct, strict system of hierarchy, but evil practises. Another example is a dictator. Devils are considered the embodiment of Lawful Evil.
Now, do either of those two sound like Light? Didn't think so. He is somewhere inbetween these two:
Neutral Evil
Neutral evil is pure pragmatism without honor and without variation
Neutral evil characters do whatever they can get away with. They are out for themselves, pure and simple. No tears for those they kill, whether for profit, sport, or convenience, and they have no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make them any better or any more noble. On the other hand, they do not have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Career criminals, particularly those who harm others for money, such as hitmen, are the most obvious example of Neutral Evil.
Chaotic Evil
Chaotic evil is power without control, selfishness unfettered by any law.
Chaotic evil characters do whatever their greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drives to do. If they are simply out for whatever they can get, they are ruthless and brutal. If they are committed to the spread of evil and chaos, they are even worse. Fortunately, their plans are haphazard, and any group they join or form are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as they can thwart attempt of assassination.
These characters will commit any act to further their own ends. Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the embodiment of chaotic evil.
Many serial killers would fit this description, as would indeed most of the more violent and reckless criminals found in the worst sorts of places. Psychopathy, as defined by the twenty points of Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) certainly comes close to the concept of chaotic evil.
Light best fits Neutral Evil, but he gets off too much on his power and has delusions of godhood, so there are differently elements of Chaotic in his nature.
Chaotic good characters act as their conscience directs them with little regard for what others expect. They believe firmly in making their own way in life, and dislike others who try to intimidate or use their authority on them. They are kind and benevolent, and are strong individualists, hostile to the claims of rules, regulations, and social order. These people will actively work to bring down unjust rulers and organizations and to liberate the oppressed. They find lawful societies distasteful and will often avoid them, living as nomads or hermits.
Noble rebel leaders fighting corrupt or venal regimes, vigilantes acting for what they see as the greater good, mercenaries who only work for the good guys, and anyone who "robs from the rich to give to the poor" are all examples of chaotic good characters.Well, my interpretation is that Chaotic Good fits Light well. He is trying to do good by bringing about chaos, be it intentionally or unintentionally. He does have a sense of justice (even though, it may be twisted), and to him, his actions are not made for himself, but for the greater good, or so says he. He may be forcing his version of good onto other people, but his actions are, arguably, not selfish. He is doing what he thinks is right, despite the fact that it does cause chaos.
I don't think chaotic evil fits that well. Typically, I would say people who just do evil for the sake of doing evil are chaotic evil. They have no reason to do it, not for money, not for power, or justice as Light is doing. So these characters can't be bribed to not do evil, because they don't care about money. They will kill because they like killing period, and don't need a reason to kill.
And lawful evil? I generally reserve that for characters that do evil for personal gain, like money, power or status. If you believe Light's actions are for his own gain I guess that could work, but to me, I don't think Light is doing it for power or money. In his mind, his actions are not selfish, and are for the greater good ("justice" as he calls it) so I don't think lawful evil quite fits right. For example, corrupt cops who will take bribes to overlook things, are doing "evil" for money, that is something for their personal gain, so I would call them lawful evil.
But, I guess, for now, even in D&D, there's some debate as to which Light's alignment is. Interesting. :heh:
Hmm, looking at those, I'd say he's both Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil.
He's Chaotic Good in the sense that he's trying to overthrow what he feels is a failing system, and is willing to do anything necessary to do so. He's rebelling against the established order for the purpose instating his own idea of good, in that sense. On the other hand, he's a god-complex tyrant. It's clear that any order he establishes afterwards would have him at the top, dispensing his own ruthless justice and ruling with fear. A dictator at the top of the hierarchy sounds like Lawful Evil to me. He feels a bit more Lawful Evil to me, just the kind of Lawful Evil that hasn't yet reached a comfortable position of power from which to exert his Lawful Evil-ness. He's working on it.
He's clearly not Chaotic Evil. He has a great love of order, just not the order that's currently in place. There's certainly a lot of planning in his actions, almost the opposite of chaotic. Neutral, maybe a bit, but I think the idea of making a better world is a bit outside the scope of Neutral Evil. He'd just use the Death Note to become a mob boss or rule the world from the shadows or something. He might be considered Neutral Evil if you assume that only godhood would satisfy his desires, which is possible, but then you'd have to wonder why he chose the path of killing mostly criminals.
Actually, he's probably Lawful Good. I don't see a description for that here, but considering he's trying to make a better (and more lawful) world at any cost would imply to me that he's fanatically Lawful Good.
I probably don't know D&D that well, but neutral evil to me is for people who when faced with a situation will avoid doing good and pick the evil action instead. They won't go out of their way and do something on a large scale like what Light is doing. But if they can do evil with little effort, they will do it.
Actually, he's probably Lawful Good. I don't see a description for that here, but considering he's trying to make a better (and more lawful) world at any cost would imply to me that he's fanatically Lawful Good.I think Lawful Good is more for people who try to bring good by working within an established system and its laws and I don't think Light is doing that. I would say, Light is trying to change that system so that it's better by force, and could care less about the current laws, because he thinks they are useless.
Anyways, I have said I believed that L was Lawful Good. He is on the side of the law, and is trying to maintain that lawful order. L is doing everything he can to capture Kira using every power the legal system allows him, while trying not to go outside of it. This was pretty much the reason I said that was a battle between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good (a battle of two versions of good as opposed to simply a battle between Good and Evil). But that's just my opinion.
NoSanninWa
2006-11-15, 02:06
I hate to point this out, but those alignments are taken from a role playing game, not a psychology book. E Gary Gygax is not a trained psychologist and as such his observations on human psychology should be taken as a grain of salt. Why are all of you debating his alignment system as if it has actual relevance to dissecting a moral dilemma and how it relates to human nature?!?
Does it really matter what would be on Light's character sheet in a role-playing game? That's all an alignment is and this isn't the "Let's write up people's PC character sheets" thread.
ThisIsDream
2006-11-15, 03:29
That's because Light hasn't actually saved many people, at least in no way that can be shown. Light doesn't stop crimes from happening, in that he sees one taking place and stops it. (He only did this twice in the very beginning) He only kills people after the crime has been committed; how is that "saving" those that have already been raped or murdered?
^^ u would nevere know Those criminals will committs crimes again or not. No guarantee. You would never know what the Victims think when the criminals raped her got out and laugh. Like u said the beginning at least there were ppl got saved. The story didnt focus on how many or how innocent got saved or satisfied. It focus on Light VS L.
Light using the Death note to do the Kira job is one thing. Light using the Death note fighting the L's side is another thing. Yet Both are done by Light.
There is a lady, u can say she is a GREATest scientist, but yet she is the WORSTest Mother. Anyway, there are too many ppl will just see one side but not the other. Therefore no need to say more ^^.
Can u list PROS and CONS about Light ^^? I would suggest Nexu do it :)
If Light only killed convicted criminals, showed some concern over the possibility of killing an innocent, and didn't have a goal of ruling over the world as a god, then he would be Chaotic Good -- an enemy of the established system that he feels is unjust and doing what it takes to pursue his own sense of justice.
But he doesn't care if he gets an innocent by mistake and, indeed, will kill innocent characters for no other reason than they are defying him. That is the behavior of Neutral Evil -- someone who kills or harms others coldly in pursuit of their own goals, without concern. But he also gets too much of a high from his power, and takes joy in it even when killing innocent people. That is pursuing whatever his greed or hatred pushes him to do, which is Chaotic Evil. Again, the difference between Good and Bad here is that Good is for the good of others strictly, while Evil is for one's own desires. Although Light has said that he is doing this all for the sake of creating a utopia, it's clear he has contempt for humanity and more than that, he is more interested in ruling over the world as god, much like your typical super-villian (Lex Luthor, Dr. Doom, etc).
Light is the protagonist and that is why u are seeing from his view how he is eliminating his enemies. I dont blame u, if u cant stand on a neutral stance. The anime didnt focus on how many innocent ppl were saved when the criminals just got pwnt or the story of how criminals commtting crimes and sitting in jail a few months, then come out freely and suddenly got owned. However, take a look at earlier posts, I guess some issues are tooo complicated for some ppl to explain, may be forceful language is the only choice ^^.
I have gone back and read up some of the posts, including yours, in the thread.
Question: Are you suggesting you have taken a neutral stance throughout your posts in the thread?
It's a trick question, so I'll answer it for you. The answer is: no, you are not in the neutral ground as soon as you have decided to post in a thread that asks, "Morality in Death Note? Do the ends justify the means?" When you are trying to focus in your posts on how many innocent people are being saved through Light's action, you are pretty much suggesting, "Yes, there is morality in Death Note. And yes, the ends justify the means." In actuality, the topic is even broader and not only is meant to focus on only Light's action though he is a huge part of it. Of course, you can explain yourself better than anyone else, so please feel free to correct me.
In this case, I obviously disagree with the notion, "the ends justify the means", simply because there is killing involved. What is more, these killings are done to justify individual notions of belief, in some case, _justice_, and in other case, personal goal wrapped in beliefs and ideal.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.