AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-04-09, 14:36   Link #7821
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
No rational, moral person would commit murder just because their employer orders them to do it. Unless you're going to argue the servants are indoctrinated, which seems directly contradicted by Shannon and Kanon's struggle toward being human.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 14:38   Link #7822
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
No rational, moral person would commit murder just because their employer orders them to do it. Unless you're going to argue the servants are indoctrinated, which seems directly contradicted by Shannon and Kanon's struggle toward being human.
Kinzo obviously put them through some kind military training or something similar to it. Why else would Kinzo teach Kanon to use a gun? For kicks?
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 14:40   Link #7823
DaBackpack
Blick Winkel
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
This is true, but I haven't really seen any instances where the servants are ordered to do anything like murder for any of the other guests.

Let's say that Kinzo said, "Shannon, if you kill these six people on the night of the conference, I will let you become the family head"... giving her the ability to do so.

Or (perhaps more likely), "Shannon, I will allow you to marry George if you kill these people."

So Natsuhi having Shannon serve tea to the guests does not at all conflict with her goal.

What I am saying is that while she is "furniture," she can have an agenda of her own.

So long as nothing the guests ask gets in her way.

More far-fetched theories, but I guess it's possible that Kinzo bribed someone (maybe not even his furniture) to kill his own children.

Those ungrateful children that only wanted his money.
Those ungrateful children that got in his way of resurrecting his lost love.

Maybe. Maybe not.
DaBackpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 14:41   Link #7824
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Kinzo obviously put them through some kind military training or something similar to it. Why else would Kinzo teach Kanon to use a gun? For kicks?
Why not for kicks? Kinzo was proud of his gun collection and was evidently rather close to Kanon. Why wouldn't he show his collection off?
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 14:43   Link #7825
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Kinzo obviously put them through some kind military training or something similar to it. Why else would Kinzo teach Kanon to use a gun? For kicks?
Yes. Shooting guns is fun, and he owns his own private uninhabited island where no one asks questions. Why wouldn't he do target practice for fun?
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 14:49   Link #7826
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Well I don't think that the only reason he taught him that.

And really at least I have a motive for the servants to kill people. You guys can't even accept bribery as a motive. It might be immoral, but really murder is an immoral thing. Just saying that they're immoral for doing that doesn't say that I'm wrong.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 15:02   Link #7827
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
There's a difference. Bribery, threats, excuses, even if morally unjustifiable, are reasons. "I am your boss and I order you to brutally kill these people, even though I may not even still be alive" is just insane. Who would obey an order like that without some kind of inducement to do it? And it'd have to either be a really good reason, or the person who did it would have to be really messed up, crazy, or poorly morally grounded (they could be sane, just bad at understanding why things are wrong).
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 15:09   Link #7828
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
I'm just tired of you bringing morals up every time I bring up a motive when murder is inherently an immoral thing to do. There is no good reason to commit murder. I used to bring up bribery all the time, but because of that stupid argument that no moral person would take money to kill someone. I keep on dropping it.

Last edited by Judoh; 2010-04-09 at 15:49.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 15:28   Link #7829
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBackpack View Post
We also know that Battler has a sin.
There is one thing that keeps bugging me about this word, it could be another thing accidentally lost in translation. "Ushiromiya Battler has a sin." ('tsumi ga aru')

My friend, a culturologist, wrote a paper on the particular meaning of the word 'tsumi' in Japanese culture, and according to him, the match between it and 'sin' is not complete -- saying "Ushiromiya Battler has a sin." does not necessarily mean that Battler himself is guilty of anything. Someone with an open festering wound also has a sin, as does someone who got stained by a random bird flying overhead. 'tsumi' is a state of uncleanliness for ritual purposes which may or may not result from the individual's own actions.

So the 'sin' in question might not actually even be Battler's fault.
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 15:41   Link #7830
DaBackpack
Blick Winkel
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
Well, all of this could be a red herring. But, about Battler's sin, there is something important there.

I guess that's one of the things about language barriers; Witch Hunt did a great job translating, but some words don't necessarily translate between languages.

But it was said in red that SOMETHING that Battler does (or happens to him) results in people dying.



We can't ignore this.

By the way, bribery is a motive. It's no less moral than killing for the inheritance.

If Eva kills everyone for the gold (which is implied), it is not that much different than Shannon receiving a bribe from Kinzo to receive the inheritance if she kills everyone.

The motive is the same: they want the gold.

...Plus, if someone is crazy enough to even CONSIDER killing any group of 17 people for any reason, it's doubtful that they are going to let petty things like "morals" stop them.
DaBackpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 15:53   Link #7831
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBackpack View Post
But it was said in red that SOMETHING that Battler does (or happens to him) results in people dying.

We can't ignore this.
Never said we could ignore it, it's the most important missing piece. The problem is that I can't say it has been found, because the only theory for it supported by clues ("promise given to someone, presumably Shannon, and later broken") does not yet translate into the murder cascade in a completely satisfactory way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBackpack View Post
...Plus, if someone is crazy enough to even CONSIDER killing any group of 17 people for any reason, it's doubtful that they are going to let petty things like "morals" stop them.
The assumption that someone ever actually considered killing the entire set of 17 people at once is not really well founded, definitely not a certainty. (The proper scale of the presumed explosion/landslide/other disaster is simply not known, nor it is known when it is initiated, just that it happens on the midnight of the last day.)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 16:00   Link #7832
DaBackpack
Blick Winkel
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Never said we could ignore it, it's the most important missing piece. The problem is that I can't say it has been found, because the only theory for it supported by clues ("promise given to someone, presumably Shannon, and later broken") does not yet translate into the murder cascade in a completely satisfactory way.



The assumption that someone ever actually considered killing the entire set of 17 people at once is not really well founded, definitely not a certainty. (The proper scale of the presumed explosion/landslide/other disaster is simply not known, nor it is known when it is initiated, just that it happens on the midnight of the last day.)
I know, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that it is an important piece of information given to us in Episode 4 about the sin.

And it's problematic that there's mystery behind the word "sin."

And I also know that there are really no hard pieces of evidence supporting anything I've speculated about; I'm just trying to encourage the thinking of theories that are not really thought of that much.

After all, we could be falling for a major trap by trying to incorporate all the clues that have been presented.
"Drowing in a sea of keys" as Ryukishi07 calls it.

Of course, this isn't a reason to disregard the evidence.

Let's just not let our imaginations be bound by stuff that hasn't been totally confirmed yet.
DaBackpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 16:11   Link #7833
ErenselTheJester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: In the Meta- World... on Virgillia's bed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Never said we could ignore it, it's the most important missing piece. The problem is that I can't say it has been found, because the only theory for it supported by clues ("promise given to someone, presumably Shannon, and later broken") does not yet translate into the murder cascade in a completely satisfactory way.
Well, we can at least say that whatever his sin was, it didn't really have to deal with a person.

Quote:
The assumption that someone ever actually considered killing the entire set of 17 people at once is not really well founded, definitely not a certainty. (The proper scale of the presumed explosion/landslide/other disaster is simply not known, nor it is known when it is initiated, just that it happens on the midnight of the last day.)


I agree with this. If we are to point to a specific person as a culprit, then it would be hard to fathom the reason why he/she would kill a loved one. You might think that they would do anything to reach their goal, but that's doubtable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBackpack View Post
I know, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that it is an important piece of information given to us in Episode 4 about the sin.

And it's problematic that there's mystery behind the word "sin."

And I also know that there are really no hard pieces of evidence supporting anything I've speculated about; I'm just trying to encourage the thinking of theories that are not really thought of that much.

After all, we could be falling for a major trap by trying to incorporate all the clues that have been presented.
"Drowing in a sea of keys" as Ryukishi07 calls it.

Of course, this isn't a reason to disregard the evidence.

Let's just not let our imaginations be bound by stuff that hasn't been totally confirmed yet.
However, that's the problem. What can be confirmed outside of the Red Truth and things seen by Battler?
ErenselTheJester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 16:13   Link #7834
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Sin is considered a "dirty thing" anyway. If that word was meant to have that type of double meaning well it doesn't help us figure it out any better considering most of the sin theories are vague promises. Some people think Battler leaving the family is his sin. Some people think his sin was a promise to come back on a white horse or a promise to play with Maria every year. Some people think his sin was denying magic in front of Shannon.The sin in Higurashi was something the protagonist caused though. He gave a doll to Rena because he didn't think Mion liked girly things and that ended up making Shion jealous of Mion.

But really his sin is so vague. It could be anything. Some people in some christian groups see lying as a sin. In fact there's a verse that says that all liars deserve to go to hell. So are we dealing with moral people if they're willing to lie about any person's death? I really don't think so. Ryukishi likes to use sins as a theme in his games. The difference is in Umineko it's not given to us. We have to figure it out.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 16:18   Link #7835
ErenselTheJester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: In the Meta- World... on Virgillia's bed.
Then the only thing that we can do to figure it out is to see who the culprit is and try to connect that person to Battler's sin.
ErenselTheJester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 16:31   Link #7836
DaBackpack
Blick Winkel
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErenselTheJester View Post
However, that's the problem. What can be confirmed outside of the Red Truth and things seen by Battler?
Well, that's what I'm saying. Nothing else besides the Red Truth and whatever Battler sees can be considered absolutely true.

If Higurashi is anything like this, Ryukishi07 is trying to trick us with something.

The second Higurashi story arc led me to believe that Shion was the criminal. As we know now, this is wrong.

So, given all of these "hints" that were presented to us, only a certain number of them (and their interpretations) can actually be truthful.

So trying to incorporate all of them may not (or it very well may, we'll see) be the best course of action.

As said best by Admiral Ackbar, "It's a trap!"

I'm starting to think that Ryukishi thinks very highly of us (well, you guys really.)

IF the deceptive "hints" are intentional, he really anticipates us discovering them and using them in our theories. I never would have picked up on a lot of things.

If they are not intentional, we may be overanalyzing everything which in itself is a trap.

I'm not trying to diss everyone else's theories. We can have multiple theories floating around until we can eventually narrow them down to one "final" truth.

Hell, for all we know, Battler's sin could be him impregnating Kyrie and being Ange's father.

I still consider this a possibility... albeit an unlikely one.
DaBackpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 16:41   Link #7837
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
Don't forget that EP6 gives us a hint about Battler's sin. Or rather, it explains a hint that EP5 gave us. Whatever that sin was, it must have been something significant enough that he felt like apologizing to Beato after he remembered it, even though Beato supposedly killed his entire family. Of course, we have no proof that Beatrice was responsible for his family's death, but somehow, his "sin" against her was. That seems vitally important to me.
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 16:49   Link #7838
DaBackpack
Blick Winkel
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gobbled up by Promathia
Hm. I haven't played Episode 6 yet, but it's good to know that information is given about the sin.
DaBackpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 16:50   Link #7839
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
I'm just tired of you bringing morals up every time I bring up a motive when murder is inherently an immoral thing to do. There is no good reason to commit murder. I used to bring up bribery all the time, but because of that stupid argument that no moral person would take money to kill someone. I keep on dropping it.
No, it's quite an important distinction to make, at least assuming the author himself is also making such a distinction. I'm not bringing this up to "shut you down" or upset you, and I do apologize if it seems that way. I'm really not developing my own moral calculus properly anyway, so it's hard for me to communicate the issue here.

Let me see if I can explain the moral/rational actor difference. I know this will sound way too involved for Umineko, and I agree to an extent, but I think we consider these things without necessarily thinking about them.

First: Morality of murder. I am absolutely in agreement with you that murder is never morally justifiable. However, moral justification alone doesn't inform every action.

An action is moral if it conforms to a person's system of right and wrong. For most people, murder is viewed as wrong because of the irreversible harm it causes and the immediate suffering and pain. It's possible for a person to have a moral system in which murder isn't immoral, but I don't believe anyone in Umineko has a system where this is the case. So I agree that whoever is killing is doing evil in their own mind, and I agree that this alone does not stop them from doing it (obviously so).

Second: Rational justification of murder. This is where I think we disconnect. You are quite upset with me for objecting to your motive suggestions because if a person is going to do moral wrong, why does it matter? But I think there's a rationality angle as well that informs actors.

In other words, while no one may believe it is moral to commit murder, there are (or could be) people who believe it is rational to consider doing it even knowing it is wrong.

I would argue that any justification must conform to one of the following combinations:

Moral & Rational: The killer knows murder is wrong, but thinks he or she has a perfectly rational reason to "need" to do it anyway. For instance, if Krauss believed that saving his own skin, or the family's reputation, was more of an imperative act than not committing the moral wrong of murder, he might be inclined to do it. He knows it's wrong, but he feels like he has to.

Immoral & Rational: The killer doesn't know murder is wrong or doesn't believe it's wrong, and thus his or her actions are entirely rational because murder is an appropriate act to take in furtherance of their ends. For instance, imagine that someone honestly believed she was Beatrice the Golden Witch and had all her powers, including the Endless Magic that revives the dead. Murder might be necessary to fulfill some greater aim, with the moral caveat that they have to "make it right." I don't like this one, but it's valid.

I am wary of the following:

Moral & Irrational: The killer knows murder is wrong, and is willing to commit it nevertheless for a reason which is not reasonable or rationally sound. The servants blindly obeying a murder order because "we're furniture" is irrational. They're still capable of recognizing that you need a better reason than that.

Immoral & Irrational: Just plain crazy. Doesn't know right from wrong, doesn't know what they're doing. I'm sure no one would be satisfied by this.
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-09, 18:20   Link #7840
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
What about capital punishment? Thinking murder is "good" as long as the person you kill is "bad". That would be kind of like "Lawful evil" or something.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.