Morality in Death Note? Do the ends justify the means?

[Axelis]

I think both sides are equal, I mean, making a world free of crime is good, but killing is bad, in terms... but I would think that Light's idea of a world free of crime is really something, because people can rest at ease, with no crimes at all. That would be a real utopia, but of course, that time, I bet there wouldn't be a lot of people left in the world.....would it?

[T E L L]

Personally, I don't think that anyone deserves to die, you know? But there are still people killing criminals and they think they know it all. THat is what happened to Light Yagami. He murdered a man but he justified his wrongdoing by saying it was for the good of the world. It was then he took his first step toward madness and sanity. It also cut him off from the rest of the world.

[T E L L]

He was a much different before the Death Note arrived in his hands.

[Sepiraph]

Firstly, I think most people are not mentally suited to use the Death Note, afterall most people wont want to or are they really capable to take on such responsibilities. Most people also have rather limited sense of justice, and they won't want to use the Death Note unless they were using it for personal gains (criminal) or if placed under some extreme situations. E.g. the person was seriously wronged by another or people close to him/her were harmed or murdered, and the perpetrator went unpunished.

Secondly, most people can never match Light's detective skill as portrayed in the anime. As it stands, Light's judgement on criminal would be much more accurate and efficient than any legal systems we have, especially when we rely on jurors whose competence can vary greatly from person to person.

So do I agree with Light's action and philosophy? I agree and disagree with him on a few issues. The biggest philosophical difference is that I think it is human nature that makes the world the place it is, therefore the only way to change the world is to change human nature. And the only way to do that is through technology to achieve some form of transhumanism.

What I do agree with Light is to use the Death Note to get rid of criminals who deserved the death penalty (or equivalent to life-sentence) , since afterall personally I am not against the death penalty. If Light is truly capable of discerning criminal without bias, then I have no problem with his action since he would be a better judge than any legal system we have. But he should still let the legal system do its job when it can, and only take actions when the system fails.

However, Light's action as it stands in the anime is problematic and he went off on an egotistical tangent fairly soon after he got his Death Note. There is no reason for him to try to kill L since L isn't a criminal and has not committed any major crime. There is also no reason for him in many instances to kill other law enforcement officers or other innocent people (ironically, sometimes he killed innocent people for self-perservation reason). His personality also changed greatly when he is in possession of the Death Note. Whether this is an effect of the Death Note or simply due to the corrupting effect of great power, there is no question that the Death Note has the ability to corrupt people.

I think it would have been more interesting if they made Light slightly more compassionate, less arrogent and selfish character with the Death Note or if they gave L with the Death Note and made it so that he has to use it.

[HyugaHinata]

I'd have to say no, the ends don't justify the means, at least not in this case.

"The ends justify the means" is the reasoning behind the Doctrine of Double Effect. Some of you will be glad to discover that upon close scrutiny, the Double Effect Principle has more holes than Sonny Corleone. It is equivalent to saying that killing someone in self-defense is immoral, but if you kill someone in order to protect yourself, no moral law has been violated. Or in more general terms, doing a good act which has negative consequences is justifiable, but doing a bad act which has positive consequences is not acceptable. For this philosophy to work in practice, one would have to subjectively decide whether an act, such as surgery, is inherently good or inherently bad, and then decide that all “inherently good” acts are permissible, regardless of any bad consequences which may follow, and vice versa. There are several fatal flaws in this. The primary objection, in a nutshell, is that there are no boundaries to determine how much harm is acceptable. It focuses squarely on the intentions of the actor and ignores other important factors such as consent and available alternatives. Such additions are to the doctrine on a post hoc basis as they occur and as such, it fails to anticipate future situations. Additionally, defenders of the double effect doctrine are mistaken because their beliefs lend themselves to personal equivocation that can justify anything by framing it in terms of positive benefits that come about. For example, the double effect principle can be used to justify genocide and the use of nuclear weapons on the grounds that they solve the problem of overpopulation. The perpetrator would only need to substantiate a defense of necessity.

[Rabies]

Do the ends justify the means?

This has always been an interesting question throughout human history. It can vary greatly from person to person in their personal beliefs. I believe Sepiraph said it best. Light's idea had merit. The problems started to arise immediately when he began attempting to kill L, who wasn't a criminal or someone intent on committing a crime.

If you'll notice, it's almost kharmic. Light's problems as Kira immediately begin the moment he crosses that boundary, giving L his location in Japan. This then starts a downward spiral as he begins killing more and more innocents in order to further his agenda and keep his identity hidden.

I'm personally for the death penalty. I believe that those who commit heinous acts such as murder (i.e as defined as the killing of someone in a non-combat or wartime situation in where your life is not in danger), rape, armed robbery/assault, etc should be done away with. I'm not fond of the idea of my tax dollars being spent on education, fitness equipment, food, and water on people who either will...

A) Never leave prison. They're sentenced for the rest of their life. Why are we keeping them around?
B) Be caught and go into prison weak and unintelligent criminals to later be released as strong, educated, skilled criminals

It seems like a giant waste of our nation's resources to me. Those funds could go towards more research into forensics so we can properly identify "who dun it" or into reforming our prisons so that they actually work to rehabilitate the lesser criminals. It just seems now from the documentaries i've seen, prisons are just an educational step for a budding criminal - like college. They go in, learn their skill, then leave to practice it.

[Kazidoom]

Originally Posted by Rabies

Do the ends justify the means?

I'm personally for the death penalty. I believe that those who commit heinous acts such as murder (i.e as defined as the killing of someone in a non-combat or wartime situation in where your life is not in danger), rape, armed robbery/assault, etc should be done away with. I'm not fond of the idea of my tax dollars being spent on education, fitness equipment, food, and water on people who either will...

This is a common misconception. The death penalty is actually more expensive than feeding and housing a criminal for life because of the legal fees. You could say what Kira was doing was saving money. Except the petty criminals he killed of course.

"A) Never leave prison. They're sentenced for the rest of their life. Why are we keeping them around?"

There is a problem with this sentence, It is also the same problem with Kira's killings. The chance that the person who sinned would change. Many people have become religious in jail and have come to deeply regret their actions. Let's assume that Heaven and Hell exist. A man killed people and he was condemned to die. He dies and goes to hell. Or, he lives for another 20 years in jail and changes. When he dies he goes to Heaven. By deciding to kill him right away you damned a soul to hell. Are you any better than the actual murderer? I'm also against the death penalty because it's immature revenge. "You killed my family member? Haha, now I got you killed!". This attitude of revenge and hate was accentuated in the world of Death Note. You can also see how things were changing. People become more fearful or vicious. They wanted others to die and asked Kira to kill. In the end little good can come out of killing others in the name of justice.

[Rabies]

How do you tell if someone has changed? I don't believe you could really tell if these criminals have really redeemed themselves or simply just decided to "go religious" for a chance of getting out. I believe that actions, once committed, can never be taken back. There is just simply no way for you to atone for taking another person's life in such a manner. It certainly isn't done with prayer.

In the end, I think Kira was probably a neccessary evil. Yes, the world was changing. It was becoming someplace perhaps not all that likable, but remember at the beginning of the series when the police had to admit that crime was going down. I just think that he stepped off the deep end rather quickly and his first noble goal mutated into something twisted. It was a slippery slope when he thought he could do away with L who only was an innocent man opposing him.

As for the cost of legal fees, I think that's where the legal system needs to change. These criminals sit on death row for years, never getting their punishment that was decided upon. Then, when they do get their punishment it's through some "merciful" high tech means for them to get their death such as a needle. You'd save costs by just shooting them in the head, and carrying out the execution without all the baggage added onto it.

Then again i'll admit i'm a rather merciless person. I'm not saying that my idea is perfect, or that it even is "correct" or "right" if someone can even define the concept of justice in such a light. I just think that we need to have more resolve in deciding on what to do with criminals - at least in the cases where guilt is painfully obvious. You know, where there's like 10 eye witnesses, video recordings, etc.

The law is always in need of fine tuning though, no matter what methods you use. It's an imperfect system created by imperfect people, so all you can do is try to get the results you want.

[TinyRedLeaf]

^ If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend reading:

Crime and Punishment, written by Fyodor Dostoevsky in 1866.

[Zaku1971]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

^ If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend reading:

Crime and Punishment, written by Fyodor Dostoevsky in 1866.

Or Dei delitti e delle pene, written by Cesare Beccaria between 1763 and 1764.

Here the full text in English.

[Z0Rr0rex]

I'm going to be honest now. If a Death Note dropped in front of me, I would most definately use it. It's power is both seductive and self-destructive, yet I would still use it...just not in the way Light did.

First, I would start killing Terrorists. Thankfully, it would take a bit for news to spread of a terrorist's death (ex. Osama), so the exact time of when I generally kill them would be hard, if not impossible, to discern. I would keep killing terrorists until the act of commiting terrorism strikes terror into the hearts of would-be terrorists!

Along this road, i'd probably find a like-minded individual to aid me, back me up, cover for me, etc. This friend would also be my replacement should I be captured. He/She would have my Death Note and continue the killings during my custody, while I would have my memories of the book erased from my disowning it. Eventually, i'd be released from the prison as I convince them that I do not have anything to do with the killings. My friend would then have me touch the book and then I would make a fateful choice.

Although there are many, the one I'd probably make is to have him lose all memory of the Death Note. At that point, i'd "inadvertedly give up custody of the Note to someone I have no doubt would get captured. I'd instruct him to, in case of eventual capture, to burn the book and leave a message to call me if he sees a burning book (assuming his memory vanishes from its destruction.). Thankfully, i'd have saved a page from the Death Note beforehand and make sure to "destroy the evidence". At which point i'd burn the page and lose all memory. From there i'd live a relatively normal life in fear of Kira the Terrorist Killer

LOL.

1. You would have had to learn arabic text, so that you would be able to write down their names.

2. You are in no way able to learn their names, and faces anyway. (Apart from Osama Bin Laden and a few other heads.)

3. That kind of reminds me of a graphical depiction of Hitler holding a death note on one hand, and a regional Israeli catalogue on the other.

[Xiithros]

I find that L and Light both are subjectively evil and good in different views. I personally, have more respect for Light in the concept that he wishes to rid the world of evil. I think that is a step too far. Because evil simply cannot be eliminated by mere death. I guess ones' views on death can change your mind on the two. But in my opinion, L just became drunk with the case itself. He seemed to be more into getting it over with. It was like he didn't care about the fact people were dying. He just wanted to beat Light. They both have a tendency to refuse defeat. Light got somewhat pompous throughout the story so he almost forgot the whole reason he obtained the Death Note.

I guess there is no set answer for me. Just like the majority of other posts say. I was going to read them all until I saw there were 37 pages! ^^; But I'm glad I stumbled upon it.

I think Light was playing an imaginative role to think "I will reign over a world of justice" etc...because he is simply one person. And as we could see, he didn't go too well with it. And even if he did take up the Shinigami's Eyes deal, he probably still wouldn't be able to "rid" the world of evil. I think death is a subject too powerful to talk about. It can have so many answers that nobody even knows who should judge. So I think Light just focused on his own mindset on death rather than others. It seemed like L just assumed Light was evil. I mean, truthfully he wasn't doing many bad deeds until he killed off unnecessary people. The criminals in the jails didn't serve much purpose to society. In my moral views, us as humans have too much power over this planet. To an extent that makes us monsters. Yet miracles. And way too many of us are on this planet. So I don't see the big deal of a few deaths here and there. Even though death occurs almost always throughout the world every minute. What would change a man in jail dying of a heart attack to a baby being born the same second?

I guess I'll conclude that L and Light are equally matched in the "morality" of both of them. My whole little essay thing here was a little tedious...I don't know. I guess I just got carried way. But I do like the other posts here. :]

[ashesatdusk]

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.

You know thinking about it. Death notes really asking any questions on good & evil. Its a commentary on religion. Or even against it. The more I think about it makes sense. I think Light and Kira are analogous to the major western religions.
Lights initial motive is to kill off all the evil, and create a perfect utopia, where there is no evil. He decides that he himself, is the sole person to have the power to decide good & evil through the use of death note. Within this frame work their is no real discussion for what good & evil is rather good & evil is simply determined by light (god). Light's own views on good & evil are almost black and white. Those who commit crimes are evil, determined by written law, and those who oppose Kira are evil. Which is analogous too many religions, those who commit sins are immoral (determined by scripture), and those who oppose the will of god. Characters such as Teru Maki This notion of light as god is reemphasized through the ending, which features the cult religion, who prays to their lord. I think death note itself is more a commentary of the reality of religion and what its nature is with in society. Is it a burden? Does religion have the right to judge others for their sins (Does light have the right to judge criminals), what of the right to oppose religion? Is religion even real? (Light is a human), those who use the death note do not go to heaven or hell, rather they go to nothing, in death all humans are equal.

[Karnot]

he lives for another 20 years in jail and changes. When he dies he goes to Heaven. By deciding to kill him right away you damned a soul to hell.

Going technical - you cannot "damn a soul to hell". Only actions of the person himself affect that. Also, no matter how religious you are - you will not get to Heaven just for that. Simply following rituals does not mean you have the real faith.

If you can damn someone by killing him 20 years earlier - then what of those who died just after being born ?

Then again, Christian faith is one self-confused system.

[Lukannon]

Generally, it seems most Christians believe you can only go to Hell after reaching an 'age of accountability,' an age where you can actually comprehend that you're sinning when you sin. Although 'can only go to Hell' perhaps isn't the right word.

Also, to be truly 'religious' in the Christian sense would imply that you have real faith, so one could argue that they would be going to heaven. Still, rituals and pretenses don't really mean or do anything except provide a focus.

I don't think Death Note was ever a commentary on religion, though religious imagery was often used(when you start talking about angels of death, God obviously follows, it was just an obvious connection). I suppose it COULD work, but if it was going to be a religious commentary, I think it'd be more of a commentary on the weaknesses of organized religion and the abuse of religiously based authority.

On Light's actions:

As many people have stated, his motive was perhaps admirable, but I think that regardless of his 'motive,' ultimately, not only were his methods flawed, but his 'goal' was flawed. Rather than just trying to create a crimeless utopia, he was trying to create a utopia that HE ruled. Already, you can see where it goes wrong; rather than having a goal that says 'I do this for the world,' he has a goal that says 'I do this for myself.' I think that that can actually corrupt the motive; he wasn't trying to create a better world, per se, he was just trying to create a world that conformed to his vision of what was ideal. So regardless of 'do the ends justify the means,' I think Light was already wrong from the beginning.

And I don't think the ends justify the means. Perhaps the desired end can necessitate the means(for example, killing in self-defense), but I don't think it can ever justify them.

On L:

I think that L was also wrong, not necessarily in his original goal, but in his means(although I still love him). His entire reason for catching Kira was his belief that 'Kira is a murderer, regardless of who he kills and for what reason he kills,' but in the end, L was just as bad, because while both come from the standpoint of 'justice,' L comes from a standpoint of 'absolute justice,' whereas Light is coming from a standpoint of 'the greater good.' As such, his actions where he deliberately placed people in situations where they were likely to die(and especially his decision near the end, to test the Death Note on people) are unforgivable. Whether he was aware of this or not, I dunno, and perhaps the situation demanded it, but I think that while contending against Kira, L began to view it more as a personal battle, as in 'I am not going to let Kira escape, for my sake,' rather than a moral battle, as in 'I am not going to let Kira escape, for the sake of justice.'

Is L more justifiable than Light? Both were incredibly ruthless, and Light is not necessarily more ruthless regardless of his much greater propensity for killing, because L was never in quite the same situation. But I do think that regardless of L's own moral position, he was still better than Light.

[Espp]

Imagine...

You are born into a world where there is no crime, no murder, no war, only justice. You are then taught in school how the world was (with crime, etc) before Kira.

Do the ends justify the means? Not at the moment Kira is on his killing spree maybe, but the 'means' are ephemeral, 'ends' are lasting.

[Lukannon]

Mabahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

No murder? I'm sure you can see why this is wrong.

You're missing the issue. You have yet to actually come out and say 'the ends justify the means,' only that 'the means are temporary and the ends are lasting.' Which they aren't, by the way, but that's an entirely different issue that I don't want to get into at the moment.

Although I suppose it's obvious what standpoint you come from. Do you think then, that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was right? Do you think that the US herding Japanese in the wake of Pearl Harbor and Middle Easterns in the wake of 9/11 into camps was justified in the name of national security? There are innumerable examples throughout history that I could point out.

Imagine...you are born into a nation that had recently suffered a massive, massive depression and has recently been lifted out of it. Jobs are plentiful, prospects are glorious, and nationalistic pride is at an all time high. You are taught about what the world was like for you before the rise of the current ruling party that pulled the country out of the depression and set it on its current path.

What is the example I am trying to draw here? The Third Reich. Which isn't really relevant to the main point either, just your argument.

...I'm not even sure what I'm talking about atm.

[quater]

That makes two of us Lukannon.

I don't believe that Kira's killing of all these criminals is justified just because their is no crime. I don't want to get into a long quarrel over it that is just what I believe. I don't think any one man has the right to decide that another dies because of his sin. I do believe criminals need to be punished but I think once a person has gone through courts that another person to kill them while your in jail is just not right.

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

I think Light went extremely overboard. He was killing criminals who were already serving their punishment in jail and then he started killing people who were not even criminals just people who were trying to stop Kira. I believe in punishment for wrong doings but the way Light did it was wrong in my opinion.

[Breakdown]

The work of Kira is not entirely unnatural - it's inhuman, but not unnatural. Nature has always had ways to kill off the weakest creature of a race - one could say one could grow so weak one has to turn to crime. Kira was killing off the bottom of the race, the weak ones that resort to crime, not unlike nature does. Nature developed parasites, diseases and rival species to make death out of the weakest of the kind. Kira had the Death Note. If nature constantly kills off the weak of a species, that species will only grow stronger. If Kira constantly kills off the sinister of mankind, only kind-hearted will rise. Same principle. Thanks to medicine and biological care, humans are close to immune to nature's attempt to kill off the weak - as long as they can recieve this medicine and care.

There's more to think about. Humanity expands constantly, and even as it is, humanity is also depleting the resources of the earth rapidly - far more faster than the earth can recreate these resources. Humans are being born faster than they're dying, the rate at which the resources are being used will just increase. At the end, the earth will collapse - the lack of food will cause hunger which in turn will cause civil wars, everyone will be fighting for their own survival. Considering about every 50th person on the earth have done a crime that would equal death sentence or at least life if judged normally, Kira would've extended the world's lifespan by a bit more than 4% if he got every criminal.

Of course, Kira wasn't without mistakes in this. There are always people innocently judged as murderers and what-not. I'm certain at least some of Kira's judgement were... Misjudged.

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not a doomsday activist or even a supporter of what Kira would do, I'm just bringing facts. As the Chief Inspector said, facts need to be laid out on the table, even more so if they're hard to bring up.