[haguruma]

Originally Posted by Renall

Anyway, Battler is being intensely selfish. Whether Battler is well-intentioned or not in wanting to protect Ange from something he feels might cause her to make bad life decisions, who the hell does he think he is to decide that? The only person who has any right to decide how she ought to live her life is Ange herself.

[...]

So then why did Battler take this position? Well, either he's a hypocrite, or he has an agenda. Disguising the truth is not a moral move, but a political one. He wants Ange to think a particular way and live a particular way.

You are right in your personal opinion, I wouldn't want to argue with that, but you seem to forget several aspects of this fiction that can help explain why characters acted that way...

Of course what Battler did was wrong, but both his way of concealing the truth and Erika's/Bern's way of heartlessly ripping it out is what hurts Ange.
She has to find her own way to deal with the truth and no imposed solution will help her find any peace.
But Battler is still the son of a highly patriarchical family. Like Kinzô he saw it as his duty to govern everything concerning the house of Ushiromiya and in his blind goodwill he saw it in his power to do the best for his "little sister" (who wasn't as little anymore). What Battler did might have been right for the 6 year old Ange of 1986, but he seemed to have forgotten that Ange would someday grow up and ask for the "adult truth".

Like Kinzô decided over Bearice and his children and like the adults decided over their children, Battler is repeating the very same mistake in his 8th game by wanting to govern Ange's life.

You seem to forget Gohda, Kumasawa, Nanjo, and Genji exist. That's understandable; Battler forgot them too.

I never forgot about them...but you seem to forget an important thing:
Even though they are not furniture, they are still a part of the Ushiromiya family. They might not be blood-related but they are still a part of the house of Ushiromiya, considering that it is a very traditional family in Japan, which has it's roots deep in the pre-war era.
Nanjo is the only person that can actually be argued about, because he is only a friend to Kinzô and not really a part of the household.
But does Nanjo's son actually deserve to know? Is there a natural law that gives us the right to obtain truth about those who we are related to?

You can argue that withholding knowledge is sometimes a good thing, but revealing knowledge is in my consideration never a bad thing, so it always trumps that morally.

I think your occupation makes it hard for you to actually switch stances on this one, as I assume you are highly dependent on your own definition of morals.
Moral isn't something that exists naturally, it is something that's constructed by society and thus moral values change depending on the context they are seen in.
I would actually change the stress of your sentence: "revealing knowledge is in my consideration never a bad thing". You yourself consider it to be the best option, but if it actually is...I think that is actually open to discussion.

Let's take a six year old child like Ange was and you know her relatives brutally slaughtered each other out of greed for money, even her mother cared more about the wealth than her own daughter and that's why that girl is alone...would you tell her that?!