[kokanaden]

Originally Posted by npal

And THATS's the main reason my moral is consisted of TWO rules instead of just the categorical imperative. And the categorical imperative is the second rule. The categorical imperative IS right however on its own in a number of cases, but I have found out that I needed to rules complementing and controlling each other for the moral system to be effective. In the above case, the first axiom would point out that telling the truth would cause great harm to people, and that would be further strengthened by the categorical imperative (what if everyone gave away that there are Jews hiding somewhere?) Which of course, results in a huge number of deaths, that my first axiom doesn't comply with.

The difference between you and me is that I am perfectly aware of the morality of any action I do (to the fault of being guilty). I am perfectly aware that my rules condemn many selfish actions as morally wrong, but that also means I can a) refrain from doing it or b) regret and seek to atone, if I am forced to act for whatever reason. Unlike you, I am not stuck with certain actions being "inevitable", "necessary","human" and therefore claim that any further justification is invalid. Does that make me more immoral because I am aware of what I am doing instead of claiming ignorance or refuse responsibility altogether? And of course, I will condemn myself first before others condemn me. Mitsuki is right in that aspect, I think she knows that she outright betrayed her best friend, and she is to be commended for acknowledging that she wronged someone. It's her fanbase that tries to justify the unjustifiable. And no, not ALL people look only after themselves, and I can point you to all martyrs and heroes who gave their lives so that everyone else may live. I don't believe that it's in anyone's best interest to die, so I suggest you don't go out degrading human nature, because it has shone more than countless times.

i am entering the argument yet again because you are generalising all Mitsuki fans out there are trying to justify the unjustifiable. Thats stereotypical.

I haven't read the enormous amounts of "theories" you and your debate partners have put up, with Kant and theories on human nature, but I'm very sure, from what I have read, that it mostly pertains to each other's unhappniess with each other.

For me I view like this. There are two kinds of love. One is the Jesus' kind of love. Unconditional, all-encompassing and ever-forgiving. (I apologise for using such an example, but its the ultimate and the easiest to relate to). The other kind of love is the love between couples. It is exclusive, it is mutual, and yes, it is selfish. If love between couples can be argued not selfish, then why are we not legalising polygamy? The fact remains that the couple kind of love is selfish.

In KGNE, we see Haruka and Mitsuki fighting for Takayuki. To me, I believe Takayuki and Mitsuki's affections for each other was mutual. However, Mitsuki chose instead to give up her love in favour of retaining her friendship. To me, Haruka was still insecure, and tried to rush the relationship by tricking him into bed after the festival. It was foiled by Akane. Soon after (and even before), Mitsuki starts having second thoughts, and displays insecurity by trying to spend more time with Takayuki. No overt gestures, just trying to grab whatever she could.

We next witness the accident of Haruka. Consequently, she ends up in a coma, and no one KNOWS when she will wake up. Takayuki and Mitsuki are both distraught; Mitsuki more so, wrecked by her guilt of stealing the "spoils" (i.e. what little time Takayuki could spare her). Nevertheless, she pulls herself together, and cares for an effectively "dead" Takayuki, partly because she likes him, partly out of duty. She continues to do this for one year, confident that maybe, Haruka will wake up one day and everything will return to a semblence of normalcy. However, Takayuki, who supposedly has gotten better, suddenly does a dumb thing again, and she really is at a loss of what to do. Here, in front of her, was a broken man, unable to move on with his life without Haruka. On the other hand, was her best friend Haruka, who loved this broken man so much. Essentially, it was a decision whether to fulfill a promise of friendship, or succumb to her emotions and express her love for him, hoping it would help him move on. She chose the latter. Selfish? Yes, there was some selfishness, after all, she benefitted from it. Takayuki indeed moved on, and life, for him and her at least, went back to normal. Betrayal? What betrayal was there? I do not see any betrayal there, I'm sorry to say. Its love in action in this instance, and unfortunately, the Jesus kind of love had been tried out for one year and did not help things at all.

People who perceive Mitsuki as betraying Haruka view it from the angle that since Haruka was going out with Takayuki before the accident, therefore Takayuki should continue to wait. Well, I agree, if Takayuki was able to pull himself out of the rut he was in and continue life, on behalf of Haruka. Mitsuki trying to steal him then would definitely be an act of outright betrayal. However, in this case, one year after the incident, and Takayuki showed no signs on improving, of moving on. It debatable whether offering herself to Takayuki was the best way to help him, but to a desperate Mitsuki, it was the only way she could think of. (Which makes you wonder, where were Takayuki's parents all this while? And Shinji?) I'm also very sure Haruka was angry at Mitsuki not for snatching Takayuki (she knew very well 3 years had passed, nothing would ever be the same again, evidently. People move on, the world continues to revolve even if you don't move.), but because Mitsuki, when visiting her alone later on, tried to downplay her relationship with Takayuki, and instead made it sound as if she was toying with takayuki, which irked Haruka to no end. The act of offering herself to Takayuki that fateful night was one of desperation, one of love, albeit the selfish kind. Betrayal? Not from where I stand.

In addition, when people say that it was a selfish act of betrayal, they are standing from the viewpoint of Haruka. That Haruka deserved him because of the status quo before, and breaking the status quo because of an accident which was not her fault at all was not correct. However, lets change perspective: What if Mitsuki had honoured that friendship, and had not done that on that fateful night, but instead continued to support him quietly? Would it have made Takayuki better? Or would Takayuki continue to rot? He would, I'm very sure of it. In this case, by honouring a supposed "promise", she would have ruined another person, Takayuki. Fair? I would think definitely not, not from Takayuki's perspective. And of course, the big loser here would be Mitsuki again.

The theme about KGNE to me, is also about moving on. Mitsuki might have made a mistake of getting Takayuki to buy her a present (even this is debatable), does that mean that from then on we vilify her? All she wanted to do was to prevent further hurt to those still awake, still living around her, especially Takayuki. All she wanted was closure, was to move on. And I stick by her decision to declare her love to Takayuki.

I get the feeling we are drifting from the topic at hand. If you all want to debate about such stuff mostly irrelevant to the topic (i did not see anything on KGNE at all in the later posts), please do so elsewhere.