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

[musouka]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

We dont know the future, Raito died too early. And I also said Raito's actions do contain right and wrong. It just depends what u gonna focus on.

You are not addressing my points. Why doesn't he show remorse right after killing them? An innocent died in the course of his plan. Even if you think it's a necessary choice, that doesn't mean Light shouldn't mourn their passing instead of silently gloat about how he outsmarted them and everything went according to plan.

Until you can convince me that Light feels sorrow over the non criminals he kills then I am not going to believe what you say about him feeling guilty.

[ThisIsDream]

Emotinal do play a strong role in here . Should Raito crying everynight in his bed ? I dont know if he keep self blaming can do him any good in the near future while his opponent is L. If he cant even handle himself, I doubt he can competite with L. However, there are ppl like monk who are trying to abandon the emotinoal part (which is very hard) what they see is the truth and the reality.

I dont know if u read the manga or not, in the manga Raito said we cant say Kira is right or wrong, we will just let the society to judge. Of cuz the society will only see the result, the final goal, but not how it proccess.

I have a friend she stop eating meat at age of 9 or 10 when she witness how a cow got killed, since then she became a vegetarian.

[musouka]

So, basically you refuse to address my point? Why even bother replying? I did not say Light had to be crying into his pillow every night, I said that he should mourn the passing of another human being that he killed, even though it went against his usual code of only murdering criminals. Showing sorrow over "what he has to do" instead of grinning evilly or gloating doesn't mean he can't carry out his goals. It only means that he understands the sacrifices he's made in order to get there. (Even if he cried buckets, I still wouldn't agree with him, though.)

If the lives of those he's supposed to protect mean absolutely nothing to him in any form, how can I accept that he's trying to better the world?

[ThisIsDream]

He is killing the enemies, and killing criminals are 2 different things. I think we talked about this before, this is a revolution. Raito is a lone and L sending innocent troops ...... It seem like u cant get over it. Ok, so Raito didnt cry for his enemies' deaths, so he is wrong. I see ok he is wrong Like I said Raito is not perfect, he had good and the bad

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Neux

I think you're the one who is avoiding my point. You have not answered my question, yet instead you say I'm the one avoiding your so-called point. This is getting nowhere.

What question?
Is it "Individuals can't declare war?"; which I answered by "No, individuals can't declare wars."?
Or is it "if you don't call those things a war, then what do you call it?"; which I answered by "If small groups of individuals try to use violent actions to overthrow the government, we tend to simply label them as terrorists."?

Please stop projection your own tactics on my responses.

Originally Posted by Neux

You can label them terrorists if you want. But, as someone mentioned, the definition of "terrorist" changes. And the usage of the word depends on one's perspective. What may be a terrorist to someone, may be a freedom fighter to another. And, no I don't want to get into the politics of this.

The point wasn't really about terrorists, it was that nobody treats a declaration of war made by an individual with anywhere near the severity of a nation doing so; and that it cannot be used as a justification for anything.

Originally Posted by Neux

First of all, that analogy is worthless. It proves nothing. You have not explained why that analogy works, you just said it works. That is not a proof because it doesn't explain anything.

Why doesn't the analogy work? How is what my proposed culprit acting any differently from what Light did?

Originally Posted by Neux

And I am sick and tired of you and your elitist attitude. You have done nothing but attack me as a debater by using me in that "example". And I have warned you before I do not take a liking to that. And am debating logically, and reasonably asking why you call that act what it is. Emotionally, it may be something, but logically it may not. This is why I ask for a reason. It seems you don't understand that.

If you understand my argument, then you shouldn't really need me to spell it out:

Premise: Light's actions are equivalent to Act A.
Premise: Act A is considered to be murder.
Premise: Murder is an immoral act.
Inference: Light's actions are equivalent to murder.
Conclusion: Light's actions are immoral.

As you can tell, there's nothing circular about this argument at all. Nor have I attacked you; I merely used you for illustrative purposes. It makes no difference if I made the culprit "Neux" or "4Tran". The key is to reduce the issue to more easily understood terms. It also helps to make the situation less abstract. You seem to have misconstrued so many of my arguments as that I'm unsure that you've been arguing logically at all. If you really think that that was an attack, then you should examine your own positions to see if you're maintaining a proper perspective.


ThisIsDream, please keep this kind of spoiler out of this thread. Lots of people here don't know how Death Note is supposed to end, and they likely would appreciate it staying that way.

On another note, are you actually saying that Light somehow feels remorse when all the evidence suggests that he doesn't? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

[ThisIsDream]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

On another note, are you actually saying that Light somehow feels remorse when all the evidence suggests that he doesn't? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

LOL. In a revolution, in a war. Everytime u eliminated an enemy u gotta feel very remorese and cry. I am laughing so hard LOL . In a war, if u cant even bear that, u will die very soon. In viet, there are american soldiers who kill kids and woman. Do u know why? It was because when a careless soldiers think oh just a kid, but when they turn their back to the kid, the kid use a gun kill them. Take a look at Kenshin Ova 1-4, people were trying to take Kenshin out by using emotional tricks, and Kenshin almost got killed.

I understand ppl like musouka who live in a peaceful era, a peaceful town who can't think of the reality, but I think you can see it.

[4Tran]

Not everyone who kills people feels remorseful over it. As musouka said, Light himself has never done so, nor has he shown any any signs of doing so. You haven't tried refuting her statement, why do you say that he feels guilty for his actions? In addition, why would you say that he may in the future, when he's shown no indications of it?

Why do you assume that musouka can't understand it simply because she doesn't live in a wartime environment? Do you live in this kind of environment, and can thus claim to have more relevant experiences to draw upon?

[musouka]

There is no indication that Light thinks that he is fighting a war. That is an example you are using, not him. But, you know what? Many members of my family have served in the military in times of war. All of them have talked about how difficult it was, and, in the case of my uncle, how distraught he was when he killed non-combatants due to orders.

Light is not on the front lines of a battlefield. He has plenty of time every day to reflect upon what he's doing and what the price of it is. Instead, he spends all his time wrapped up in himself. There is also the fact that he gloats about killing these people. Even no reaction would be better than his actual reaction, which is one of smug, superiority and gloating.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

Emotinal do play a strong role in here . Should Raito crying everynight in his bed ? I dont know if he keep self blaming can do him any good in the near future while his opponent is L. If he cant even handle himself, I doubt he can competite with L. However, there are ppl like monk who are trying to abandon the emotinoal part (which is very hard) what they see is the truth and the reality.

I dont know if u read the manga or not, in the manga Raito said we cant say Kira is right or wrong, we will just let the society to judge. Of cuz the society will only see the result, the final goal, but not how it proccess.

I have a friend she stop eating meat at age of 9 or 10 when she witness how a cow got killed, since then she became a vegetarian.

It seems that a lot of people are missing what ThisIsDream is trying to say. ThisIsDream is saying that the question should not be "is Light showing remorse" but instead this question should be asked: "is there a need for Light to show remorse"

The obvious response is killing is wrong no matter what, and any moral person would remorse for killing another being. But! Consider the last example given. In the last example, ThisIsDream gave, the point was that many people kill animals for consumption. If a person kills a rabbit in the forest to eat, then that person has killed another living being. So should that person remorse for having killed that living being? If a person eats a hamburger, should they remorse the fact that an animal was killed to create that hamburger? If any of you eat meat, do you remorse the fact that animals have been killed for your consumption? This is meant as a rhetorical question, and is just for people to think about. I don't want to open another can of worms....

Originally Posted by 4Tran

What question?
Is it "Individuals can't declare war?"; which I answered by "No, individuals can't declare wars."?
Or is it "if you don't call those things a war, then what do you call it?"; which I answered by "If small groups of individuals try to use violent actions to overthrow the government, we tend to simply label them as terrorists."?

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The point wasn't really about terrorists, it was that nobody treats a declaration of war made by an individual with anywhere near the severity of a nation doing so; and that it cannot be used as a justification for anything.

You're the one who brought up terrorists, not me. Then you say the point is not about terrorists. Make up your mind. If that is not your point, then what is your response to the question. If they are not wars what are they? War is an action or an event. Terrorists are people. How is that even answering the question? You're just changing the subject. A war can have different levels of severity ranging from small to world war level. Even if a war does not have a severity you agree with, it can still be considered a war.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Why doesn't the analogy work? How is what my proposed culprit acting any differently from what Light did?

If you understand my argument, then you shouldn't really need me to spell it out:

Premise: Light's actions are equivalent to Act A.
Premise: Act A is considered to be murder.
Premise: Murder is an immoral act.
Inference: Light's actions are equivalent to murder.
Conclusion: Light's actions are immoral.

You have not proven premise 2. Why is that Act A considered murder. You merely said Act A is murder because Act B is murder. But you have not said why Act B is murder. It is not a proof until you proven premise 2. And just putting a random person's name in your example means nothing. Even if it's true for that person, it does not mean it's true for every name you put there. There could be exceptions. You have not proven that there are no exceptions. That that premise is always true.

I agree that Light is killing people. But I question the use of the word "murder". And so far, you have not given any proof that it warrants the use of the word "murder".

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Neux

It seems that a lot of people are missing what ThisIsDream is trying to say.

Which still doesn't negate the fact that he is not addressing my point. He is the one that brought up Light's feelings RE: his own actions.

Originally Posted by Neux

ThisIsDream is saying that the question should not be "is Light showing remorse" but instead this question should be asked: "is there a need for Light to show remorse"

Which makes absolutely no sense. His points previous to this is that Light is doing this for a greater good, that he is doing this to save people. My point is how can he being doing this to save people if he doesn't care about people?

If people are like animals to Light, then I don't see the purpose in his goal. Why are some rabbits worthy of saving and some aren't? As human beings we don't think about these things when it comes to killing animals. Talking about whether Light should or shouldn't feel at least some guilt/sorrow/negative emotion over having to kill the very people he's supposedly protecting is just muddying the waters of the debate.

Also, you two are focusing on one side of my argument and completely ignoring the other, even though I've stated it more than one time. Again, my issue is not whether Light is crying into his pillow every night. My issue is that Light SMILES ABOUT KILLING THESE PEOPLE. He not only doesn't have a sympathetic reaction, he has a deliberately antagonistic, dare-I-say evil reaction to killing people.

Hunters don't sit there and grin at the pain of the animals. They don't twist the knives in and watch their mental suffering before they die, unless they are sadists.

That is my point.

[hitokirigirl]

Originally Posted by musouka

My issue is that Light SMILES ABOUT KILLING THESE PEOPLE. He not only doesn't have a sympathetic reaction, he has a deliberately antagonistic, dare-I-say evil reaction to killing people.

That is my point.

Well, it's quite obvious he turned into a total sadist since that damn notebook fell in his hands. Just remember his face when he killed Lindt "online" : he was in pure ecstacy.

But the topic can still last a very long time, since :

- people seem to have different kind of morality.
- people don't argue fairly and intentionally neglect other interesting comments, for the sake of making their argument the ultimate one.
Hence what you said, musouka.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by musouka

Which makes absolutely no sense. His points previous to this is that Light is doing this for a greater good, that he is doing this to save people. My point is how can he being doing this to save people if he doesn't care about people?

If people are like animals to Light, then I don't see the purpose in his goal. Why are some rabbits worthy of saving and some aren't? As human beings we don't think about these things when it comes to killing animals. Talking about whether Light should or shouldn't feel at least some guilt/sorrow/negative emotion over having to kill the very people he's supposedly protecting is just muddying the waters of the debate.

Also, you two are focusing on one side of my argument and completely ignoring the other, even though I've stated it more than one time. Again, my issue is not whether Light is crying into his pillow every night. My issue is that Light SMILES ABOUT KILLING THESE PEOPLE. He not only doesn't have a sympathetic reaction, he has a deliberately antagonistic, dare-I-say evil reaction to killing people.

Hunters don't sit there and grin at the pain of the animals. They don't twist the knives in and watch their mental suffering before they die, unless they are sadists.

That is my point.

Well, who says he doesn't care about the people. Having no remorse doesn't mean he doesn't care. Well, at the least, it doesn't mean no good can come from it. What if in the future, judges are replaced by "smart" machines. Those machine judges won't have "feelings" per se, so they also don't care about the people. Yet those "machine judges" judge people. Those machines just do what they think is logically right. No feelings involved. And yeah, I guess you could say Light has no human compassion, like the hypothetical machine judges. But it still doesn't mean no good can come from it, although, as with everything, there will be disadvantages to doing stuff like that.

But if Light really enjoyed watching people suffer, he could have wrote long and painful deaths for all his victims, instead of mostly heart attacks. Also, if he really enjoyed watching people suffer, he could have set it up so he had a front row seat in the death sentences he issued. But for the most part, having a front row seat or not doesn't really seem important to him. As for smiling. I don't recall him gloating in the manga, and the anime does label Light as evil whereas it should be more in gray. Given those circumstances, Light was probably happy, and smiled that his plan worked and that he was safe, and could proceed with his plan to create his ideal world instead of interpreting that he was gleefully laughing that he had just killed somebody. Anyways, I don't think I have to respond to any point. I just don't want to get into another long debate, so I want to keep everything to a minimal. You understand from the page long posts right?

EDIT:

people don't argue fairly and intentionally neglect other interesting comments, for the sake of making their argument the ultimate one.

Yes, this is a complex issue. Points can be lost considering the number of points made, the number of posts, and the number of pages. Also consider the number of people who are arguing on each side, and how outnumbered one side is. Which makes responding difficult, and that side also has better things to do than debate and debate. If a point is missed, as I have said before, raise again. Sometimes people aren't ignoring points, but reasonably miss them. And some people are trying to overgeneralize a complex issue, and ignore relevant aspects of morality. Morality touches upon many things, not just one thing, yet some people choose to not accept this, or choose to accept a simplified version of it. And a simplified version of morality is just that. It does not represent what morality is as a whole.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Neux

What if in the future, judges are replaced by "smart" machines. Those machine judges won't have "feelings" per se, so they also don't care about the people. Yet those "machine judges" judge people. Those machines just do what they think is logically right. No feelings involved.

To be honest, that sounds utterly horrifying. I fail to see much good that would come out of the situation you just outlined, except perhaps the fact that we'd get faster trials.

Originally Posted by Neux

But if Light really enjoyed watching people suffer, he could have wrote long and painful deaths for all his victims, instead of mostly heart attacks.

No, he couldn't. Having people die by heart attacks is a method of keeping the athorities in the dark about the true nature of the Death Note.

Originally Posted by Neux

Also, if he really enjoyed watching people suffer, he could have set it up so he had a front row seat in the death sentences he issued.

Uh, how?

Originally Posted by Neux

But for the most part, having a front row seat or not doesn't really seem important to him.

You are misunderstanding me. This is my fault because my metaphor with the hunter was unclear.

To clarify: It's not the deaths themselves that Light enjoys, it's the thought of having control over these people's lives. (Which is a fine line and I wasn't clear on it myself) It's feeling of pleasure he gets when he asserts himself over someone else.

Light has a superiority complex. He thinks he's better than everyone else. He thinks he's more worthy than anyone else to judge those that should die and those that should live. But most importantly, Light loves having power over the lives of others. He loves to outsmart people, and loves to see the look on their faces right before he sends them to their death. And he desperately wants recognition of his superiority.

Haven't you noticed that every time Light has been face to face with one of his victims he can't help but let them know it was him right before they die? He loves that helpless look on their faces right before he "sticks the knife into them".

That is not the reaction of someone that is doing something for the good of the world. It is the reaction of someone that is doing something for his own personal pleasure.

[myopius]

A lot can be said about Light. But if there's one thing he is, it's consitent. He's not a hypocrite. He has a belief system which he strictly adheres to. Let's review that belief system.

1) The ends justifies any means, even to the point that he would kill his family.
2) The "ends" he desires are to create a perfect world, but it's also just ("just" as in "serving justice") for him to kill the rotten for any reason, because the rotten must die.
3) Those who oppose him are evil (and it's acceptable for him to kill evil people, obviously. not his priority, but acceptable).

From these basic principles, most personalized arguments against Light are invalidated.

Argument: "How can he do X (where X = some terrible act)! It's uncalled for!"
Response: Either it was to create a perfect world, or that person was rotten, or they opposed him.
Follow-up argument: "No, see how he acts emotionally?"
Response: Just because he acts emotionally doesn't meant that's the deciding motivation for his action.
Follow-up argument: "Well, then he did it for some other reason."
Response: That's your opinion. And I'll add that even if were true, you'd have to find a situation in which he acted in a way that he didn't also believe would aid the creation of a perfect world, since the morality of an action isn't in whether or not it was done for the proper reason, but what it was done in effect. If Light only does things that help him to create his perfect world, then even if it's for some other reason, it doesn't change the fact that what he did was moral in effect (by this own standards, of course).
Argument: "So he can do anything as long as he believes it's to create a perfect world?? Well, then he can just lie to himself and say any person he kills is rotten or their death serves to help create a perfect world."
Response: Yes, he can. However, if you think he does, that's your opinion.

Here is the way to argue against Light: don't argue that he's not consistent, but that the basic tenets of his belief system are incorrect.

Argument: "But what he does won't create a perfect world."
Argument: "The ends don't justify the means."
Argument: "There are no rotten people."

While the latter arguments all result in tons of text, which digresses at an incredible rate, and compose the majority of text which isn't pointless which I've noticed in this topic, I prefer them to the former arguments, since that people don't want to have to take Light's ideology seriously troubles me.

On the first of what I term the "reasonable" arguments, that what he does won't create a perfect world. I'd like to clarify something about this, since like the infamous "God of a new world" statement, it's far too often mistakenly taken literally. You can say that Light's crazy, but he isn't crazy to the point where he is unable to distinguish truth from reality, (on a side note, that in itself could be interpreted as a more restrictive definition of insanity which outrules socially relative standards) or else he wouldn't be a match for L. And so, when he says that he will create a perfect world, I don't think that he means that he will create a world with no crime. Oh yeah, and by the way, I should mention that when he says "crime" what he essentially means is "evil acts"--what Light considers evil acts and the legal definitions differ (from what I've intuited, it seems to refer to acts which are violent/inhumane/irrepairable done by a person's free will with full knowledge of their meaning), so the term "crime" is just shorthand (or, you could just say that it's referring to crime defined by the state that Light will establish rather than the Japanese state). I don't judge that he thinks he will be able to ever completely eliminate the rotten. However, without the influence of the rotten, I do believe Light thinks that no one would commit serious crimes such as murder. (You can argue that's not true, but that's a whole other issue.) So in his utopia, there would be instance of crime, but it be quickly dealt with, and so the society as a whole would, in a sense, be free of crime, in the sense that crime would not be widespread or ordinary. Consider that.

Edit: Also, I'd like to congrulate ThisIsDream for being so active in this topic through its existence, it's really great of you to be exercising your mind by thinking philosophically so often. Also, I liked your diagram.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by musouka

To be honest, that sounds utterly horrifying. I fail to see much good that would come out of the situation you just outlined, except perhaps the fact that we'd get faster trials.

Well, suppose the "machine judges" are perfect in every single way. Since it has perfect A.I, they know law perfectly, and assume they will always make the correct logical decision. They can't be bribed because "machine judges" have no need for money. So there won't be any corruption. Also, as they are machines and not human, they won't make mistakes as humans sometimes do. And if you want, also assume they will never punish an innocent. But because they are machines, they have no feelings. Because they don't have feelings, they don't have human compassion, and so can't feel remorse. Yet they will always make the correct logical decision. What then? Is there really no good at all to come from "machine judges" when they never make mistakes and always make the most logical decision based on law

Originally Posted by musouka

No, he couldn't. Having people die by heart attacks is a method of keeping the athorities in the dark about the true nature of the Death Note.

Light can control the actions of his victims. So he can write something to torture them the moment before they die of a heart attack. They will still die of a heart attack, but they will go through extreme pain for a long time before dying from that heart attack. He could add: do it in such a way that upon death, no one will know that there was torture to avoid letting the authorities know. On the other hand, Light could have made "torture before death followed by heart attack" as his signature for Kira's judgment, instead of using simply"death by heart attack". A slow and cruel death versus a quicker and less painful form of death as Light pointed out in the first episode. He chose the quicker and less painful form for his signature for the criminals.

Originally Posted by musouka

It's not the deaths themselves that Light enjoys, it's the thought of having control over these people's lives. (Which is a fine line and I wasn't clear on it myself) It's feeling of pleasure he gets when he asserts himself over someone else.

Light has a superiority complex. He thinks he's better than everyone else. He thinks he's more worthy than anyone else to judge those that should die and those that should live. But most importantly, Light loves having power over the lives of others. He loves to outsmart people, and loves to see the look on their faces right before he sends them to their death. And he desperately wants recognition of his superiority.

Haven't you noticed that every time Light has been face to face with one of his victims he can't help but let them know it was him right before they die? He loves that helpless look on their faces right before he "sticks the knife into them".

That is not the reaction of someone that is doing something for the good of the world. It is the reaction of someone that is doing something for his own personal pleasure.

About how Light gives his farewells to the victims he comes in contact with. Well, it could have been worse. He could have said: "you lost to Kira, goodbye loser" instead of merely saying "goodbye". You could call that "sticking in the knife", or you could call that a "goodbye". In the manga, "goodbye" wasn't said with any malicious intent, and there wasn't any glee when Light said it. But in the anime, that's a different story. Again, the anime labels Light as evil whereas it should be more in the gray.

Well, deciding who should live or die is kinda part of the job of his "job" ain't it, in delivering his justice. He has to be in a higher position of authority to deliver his justice and do his "job". Even if he think he was better than someone else, considering his "job", it's almost expected. His "job" puts him in a status above other people. Just like how ancient Kings thought because they were ruler of a country, they were above everyone else. That's their status.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Neux

What then? Is there really no good at all to come from "machine judges" when they never make mistakes and always make the most logical decision based on law

What does this have to do with Light? Light isn't a machine meting justice fairly. I've already gone into how his methodology is not only not taking facts into consideration, but is also entirely dependent upon other people in order to carry out.

Just so you don't feel that I'm trying to gloss over this point, sure, I can argue this if you want, but I think it's pointless and I don't really want the thread to get bogged down.

Originally Posted by Neux

Light can control the actions of his victims. So he can write something to torture them the moment before they die of a heart attack.

By this logic, he could have just as easily chosen something completely painless. Personally, I think he chose it because it was the default more than anything else, and when he started killing people he hadn't really tested the limits of the DN and what it could do. Plus killing inventively takes time.

Originally Posted by Neux

About how Light gives his farewells to the victims he comes in contact with. Well, it could have been worse. He could have said: "you lost to Kira, goodbye loser"

Isn't that pretty much exactly what he did in the case of Ray and Naomi? With Ray it was a contemptous glance, letting him know exactly who killed him. With Naomi he came right out and said that he was Kira. Both of those times are hardly the same thing as bidding someone farewell.

Originally Posted by Neux

In the manga, "goodbye" wasn't said with any malicious intent, and there wasn't any glee when Light said it. But in the anime, that's a different story. Again, the anime labels Light as evil whereas it should be more in the gray.

I've read the manga. Both those scenes came off as evil to me. He wanted them to know who he was and who killed them. I fail to see how it's grey at all. If he hadn't told Naomi who he was, if he hadn't glanced back at Ray to make sure Ray saw his face, then I might agree with you.

Originally Posted by Neux

Just like how ancient Kings thought because they were ruler of a country, they were above everyone else. That's their status.

Just because someone believes they are better does not actually mean they are better.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by musouka

What does this have to do with Light? Light isn't a machine meting justice fairly. I've already gone into how his methodology is not only not taking facts into consideration, but is also entirely dependent upon other people in order to carry out.

Just so you don't feel that I'm trying to gloss over this point, sure, I can argue this if you want, but I think it's pointless and I don't really want the thread to get bogged down.

Well, the point is "machine judges" don't have remorse. If it's OK for "machine judges" to have no remorse, then in the same way, it shouldn't matter whether or not Light shows remorse. Think of Light as an imperfect "machine judge". (And yes, I know there are flaws with "machine judges" as well).

Originally Posted by musouka

By this logic, he could have just as easily chosen something completely painless. Personally, I think he chose it because it was the default more than anything else, and when he started killing people he hadn't really tested the limits of the DN and what it could do. Plus killing inventively takes time.

But if he really got a kick of killing people, and he was really sadistic, he could have done it. It being the default shouldn't make a difference, if by doing a bit more really gives him that much excitement in killing people. Plus Ryuk had written rules that said he could control a person's actions before death, so it's not like he didn't know about it.

Originally Posted by musouka

Isn't that pretty much exactly what he did in the case of Ray and Naomi? With Ray it was a contemptous glance, letting him know exactly who killed him. With Naomi he came right out and said that he was Kira. Both of those times are hardly the same thing as bidding someone farewell.

I've read the manga. Both those scenes came off as evil to me. He wanted them to know who he was and who killed them. I fail to see how it's grey at all. If he hadn't told Naomi who he was, if he hadn't glanced back at Ray to make sure Ray saw his face, then I might agree with you.

Well, even the manga, Light's actions are ambiguous. So, yeah, his actions will come off as evil to some people, and not as evil to other people. That's why I said gray and not, eh, white. Naomi. He could have been testing to see if it worked on her. If he said he was Kira, he could instantly see her reaction to see if death note worked. If it didn't, Light could have made an excuse, maybe say it was a joke or something. Considering Light he could have pulled that off.

Originally Posted by musouka

Just because someone believes they are better does not actually mean they are better.

True. But in his case, he does have death note, which does give him power that no one else has....And to clarify, because people have different definitions of better, I mean in terms of power and not as a human being. And what is considered better is also relative.

And I'm not sure how this even applies to Light. Even if he isn't a better person than the criminals he's killing, it doesn't mean he can't do what he thinks is right. It doesn't mean a person who isn't better than criminals, can't do good.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Neux

Well, the point is "machine judges" don't have remorse. If it's OK for "machine judges" to have no remorse, then in the same way, it shouldn't matter whether or not Light shows remorse.

But, again, Light isn't a machine. You are still hung up on the "no remorse" aspect. Again, you are forgetting the "wants people to know it was him that killed them" aspect. If the "machine judges" began purposely go out of their way to watch people's reactions to their negative verdicts because they find pleasure in watching the human's reactions, then they are no longer acting purely on logic.

Originally Posted by Neux

But if he really got a kick of killing people, and he was really sadistic, he could have done it.

You are assuming that he gets more pleasure out of the physical pain. That isn't true. It's the mental anguish he enjoys. Neither Ray nor Naomi's deaths were drawn out and painful; his pleasure was from the pain he caused to them by allowing them to know that they had made a huge mistake in trusting him.

Originally Posted by Neux

Well, even the manga, Light's actions are ambiguous.

Was the way he chortled over Lind's death also ambiguous? I think Light fans are too willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you took the two goodbye scenes completely out of context you might be able to make a case, but those scenes don't exist in a bubble. You have to consider the before and after of the "goodbyes" too.

Originally Posted by Neux

If he said he was Kira, he could instantly see her reaction to see if death note worked.

Then why did he taunt her with the line about his father on the phone too? He was revelling in it.

Originally Posted by Neux

True. But in his case, he does have death note, which does give him power that no one else has....

He felt this way before he got the Death Note.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by musouka

But, again, Light isn't a machine. You are still hung up on the "no remorse" aspect. Again, you are forgetting the "wants people to know it was him that killed them" aspect. If the "machine judges" began purposely go out of their way to watch people's reactions to their negative verdicts because they find pleasure in watching the human's reactions, then they are no longer acting purely on logic.

Light wants the world to know some powerful figure is judging criminals. That's part of his plan to deter criminals from doing crime. Of course this won't work, and his plan is flawed, but he wants people to know some powerful figure like Kira exists judging people. He doesn't want people to know that Light is the one is judging. He just wants the world that someone is judging. And I have made this point before, so I don't want to repeat what I said before.

Originally Posted by musouka

You are assuming that he gets more pleasure out of the physical pain. That isn't true. It's the mental anguish he enjoys. Neither Ray nor Naomi's deaths were drawn out and painful; his pleasure was from the pain he caused to them by allowing them to know that they had made a huge mistake in trusting him.

Mental anguish? That was his plan? Then how about all those criminals he killed...where is the mental anguish he gets from them? If L didn't show up, Kira would still be killing criminals, and Ray and Naomi would probably still be alive.

Originally Posted by musouka

Was the way he chortled over Lind's death also ambiguous? I think Light fans are too willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you took the two goodbye scenes completely out of context you might be able to make a case, but those scenes don't exist in a bubble. You have to consider the before and after of the "goodbyes" too.

I don't remember every single aspect of Death Note as it's been a while, but all I know is when I read it, it was gray. Lind's death? He wasn't exactly dancing around when he was killed, so I didn't get that impression.

Originally Posted by musouka

Then why did he taunt her with the line about his father on the phone too? He was revelling in it.

Uh, you mean Naomi. That wasn't a taunt. That was to make sure that it really worked. Since the death note didn't work the first time, Light wanted to be extra careful. Naomi really wanted to speak to his father, and if Naomi suddenly doesn't want to, Light would know that death note really worked this time.

Originally Posted by musouka

He felt this way before he got the Death Note.

Well, "better" is relative. He may not be better, but you can't blame him for thinking that way. He is the chief's son, helped solved many cases as a detective, and has the highest grades. Because he thinks he is better, that's why he thinks he is the only one who can create a better world. That's why he doesn't idly sit with the death note, because he thinks that there's no one else who can change the world for the better. That's why in episode one, he said: I'm the only one who can do it. If he thought someone was equal or better to him, he could have been content with the death note and done nothing and sit and wait for that person to change the world for the better. But the constant crimes being committed in front of his eyes, in a way, enticed him to do what he did, causing him to carry out his plan to reduce crime.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Neux

You're the one who brought up terrorists, not me. Then you say the point is not about terrorists. Make up your mind. If that is not your point, then what is your response to the question. If they are not wars what are they? War is an action or an event. Terrorists are people. How is that even answering the question? You're just changing the subject. A war can have different levels of severity ranging from small to world war level. Even if a war does not have a severity you agree with, it can still be considered a war.

I only brought up terrorists to illustrate a point, not to bring them up as a way to discuss the relative morality of such groups. You should try to learn the difference between the two.

Regardless of how there can be small-scale wars, an individual cannot count as a war. They count as either public nuisances or just plain criminals.
I'm going to throw this back to you. Do you think that it actually makes any sense for an individual to start a war?

Originally Posted by Neux

You have not proven premise 2. Why is that Act A considered murder. You merely said Act A is murder because Act B is murder. But you have not said why Act B is murder. It is not a proof until you proven premise 2.

What the heck are you talking about here? If you kill someone by poisoning him (Act A), then it's considered murder. I'm not sure how you can actually dispute that.
Light's actions are the same except that it's a different person doing the deed and he uses a different method. These differences are trivial enough that there's no real difference from Act A. If want to argue against my logic, you'll have to show why my premises are weak rather than just complaining about it.

Originally Posted by Neux

And just putting a random person's name in your example means nothing. Even if it's true for that person, it does not mean it's true for every name you put there. There could be exceptions. You have not proven that there are no exceptions. That that premise is always true.

Of course using a name doesn't mean anything - I'm just using it for illustrative purposes (again). It's just a way of introducing a fresh perspective on the issue.

I'm afraid that if you want to claim that Light's actions is an exception from normal murders, the burden of proof is on you. If you don't think that the premise isn't true, then the burden of proof is also on you. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at, so you'll have to explain yourself.

Originally Posted by Neux

I agree that Light is killing people. But I question the use of the word "murder". And so far, you have not given any proof that it warrants the use of the word "murder".

Why? The definition for murder is any unlawful killing. Light's actions don't conform with any other kinds of killing; ergo, it's murder. Why the heck shouldn't it qualify as murder?

By the way, what is your position on this matter?