[Classified Info]

Shouldn't this be in the Death Note forums?

Death Note thread is retired, as you surely know[...] i wasn't really satisfied of users's answers: i actually felt like they were skipping something about this anime and its contents, so i wanted to bring up this matter again, but widening the discussion to a more philosophical level(and that's why i'm posting in here)

Reading your post i can see we share some thoughts, but i don't think you are getting the same feeling; perhaps i didn't express myself enough clearly, and therefore i'll try to let you notice on what we agree:

Anyway...the whole point is, the right to kill someone isn't something that should be so easily obtained and flaunted with like you were doing it in a video game or watching a movie. Toying with life defiles the right for people to be able to live in a world/society with some form of conscience and law. Killing someone to achieve a supposed just end for a free world will not lead to such a world

What Light is doing is "wrong", because he's in no position to judge, and hasn't any right to put an end to someone's freedom or life just because he thinks it's the right thing

I wanted to strengthen this concept: killing someone is wrong, no matter what kind of ugly human he/she is. Even having killed Hitler is wrong.

Only by the rule of law, only through a just response which punishes the individuals responsible, can we preserve what cannot be destroyed through violence, our commitment to democracy.

if it was this simple, and people didn't interfere with others' happiness, everything would be fine: people wouldn't steal/kill/rape etc in the first place, therefore not disturbing others' happiness, we wouldn't have the need of police, of laws, of a kind of government, or the need of locking our own house's door. Such thing exists only in our fantasy, and is commonly labeled as utopia. [...] Since that kind of happiness is very far from reality, the only thing we can do is to minimize this problem, by applying come corrections, that come in the ways of laws [...] laws obviously go against a man's freedom, but it's the least "evil", since it prevents many other potential "bad" things

One person doesn't know what is best for all. The concept that Light or someone else in the world knows best for all 7 million plus people on the planet is absurd. Cultural, language, nature and nurture experience shape and define us very differently. Diversity is essential within society or things stagnate rather quickly. There is more than one valid opinion at times. The idea that one person is wise or justified enough to judge all people is utterly perverse and impossible. That is effectively the essence of tyranny right there.

I'm not saying that Light is right (I am against any kind of penalty involving death, and stated before that we are in no position of judging others), but that he's the least evil, let's even say the best compromise, since he's favoring the COMMON TRAITS of our happiness [...] Let's say he's eliminating what could constitute a common obstacle, shared by kinda everyone, to our happiness, even tho what he's doing is wrong

You are of course right by saying that one person from one country doesn't know what is best for 7M of people, but if you eliminate (for example) terrorism, isn't that a common gain for everyone? Maybe i'm over generalizing here, but i found that what Light wanted to do could constitute a general gain for everyone, no matter the country and the culture, even tho what he was doing was wrong.

People will NEVER 100% agree on anything. From the variance of life experiences, backgrounds and the like, people are very different within a collective. The idea of one opinion being applicable to all or one way of life being THE way is pure fantasy/delusional. The right to decide and to have an opinion within the laws and moral principles is one of the fundamental rights of a human being. Again, to take that away is tyrannical.

I agree on this: i didn't approve when Light started killing anyone opposing him. That's really killing someone's freedom.

Fear doesn't effect a good solution in the long run. Fear leads to resentment, to hate, to a violent end in some casesm, or leading to someone else thinking they can do a better job than the person in charge and eliminate them (which is what happened within Light's followers in the final third). Using fear to rule will lead to those under the cloak of the tyrant to flaunt their position and live in immoral, unjust ways, which is what happened in the long run. Fear doesn't make peopel respect someone. It makes them wary and want them to fall. That's not an effective way to rule/serve justice. It's a pathetic, childish way.

This is basically when Light became totally overwhelmed by power and engaged full madness mode. I didn't like much Light afterwards, and it just showed how a person with a huge power in hands is bound to become corrupt.

If we lived in a world where the concept of consequence didn't exist, law and stability would be defunct and anarchy would prevail

I wanted to insist in this: anarchy is actually a quite utopic way of imagining life. It's just that today anarchy is seen under a bad light, but if everyone was "good", it would be the best condition: everyone would be free of laws, but that wouldn't be a problem, because people in the first place wouldn't do things that would require laws to forbid them. If noone did steal, kill, rape, mock, insult or psychologically/phisically exerted violence, there wouldn't be the need of laws. If everyone was able do administrate himself, controlling himself and not doing any "bad", and not having this hunger for power, money, lust and so on, we would live peacefully. Fantasy indeed. Not going to discuss further on this because i'm very aware that such thing is truly IMPOSSIBLE, and this time by impossible i'm not meaning a very small probability (You know, if you charged yourself against a wall, every second, for 3500000 years, you probably would be able at least once to pass through it. Since the probability of it happening is dramatically low, you say it's impossible), but a 0% probability. With this i just wanted to point out that anarchy shouldn't fall under this bad light. On the other side, i understand your use of this word, in this case.

But there is no one set form of punishment/judgement for all. There is no one truly impartial person in this universe. There is no one way of life that everyone on this planet should follow.

Eventually the men come up with the concept of good and evil, and a good amount of people agrees with that concept, but what about those who don't? Are their opinions somehow inferior for who knows what reason? Then, are their opinions superior? Neither of those: they have the same weight. But then, who is right and who is wrong? Noone, simply because noone is in the posistion to state such thing. If it existed, only a superior being, often labeled as God, could say what is right and what is wrong, but so far noone showed up.

But then, what is good and what is evil? As stated before, we aren't in the position to say what is right and what not

I just wanted to point out the thoughts i thought we shared. I have comprehended what you said, but i was just left with the impression that you didn't. If you did, then this post is meaningless