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

[Trafalgar Law]

Originally Posted by Tenken's Smile

It's wrong to offer immunity to criminals, especially death convicts (highly dangerous).

And what else should he have done? Forced them to do it? That would have been worse.

Originally Posted by Tenken's Smile

It further confirms that L and Near don't give a damn about Justice. They merely pursue cases out of personal interest. They wanted a battle-of-wit with Light because they deemed Light worthy. If they do care about Justice, they should've arrested Misa and the other DN-user in chap 109. Everything was a game.

109? Death Note has only 108 chapters, plus the final oneshot with C-Kira. L and Near do have morals. Of course, solving riddles is their "hobby", but if you remember, L needed to hold himself back when Ukita died.
And why the hell should they have arrested Misa? There was no evidence that she was Kira, and in the end, she wasn't Kira anymore.

Originally Posted by Tenken's Smile

Near: I wanna hug him Near didn't need to do experiments because L did all that I don't remember much details but I recall him cheating and covering up Mello's crime. Now I wanna kick him

He could have stopped it all with some bullet in Lights and Mikamis head. But he wanted Light to get the correct punishment, and if that isn't justice... What crime are you talking about? I don't remember >/_\<

Originally Posted by Tenken's Smile

Mello: there's nothing good about this guy.

Nothing good? He stated he didn't want Matt to die, and gave his life in order to stop Kira.

Originally Posted by Tenken's Smile

Near, Mello, and L ultimately defeated Light and the law-bound guys prevailed as it should, but there's a downside to what happened: with Kira and the Death Note being eliminated, crimes will flourish once again and the world will be the same again. So in the end, who REALLY won?

Kiras doings were crimes, so he didn't stop them. Also, the world wasn'T a happy place with Kira, it was a world of fear. "If I do wrong, I'll get killed" isn't a good motivation.

[Tenken's Smile]

Originally Posted by Trafalgar Law

.... and that anyone who disagreed should die.

Where did you get that?
SPK wasn't the only organization going against Kira.
Half a world out there disagreed with Kira.
The reason Light had to get rid of L and Near was because they not only went after him but also threatened to put him to death.
It's like: "Let me find you out, and you'll be dead."

And what else should he have done? Forced them to do it? That would have been worse.

What the... ? LOL, man, you made me laugh but no bad meaning there.

OK, I've read many detective stories. L was said to be, what's that? The #1 detective in the world, right? L could've thought of other means, a process of elimination for example, to confirm the rules in DN, but he happened to prefer the quick-and-dirty way, that's all there is to it

And why the hell should they have arrested Misa?

Check volume 4
--> she killed 8 innocent policemen,
not to count what she did afterward.
L and Near could go after her anytime if they wanted. She's not nearly as smart as Light, so it wouldn't take much effort to uncover her crime. But I guess they were just too "busy" with Light to deal with her.

What crime are you talking about? I don't remember >/_\<

Killing the director of the NPA
Kidnappings
+ "underground activities"
He could've gotten a death sentence, or life in prison

Nothing good? He stated he didn't want Matt to die, and gave his life in order to stop Kira.

Re-read if you could But don't automatically think Mello was "good" because he was raised in Wammy House.
If Mello to you is a "good" guy, then nothing in this world could be seen as "evil" anymore.

the world wasn'T a happy place with Kira, it was a world of fear. "If I do wrong, I'll get killed" isn't a good motivation.

The story made it clear that Light never punished minor criminals, or crimes committed without intention.

To me, Kira's world is not much different from the world I'm living in now, perhaps "cleaner" [ world crime rate dropped 70% ].

Why do you think we need LAWS in this world?

Because humans are not self-conscious enough to keep standards by ourselves. If given a chance, many of us would do evil things. Obviously, laws are there to govern behaviors and set certain punishments for wrongdoings, with capital punishment as the most severe. If it isn't for FEAR of these punishments, anyone with the intention would commit outrageous crimes without the slightest care about consequences.

[Trafalgar Law]

Originally Posted by Tenken's Smile

Where did you get that?

L could've thought of other means, a process of elimination for example, to confirm the rules in DN, but he happened to prefer the quick-and-dirty way, that's all there is to it [/QUOTE]Seriously, how can you check through elimination, if someone is able to kill people in a supernatural way? And how should he prove the 13-days-rule a lie without testing?

Check volume 4
--> she killed 8 innocent policemen,
not to count what she did afterward.
L and Near could go after her anytime if they wanted. She's not nearly as smart as Light, so it wouldn't take much effort to uncover her crime. But I guess they were just too "busy" with Light to deal with her.

L already had Misa arrested, but Lights trick proved them both innocent. And why should Near have gone after her? The second Kira didn't act independent anymore, so it wasn't necessary to hunt her down seperately.

Killing the director of the NPA
Kidnappings
+ "underground activities"
He could've gotten a death sentence, or life in prison

How was he covering that up? He knew it was Mello who did it, he just didn't tell Light.

Re-read if you could But don't automatically think Mello was "good" because he was raised in Wammy House.
If Mello to you is a "good" guy, then nothing in this world could be seen as "evil" anymore.

I didn't say I consider Mello as a good guy. I just said that he wasn't evil.

The story made it clear that Light never punished minor criminals, or crimes committed without intention.

To me, Kira's world is not much different from the world I'm living in now, perhaps "cleaner" [ world crime rate dropped 70% ].

Why do you think we need LAWS in this world?

Because humans are not self-conscious enough to keep standards by ourselves. If given a chance, many of us would do evil things. Obviously, laws are there to govern behaviors and set certain punishments for wrongdoings, with capital punishment as the most severe. If it isn't for FEAR of these punishments, anyone with the intention would commit outrageous crimes without the slightest care about consequences.

He may not have killed minor criminals, but he wanted to. He said himself at the very begining that he wanted to kill everyone with just minor bad intentions, he just hadn't come to that level yet.

Yes, that's what laws are for. Laws decided by the goverment, which is decided by the people in a democracy. But there was no vote making Kira the judge, therefore it is nothing but vigilantism in the worst possible way.
Also, law gives you a chance of a fair trial. Kira doesn't. He says he is bad and kills him.

[Tenken's Smile]

1/ I don't see why criminals should talk their way out of guilt. All they have to do is hire a good lawyer.
And, the most cunning ones, the ones we're most desperate to catch, can find plenty of ways to erase evidence, therefore, evade trial.
Our law systems are crumbling. Criminals go free because they can make bail; killers are let loose because of ethnicity; justice can go to hell if it doesn’t fit the political view. Basic rights and wrongs are warped because people want to keep their noses out of other’s business: no one wants responsibility anymore. The basic conformity of laws has been discarded in battles over money and publicity. Slowly, we are becoming uncivilized (Ex. People flock to Youtube to watch a hanging) lol

It is possible to argue that Light's opponents are acting in the interest of hurting innocent people by preventing Light from executing those who may escape the lenient legal system. Even though their position follows society's justice more diligently, Light's system of justice is morally superior to the one enforced currently. His system enforces a "presumption of guilt" policy in society whose legal system prefers "presumption of innocence".


2/ In the end, the police never reveal Kira's arrest to the public for fear of an ensuing riot. Now this is something to think about: If they believe their idea of justice is right, then why do they fear they won't win the support? This leads to my 3rd point:


3/ Light was in no position to announce his idea to the public because the police, or those who never saw it work, would capture him immediately.
DN would've ended at volume 2
But wasn't it true that half the world just followed him naturally, slowly? If the majority of people decided to join forces with Kira, his actions would then be considered a majority, therefore "legal".
However, in this, we also see L’s childlike, Kira-like, flaw: He wanted to kill Kira. Catch him and put him to death. L decided alone first, then gained support slowly. There was no general consensus, it was L’s wish to catch Kira and kill him. But in this, wasn’t L just condoning Kira’s murders? This is why Near decided that he would lock Kira up if he ever caught him.


4/ Hell, if such a thing as DN existed, I would simply kill all the world leaders one after another until they surrender their powers to me. Then I would rule the world and make humanity my slaves. Or I could use it to get rich really fast. Who cares about fairness and making the world a better place? I mean, why should those of us who have commited not a single crime pay taxes for those who are likely to commit crimes again?
Light's idea seems naive now, but so did other things we as a species have overcome, like going to the moon or abolishing slavery. The fact that he thought of this with good intentions stemming from an understanding of others' pain is utterly benevolent.

[ThisIsDream]

Very well said Tenken's Smile. It is rare to have people can see things without the traditional mindset.

[Kafriel]

Still, Light did kill an awful lot of people, one of the basic terms for having a crime-free world is acting for the best of society as a whole, not just parts of it (as Light and L did, each respectively only for their side). Killing is never the right choice, if I was Light I would have manipulated the president and the world leaders to break the structure of the current world and forge the one of my dreams. His plan was still good, just failed somewhere along its execution

[ArrowSmith]

I think there is no moral issue with killing off criminals who deserve to die. The moral problem started when Light killed the FBI agents. That was the first time he killed non-criminals for the sole reason that they opposed Kira. Since in his new "logic", opposing Kira meant opposing Justice - a new capital offense in his mind. That's the moral quandry right there. Are forces of the "the law" moral and just if they act in a way to stop the greater justice?

[ArrowSmith]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

Still, Light did kill an awful lot of people, one of the basic terms for having a crime-free world is acting for the best of society as a whole, not just parts of it (as Light and L did, each respectively only for their side). Killing is never the right choice, if I was Light I would have manipulated the president and the world leaders to break the structure of the current world and forge the one of my dreams. His plan was still good, just failed somewhere along its execution

It's true. Also victors are the ones who write the history. The Assyrians aren't here to tell us whether those who wiped them out were good or evil. The same with the Carthaginians who the Romans wiped out. The Romans wrote the history and claimed the Carthaginians were barbarians who engaged in child sacrifice and "Deserved killing". So there.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by ArrowSmith

I think there is no moral issue with killing off criminals who deserve to die. The moral problem started when Light killed the FBI agents. That was the first time he killed non-criminals for the sole reason that they opposed Kira. Since in his new "logic", opposing Kira meant opposing Justice - a new capital offense in his mind. That's the moral quandry right there. Are forces of the "the law" moral and just if they act in a way to stop the greater justice?

Since there's no such thing as "greater justice", they would absolutely be moral. Unless, of course, you can think of some way to quantify this greater justice as something other than a killing spree.

Originally Posted by ArrowSmith

It's true. Also victors are the ones who write the history. The Assyrians aren't here to tell us whether those who wiped them out were good or evil. The same with the Carthaginians who the Romans wiped out. The Romans wrote the history and claimed the Carthaginians were barbarians who engaged in child sacrifice and "Deserved killing". So there.

The "victors writing history" argument simply means that people who win aren't necessarily in the right. It doesn't serve as any sort of justification for acting in a heinous manner.

[ArrowSmith]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The "victors writing history" argument simply means that people who win aren't necessarily in the right. It doesn't serve as any sort of justification for acting in a heinous manner.

But it does reinforce the idea of "might makes right". Physics has no morals, greater force wins out in nature.

[4Tran]

Not really; it just means that those who are mighty can get away with it, not that they were acting morally all along. Furthermore, history often doesn't exonerate their actions of the wrongdoers.

[ArrowSmith]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Not really; it just means that those who are mighty can get away with it, not that they were acting morally all along. Furthermore, history often doesn't exonerate their actions of the wrongdoers.

Yeah but the point is that morality has no physics to it. It's just a concept. Whereas force is something very real. Kira showed that force wins out over normal concepts of morality. He only lost because he overestimated his own power.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by ArrowSmith

Yeah but the point is that morality has no physics to it. It's just a concept. Whereas force is something very real. Kira showed that force wins out over normal concepts of morality. He only lost because he overestimated his own power.

Ah, but ideas and concepts can be even more substantial than more tangible aspects like power and force. And no matter what Light did, his actions condemned him as an amoral figure. Moreover, the fact that Light "won" to any degree is a matter of authorial fiat, and cannot be used to excuse anything that he did (even if such was possible to begin with).

[ArrowSmith]

I can see that L-ists will never agree with Kira-ists. I am a Kira-ist.

[4Tran]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm talking about basic moral principles that have nothing to do with being a fan of either character. Heck, I'm not even a fan of either of them.

[roriconfan]

Interesting topic, although rather clear in its answer. There is no "cosmic justice" other than survival of the fittest. And by fittest, I don't mean strongest. Because even in the ice age, it was the small furry mamals that survived and not the huge dinosaurs. So, it is not the moral one who wins but more like the fittest one that wins. For in order to win it means his ways were better approved by the masses or the collective power of the people was not enough to stop his way of thinking and acting, so he wins for being the strongest in mind and tactics.

So, yeah, the ends does justify the means. But remember that winning is not the final goal. Any winner must also maintain his opinion or side or morality. If he fails, then the people did not approve of his ideals despite his win. Also, many ideas outlive their founders, so it is the public opinion of a said set of morals that has the last say if it is moral or good or approved.

[velvet nightmare]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Ah, but ideas and concepts can be even more substantial than more tangible aspects like power and force. And no matter what Light did, his actions condemned him as an amoral figure. Moreover, the fact that Light "won" to any degree is a matter of authorial fiat, and cannot be used to excuse anything that he did (even if such was possible to begin with).

doesn't this all depend on whether you believe that light was wrong for just generally killing people or that he took the position judge and jury and that their executions were a benefit to the safety of society in general?

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by velvet nightmare

doesn't this all depend on whether you believe that light was wrong for just generally killing people or that he took the position judge and jury and that their executions were a benefit to the safety of society in general?

Not really. Whether someone thinks that Light was wrong has almost nothing to do with the fact that it was he who was performing the action, and everything to do with the morality of that action.

[roriconfan]

Light was evil. The end.
If indeed you are the judge, jury and executioner of an action, then you may very well destroy the world and feel it is right because you think it is and don't care about the others. Yet, it is the others that you hurt and not yourself. See the irony?

[velvet nightmare]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Not really. Whether someone thinks that Light was wrong has almost nothing to do with the fact that it was he who was performing the action, and everything to do with the morality of that action.

Hm this got me thinking, lets say instead of death, the death note puts you into a coma. from your point of view it's the judgment itself that's immoral instead of the end result of coma/death or whatever it may be right? is there any sort of cut off line between it's ok for him to do it and it's not? lets go to the other extreme and say the death note lets you slap the face of everyone's name you write down, is that still immoral? is the immorality irrelevant because the actual punishment from a deathnote is so severe?


my other question is does something become moral if the benefits outweigh the costs? doesn't this all depend on the probability of the overall benefit happening? for example a foreman needs to sacrifice 10 miners to save 50 stranded miners:

a) he doesn't know if he can save them but sends them in anyways - immoral?
b) he knows for sure he will be able to save them - moral?

i don't know if this kind of example can be mirrored exactly to light, but do you kind of get what im thinking of? let's assume for a second that we know for sure beforehand in every sense of 'benefit' (less crime or w/e you want) that comes out of light using the deathnote, would it ever be like case b) above where it can ever moral?

or is this kind of thing a 'grey area' where it may be immoral from a strictly ethical sense, but society lets it slide because there is a benefit that has come from the situation which outweighs the costs, ie people's lives