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

[anselfir]

Ok, about this end vs means debate, it does not exist.

Means, as actions create effects. Every means is relevant because of its effects, all physically existing effects. But the definition of "end" for a series of actions is purely subjective and arbitrary, it consists of a purpose as determined by the actor, usually in time-slices of reality, as in, if i do this, after i finish, what will i have.

To resolve this, simply consider all effects of the action, and value them the same, since they all exist. Consider all the effects of the actions, over time, not just in some particular arbitrarily chosen instance. However, I find such considerations not a bit less "natural" and thus naturally or intuitively relevant, it is no surprise that this is the case given the fact that we exist from moment to moment, and consider moments in time, and see the world in images rather than motions. Given these limitations on this particular act of more complete judgment, it is difficult to come to a conclusion, but it would be good to recognize that:

giving unequal value to different effects violates their equal existence, and is arbitrary

So, what to do, take the integral and accept only perfection.

[Neux]

4Tran:
Let's say someone dies from poison. Now, the question is what is the reason for the poison. From what you were saying before, if it was a means of assisted suicide, and a doctor gives poison to a patient to help them kill themselves, then someone was killed from poison. If it was part of an assassination attempt, poison is given to it's victim then he was murdered. In both cases, people were killed by poison. Yet, you call one form murder, and for the other you don't. You have to determine other aspects of situation before rushing to conclude that it's murder.

You can't simply wave someone was killed by poison, so it must be murder. Cases can be more complicated than that. Forgetting that the examples are unjustified, there are no reasons to back up those "examples". And examples don't count as proof.

And I was not the one brought up murder. If you use the word, then surely you can defend the use of that word, as you have said to me before. So, the onus is on you.

Yes, individuals can start wars. Maybe an unconventional one, but they can. And I don't fully understand what you are saying. Individuals are people not an event. Wars have two opposing sides, and are large-scale. Light and L are two opposing sides, and their actions involve the world, so it can be classified as large-scale. Both sides are trying to win, just like Light and L are doing. There are many definitions of the word "war" and people use them in many ways: "price war","cold war", etc. It is not limited to nations. Criminal organizations can declare war on another criminal organization as I have said before, as can other individuals. It may not legally be recognized as war, but it doesn't mean it isn't a war.


I have stated my position several times before. You have asked this question twice, and I have responded twice. Stop making me repeat things.

[Trax]

You keep bringing in obscure examples that aren't relevant to what Light is doing at all. He's murdering people, why are you trying to refute that? Ofcourse, from his point of view it is execution, but killing another human being without being supported by law is murder. Killing in a war is still murder aswell, although in that case it is condoned as a necessary evil from one side while condemned by the other side. I think the same pretty much applies here, he might consider it a necessary evil but it's still murder.

[anselfir]

In making an ethical judgment on a situation, two things are considered. First, what is the situation, and then, the judgment process, which is an individual action and can be assumed to be arbitrary or at least nothing can be said about it except the arbitrary.

But, what is the situation. It is that which exists, the physical facts. Language describing these facts are only relevant to the situation if the situation is described. Then, applying empirical relativism again, the situation can be summarized as a series of desires and actions, basically, A wants to do this, and does it. B wants to do this, and does it. The physical actions are described without a problem, and the "mental" part of it is described also as physical existences of desires/wants. In this manner all situations can be described, and there is no need to resort to the legal language or others that are full of unexamined assumptions, implications, and other absurdities.


Although the judgment process is an individual action, and nothing can be said of it other than that, it acts on a certain situation, and the proper or accurate defining of the situation is important, so too the accurate defining of the assumptions and implications of the language that si used in describing it. With this, coming to a conclusion that is consistent and satisfactory is not that difficult.

An example, Light kills a criminal because he deems the criminal's existence unnecessary.

Try describing the situation empirically, and see if it is easier to see.





Another very important things, namely the use of "justify"

To take justify as a question of whether this situation is just or not, aside from teh previously mentioned treatment on the situation, it is important to define just.

What is just? Since this question is answered by individuals, based on their own idea of just, their ideal or dream in other words, this is the realm that this question is confined to. A situation that is just to everyone, in which all the ideals of individuals coexist, can be said to be just to everyone, and may act as an absolutely defined state of perfection. This common ideal, in which there is happiness for all, I think is an elegant and worthy thing to deem just.

THe discussion would be less complicated if perfect knowledge of cause and effect, and absolute power to do what one wishes, exists. But these two do not exist, and it can be said that it is the human condition to act in a world in which the only certainties are the existence of the aforementioned perfection and the utter impossible distance of it. Regarding the deathnote situation, the "problem" Light has is his denial of the equivalence of others. Is Light perfect to himself? if no, why doesn't he kill himself, applying the same rules of existence to himself as he does to others. This is an amateurish oversight. Then there are these situations that involve the dilemma of power. Whether one should choose one evil over another, teh choice being forced by a lack of power to do otherwise. What does this really mean? It is important to distinguish then the conditions of action, whether things should just be, just exist, or should one willfully change it, even towards a state that is evil. This question is better answered by not seeing the situation as a choice between two states of being, but as a willful action. Then, stating the action empirically, one cannot justify it either by means or end, (which are really the same as stated above) since the situation of the action in time (a slice of the world that completely contains the action) is not perfect.
What about imperfect actions, are they forbidden to one who desires perfection. To this i have no satisfactory answer at the moment, and practicality and completeness demand an answer. If anyone is interested in discussing this topic message me or something, and I'll look at it when i have time.

Perhaps this conclusion is not intuitively comfortable, but intuition can be habitually blind.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by Trax

You keep bringing in obscure examples that aren't relevant to what Light is doing at all. He's murdering people, why are you trying to refute that? Ofcourse, from his point of view it is execution, but killing another human being without being supported by law is murder. Killing in a war is still murder aswell, although in that case it is condoned as a necessary evil from one side while condemned by the other side. I think the same pretty much applies here, he might consider it a necessary evil but it's still murder.

If murder is dependent on law, then what Light does will be murder in some places and in other places that have different laws, it won't be considered murder: it will be considered as a form of killing, but not murder. So don't just go saying, it's murder! It's obvious! There are disagreements worldwide, as laws themselves vary.

And, I am not refuting the fact that he is killing people. And the default of killing is not murder. If someone is killed in an car accident, it doesn't mean the driver murdered someone. The word killed exists for a reason, and unless given specific evidence otherwise, should stay as killed. I find people are using the word murder carelessly: "If someone is killed it's always murder", and they don't think why it's murder, and ignore that it could be another form of killing.

Murder is a word that carries negativity, and is a more extreme case of killing, and labels Light to be more evil than he really is. Why is he called Kira, roughly meaning killer instead of murderer? In any case, whatever. I'm not gonna argue for the sake of arguing. But 4Tran, your example is still flawed and doesn't work. And because no one talks about those examples, and they are relevant to morality, I bring them up. If people don't appreciate them, fine. I won't bring them up.

[anselfir]

Laws have as much authority in this discussion as my preference for dinner does.

[Trax]

Originally Posted by Neux

If murder is dependent on law, then what Light does will be murder in some places and in other places that have different laws, it won't be considered murder: it will be considered as a form of killing, but not murder. So don't just go saying, it's murder! It's obvious! There are disagreements worldwide, as laws themselves vary.

And, I am not refuting the fact that he is killing people. And the default of killing is not murder. If someone is killed in an car accident, it doesn't mean the driver murdered someone. The word killed exists for a reason, and unless given specific evidence otherwise, should stay as killed. I find people are using the word murder carelessly: "If someone is killed it's always murder", and they don't think why it's murder, and ignore that it could be another form of killing.

Murder is a word that carries negativity, and is a more extreme case of killing, and labels Light to be more evil than he really is. Why is he called Kira, roughly meaning killer instead of murderer? In any case, whatever. I'm not gonna argue for the sake of arguing. But 4Tran, your example is still flawed and doesn't work. And because no one talks about those examples, and they are relevant to morality, I bring them up. If people don't appreciate them, fine. I won't bring them up.

Let's see now... Did he mean to kill those people? Yes. Did he do it for their benefit? No. Did he do it for his own selfish reasons? Yes. If that doesn't qualify as murder, I don't know what does. It's almost like saying a serial murderer can be considered as not murdering people because he deems it necessary and has his own twisted idea of right and wrong. Also, I can't imagine there are many countries that wouldn't consider what he is doing murder. And considering that he is in Japan and falls under Japan's jurisdiction, you can be fairly sure it is considered murder there. Why else would the law be after him? The only problem they might have is actually proving it. Who would believe he can kill people with a little black book, after all. Eventhough they have seen it happen, it still defies logic. But whether they can believe it or not, it is definately the murder weapon. Which is exactly why he has his little setup to destroy it so there is no evidence, in the event that it was discovered.

If you insist on continueing this discussion, at least try to define what you think qualifies as murder rather than bringing in examples that don't seem relevant to this situation in Death Note.

[ThisIsDream]

Wow Nexu u did a nice job. You were trying to bring someone out, and she is start saying something like horrifying . The reality is hurt, we shouldnt do that . They can't even handle the smile of victory. Raito alone fighting this nemorous L's forces, and every time he eliminate an enemy or won a war against L, he should cry like a loser and keep self blaming lol. I hope u won't become an other vegetarian, after knowing the truth >_<''

Originally Posted by 4tran

Why? The definition for murder is any unlawful killing.

I can actually seeing there are ppl who are living in a circle of laws, rules etc..
In their circle, Law are used by some ppl, like i mention before. We can't do much about it, like someone said it is utterly horrifying, but we just gotta live in a world like this =\

[musouka]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

They can't even handle the smile of victory. Raito alone fighting this nemorous L's forces, and every time he eliminate an enemy or won a war against L, he should cry like a loser and keep self blaming lol.

Okay:

A) Do you believe Light enjoys being in a superior position to other people?
B) Do you think his superiority is more important than his goal of saving the world to him?
C) Are you a jerk, or do you just play one on the boards?

[anselfir]

Well, in this situation I would say Light is delusional or confused, that is a balanced description of it. The "save the world" concept can be utterly destroyed as a simple concept by applying these two observations. First, saving the world would mean to turn the world into some other condition in the future, through certain actions with certain effects. First we have discussed the equivalence of all the effects of an action throughout time.

Then, regardless of the limits on how far we can say an action is evil, certain actions are demonstrably evil, namely those that make perfection impossible, for example wishing someone to be sad. (either the person is sad, or you are sad that the person is not sad) In general any disharmony between two wills or wishes is evil, or at any rate creates a condition in which one will say, this ain't right. Using this rather strict and narrow definition, and evaluating the time space of Light's total existence and actions, one will say what is there is definitely not good.

[ThisIsDream]

A) I can't say for sure like u do. u can ask this question to every super wealth or authority people, they can say they do enjoy, some say they don't, but what most ppl see is they are sacrificing and losing many things to achieve their goals, which is kind pity (different point of veiw dont know if u can bear that) I know u are one of those people who are jealous of the top, the authority.

B) I think if he is that superiority and enjoy it, he would of come out and take the creadit, but he didn't. You can say he did enjoy the battle with L, and also he was proud of he is the one who is charging the world, make it better. If u think he should keep crying or else he is wrong. I wont say more

C) I am sorry if I am a jerk to u . I know the truth is hurt =\. Ok, Raito is wrong, he is EVIL. End of story =D

[musouka]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

A) I can't say for sure like u do. u can ask this question to every super wealth or authority people, they can say they do enjoy, some say they don't, but what most ppl see is they are sacrificing and losing many things to achieve their goals, which is kind pity (different point of veiw dont know if u can bear that) I know u are one of those people who are jealous of the top, the authority.

Okay. What are the negative consequences for Light right now? What is he giving up to achieve his goal?

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

B) I think if he is that superiority and enjoy it, he would of come out and take the creadit, but he didn't. You can say he did enjoy the battle with L, and also he was proud of he is the one who is charging the world, make it better. If u think he should keep crying or else he is wrong. I wont say more

Okay. Is it possible that Light enjoys superiority but doesn't want to die, as would be the logical consequence of outing himself to the public? In other words, if no one could kill him, do you think Light would announce himself to the world?

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

C) I am sorry if I am a jerk to u . I know the truth is hurt =\. Ok, Raito is wrong, he is EVIL. End of story =D

I hope you understand that's not why I'm calling you a jerk. I've had a great conversation with Neux all day. I don't agree with his stance, but both of us are discussing the matter calmly and with respect to the other party.

Here is why you are a jerk:

1) You ignore my arguments and focus on a single word I use. You try to use this word to tear me down and imply I'm saying things that I'm not.

2) Furthermore, you misunderstand why I was using that word. Perhaps your English reading comprehension is a little too low to follow what we were talking about. You thought that the idea of thinking of the other side was "horrifying" to me, what you failed to grasp was that I did consider Neux's idea. After that consideration, I found it "horrifying".

3) You make assumptions about me that aren't true. You assume that what I want is for you to say that Kira is evil. This is not the case. I am only trying to discuss a TV show. It would be boring if everyone agreed. If you want to repeat over and over again that Kira's actions are a mixture of good and evil without ever substantiating your claims...well, we heard you the first ten times but please feel free to carry on if you must.

4) You talk about my intelligence in a derrogatory manner simply because I don't agree with you or follow your thought processes. I know this might come as a shock, so you might want to sit down, but I am capable of understanding that some good came out of Kira's actions. But because some of the consequences were good does not mean I can agree his actions are moral. You seem to have trouble with this concept.

I don't think you belong in this thread. You are unable to follow up on your statements with examples. You perpetually misread what other people are saying. You never address other people's points, you just change the subject. You try to stir things up using things you've misunderstood. You insult people that have tried to do nothing but debate with you calmly. Your spelling and grammar are atrocious. Your posts are nearly impossible to read and parse. Need I go on?

[Neux]

Originally Posted by Trax

Let's see now... Did he mean to kill those people? Yes. Did he do it for their benefit? No. Did he do it for his own selfish reasons? Yes. If that doesn't qualify as murder, I don't know what does. It's almost like saying a serial murderer can be considered as not murdering people because he deems it necessary and has his own twisted idea of right and wrong. Also, I can't imagine there are many countries that wouldn't consider what he is doing murder. And considering that he is in Japan and falls under Japan's jurisdiction, you can be fairly sure it is considered murder there. Why else would the law be after him? The only problem they might have is actually proving it. Who would believe he can kill people with a little black book, after all. Eventhough they have seen it happen, it still defies logic. But whether they can believe it or not, it is definately the murder weapon. Which is exactly why he has his little setup to destroy it so there is no evidence, in the event that it was discovered.

If you insist on continueing this discussion, at least try to define what you think qualifies as murder rather than bringing in examples that don't seem relevant to this situation in Death Note.

*sigh*I don't think I insisted anything, and I thought I was clear that I was gonna let this matter go. But if you insist, I'll will say this one extra thing. That's it.

If that is your definition fine. But to me, it is inaccurate and does not truly capture what murder really means. By that definition, some things that are not considered murder will be also be considered murder in that definition. And I'm sure you will think this is not related again, but abortion is not considered murder by some people. Yet it can fit with your definition, so your definition is somewhat too broad and general for some of those people.

In abortion, the baby is intentionally killed. It is not for the baby's benefit. It is for a selfish reason because they don't want the baby. Thus by your definition, abortion is murder. The baby may be unborn, but technically, the baby is still alive in the womb of her mother.

If you think abortion is murder fine. But I don't consider abortion to be murder, but your definition seems to say it is. There are also other examples besides abortion. And Light isn't necessarily doing it for selfish reasons, but if that's what some people believe, fine.

And your example about the serial murderer. There is a problem. Before you even say anything about the serial murderer, you have already concluded that person is a murderer. That is jumping to conclusions, and what I was trying to get at. People already conclude that someone is a murderer before considering anything else. Consider the actions of a person before calling that person a serial murderer.

Why else is the law after him? He is breaking the law so the law is after him. Specifically, he is a killer, that is why the law is after him. Just because the law is after him, doesn't instantly change a wanted killer to a wanted murderer. Whether the law is after him or not, should not mean anything and should not affect his status as killer or murderer.

And the name calling and attitudes of some people doesn't exactly make me want to debate further. Weary as I am, got to force myself to stop responding to these posts.

[ThisIsDream]

Originally Posted by musouka

Okay. What are the negative consequences for Light right now? What is he giving up to achieve his goal?

I can say he lost the emotional part of him. He lost his freedom, he is willing to sacrifice his beloved family memebers if neccessary. He can't live like a noraml person, just like a spy or some secert agents, u can't allow emotional interfere.

Originally Posted by musouka

Is it possible that Light enjoys superiority but doesn't want to die, as would be the logical consequence of outing himself to the public?

I dont know if there s anything wrong of "doesn't want to die", but I think we discuss this issue before. If I remebere correctly, Nexu said light think if he die then so is the "ideal world" ?

Originally Posted by musouka

In other words, if no one could kill him, do you think Light would announce himself to the world?

I doubt it, what he want to do is to create a better world, not announcing himself to the public and take the creadits, even tho there are many ppl willing to fight for him and protect him. If he do that, it will be another dictiator like u guys said. Corruption will begin

And for the last thing, I didnt talk about ur intelligence or trying to tear u down lol. I was just talking about the emotinoal parts.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

I can say he lost the emotional part of him. He lost his freedom, he is willing to sacrifice his beloved family memebers if neccessary. He can't live like a noraml person, just like a spy or some secert agents, u can't allow emotional interfere.

Okay, that makes sense. Now, can you point out where it looks as though Light misses those things? (Such as a point where he seems to miss emotions, or is upset at the thought of killing his family) Please use spoiler tags if you're going beyond what the anime has shown.

Because, if he doesn't miss these things, then there doesn't seem much of a point to feel sorry for him. Do you know what I mean? If the sacrifices he's making don't mean much to him personally, then they aren't really sacrifices.

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

I dont know if there s anything wrong of "doesn't want to die", but I think we discuss this issue before. If I remebere correctly, Nexu said light think if he die then so is the "ideal world" ?

No, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to die. I wasn't trying to say Light should want to put himself in danger. I was just pointing out that "danger" is a consideration as to why he doesn't take the credit for the killings. It makes more sense to me than "modesty".

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

I doubt it, what he want to do is to create a better world, not announcing himself to the public and take the creadits, even tho there are many ppl willing to fight for him and protect him. If he do that, it will be another dictiator like u guys said. Corruption will begin

Hmm, so even if there was no danger to Light, you don't think he'd take the credit for his actions? Even though he seems to want people to know he's Kira, as long as there's no danger that he will be caught? (Otherwise why let both Naomi and Ray know who he was?)

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

And for the last thing, I didnt talk about ur intelligence or trying to tear u down lol. I was just talking about the emotinoal parts.

Actually, you did try to tear me down. You told me how I feel about certain things (such as authority). You put words into my mouth that I did not speak. You kept on implying that I didn't want to "think" about other arguments or aspects, despite my protests to the contrary. That is telling me you think I'm an idiot.

[ThisIsDream]

One thing NExu was originally quoting my thing and had a debate with u, and u found out is horrifying.
I dont know if Raito tell Naomi he is kira or not, for Ray's case. Raito show himself to Ray, u can say Raito is cruel or u can say at least he let Ray knows who Kira is or else he will die without knowing the truth.
If u think Raito will definitely come out and take the creadit, I wont stop it, but thats not what I think .
I am sorry if my words are something like calling ur an idiot or trying to tear u down =\
Edite: "If the sacrifices he's making don't mean much to him personally, then they aren't really sacrifices." Ok so u think thats nothing or mean anyhing to him, cuz he didnt cry.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

One thing NExu was originally quoting my thing and had a debate with u, and u found out is horrifying.

"Horrifying" was a direct response to the idea of mechanical judgement, not to anything you said.

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

I dont know if Raito tell Naomi he is kira or not, for Ray's case. Raito show himself to Ray, u can say Raito is cruel or u can say at least he let Ray knows who Kira is or else he will die without knowing the truth.

Light did tell Naomi that he was Kira. He waited until the moment before the Death Note took effect to do so.

As for Ray, why would it be kind to allow Ray to know that it was Light who was Kira? I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that.

But regardless, he seemed to want Ray to know. That, to me, doesn't really fit in with the idea of a guy that doesn't want credit for his plans.

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

If u think Raito will definitely come out and take the creadit, I wont stop it, but thats not what I think .

I'm not definite on it (him wanting to, not whether he will or not--I've read the manga too), but I do lean towards that idea based on past behavior. Light seemed pleased by the webpages built in his honor. Light has shown a pattern, when there is no danger he'll be caught, of divulging his identity. This, to me, indicates a guy that desperately wants people to know how smart he is. He wants recognition for his work, but that is tempered by a common sense survival instinct.

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

Edite: "If the sacrifices he's making don't mean much to him personally, then they aren't really sacrifices." Ok so u think thats nothing or mean anyhing to him, cuz he didnt cry.

He doesn't have to cry, but you can't really say they were important to him if he doesn't display some sense of loss. If I lose something and don't seem to notice or care it's gone, it's not a stretch to say that it wasn't that important to me.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by musouka

Hmm, so even if there was no danger to Light, you don't think he'd take the credit for his actions? Even though he seems to want people to know he's Kira, as long as there's no danger that he will be caught? (Otherwise why let both Naomi and Ray know who he was?)

Spoiler for manga 2nd half:

After L lost to Kira, Light could have declared that he was Kira if he really wanted recognition. It's not like there were any real threats to him left, with L dead and all.

You could say his father and the other police officers with the original L may still be threats, and that was why he didn't show his face. But doesn't seem too likely. Light essentially had full control over the situation and had their names and faces. And Light believes his plan is flawless, and he is probably smarter than all of them, and is more cunning than they are so they shouldn't be a threat. If he wanted, he could have killed them all, yet he didn't.

Yet, he still ruled from the shadows, while role playing as both Kira and L, without killing his father who still thought that Kira was wrong. And he did this for some time if I remember correctly, long enough for L to be taken off the case? Yet even after L was taken off the case, Light still continued ruling from the shadows. He could have showed up and taken recognition any time, but he didn't.

And remember by that time, most of the world had already begun openly supporting Kira. The legal authorities, and what was left of the "resistance" were in ruins and were actually being prosecuted by supporters of Kira. And so Light didn't have to worry about the police either as they were now outnumbered by the Kira supporters and support from many governments. With no L, and the police no longer being a threat, Light could have showed his face then with essentially no danger. Yet he did not.

And getting recognition for his actions will most likely cripple Light's original plan. The people won't believe that Kira is some godly figure anymore, but merely a human being, and may no longer fear or respect him. And crime may rise again. And so staying in the shadows behind the alias of Kira would be the best thing for Light's plan. And that was what he did throughout the manga, arguably

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Neux

Spoiler for manga 2nd half:

And getting recognition for his actions will most likely cripple Light's original plan. The people won't believe that Kira is some godly figure anymore, but merely a human being, and may no longer fear or respect him.

Actually, that's a very good point. Having read the manga, I should have probably considered it myself. On the other hand, it really just gives a good reason for Kira not to appear, it doesn't really answer the question of whether he wants to or not.

But I digress. Good point, I concede that argument.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Neux

Let's say someone dies from poison. Now, the question is what is the reason for the poison. From what you were saying before, if it was a means of assisted suicide, and a doctor gives poison to a patient to help them kill themselves, then someone was killed from poison. If it was part of an assassination attempt, poison is given to it's victim then he was murdered. In both cases, people were killed by poison. Yet, you call one form murder, and for the other you don't. You have to determine other aspects of situation before rushing to conclude that it's murder.

That's semantic nonsense. I specifically said that Act A is exactly the same as one of Light's random murders with the exception that Neux is now the culprit and the method is poison. Are you trying to argue that Act A isn't murder?

Light's actions bear no similarity to euthanasia, so bringing it up is nothing more than a red herring.

Originally Posted by Neux

You can't simply wave someone was killed by poison, so it must be murder. Cases can be more complicated than that. Forgetting that the examples are unjustified, there are no reasons to back up those "examples". And examples don't count as proof.

Either you are incapable of understanding my arguments, or you are purposefully misconstruing them. I'm leaning towards the latter right now.

Originally Posted by Neux

And I was not the one brought up murder. If you use the word, then surely you can defend the use of that word, as you have said to me before. So, the onus is on you.

I'm proving it my showing the parallel, or do you not understand that kind of argument? Heck, you haven't even tried to refute any of my arguments, you're just trying to confuse the issue.

Originally Posted by Neux

Yes, individuals can start wars. Maybe an unconventional one, but they can. And I don't fully understand what you are saying. Individuals are people not an event. Wars have two opposing sides, and are large-scale. Light and L are two opposing sides, and their actions involve the world, so it can be classified as large-scale. Both sides are trying to win, just like Light and L are doing. There are many definitions of the word "war" and people use them in many ways: "price war","cold war", etc. It is not limited to nations. Criminal organizations can declare war on another criminal organization as I have said before, as can other individuals. It may not legally be recognized as war, but it doesn't mean it isn't a war.

Even a child can see that these are just examples of conflicts of a kind where soldiers aren't involved. The original argument (which I believe you raised) was that soldiers have a different justification when they're fighting in wars. Your examples are obviously nothing of the sort.

So how is this argument supposed to lead to any thing other than being semantic chirping? Do you actually think that your neighbor can actually declare war against you?

Originally Posted by Neux

I have stated my position several times before. You have asked this question twice, and I have responded twice. Stop making me repeat things.

Was your response actually, "I agree that Light is killing people. But I question the use of the word "murder"!? That's not a position, that's just fence-sitting - I assumed that you had something more substantial.

Originally Posted by Neux

it will be considered as a form of killing, but not murder.

You've stated this several times; can you actually substantiate it?

Originally Posted by Neux

And, I am not refuting the fact that he is killing people. And the default of killing is not murder. If someone is killed in an car accident, it doesn't mean the driver murdered someone. The word killed exists for a reason, and unless given specific evidence otherwise, should stay as killed. I find people are using the word murder carelessly: "If someone is killed it's always murder", and they don't think why it's murder, and ignore that it could be another form of killing.

While the default of killing may not necessarily murder, the default of intentional killing is.

Originally Posted by Neux

Murder is a word that carries negativity, and is a more extreme case of killing, and labels Light to be more evil than he really is.

How so?

Originally Posted by Neux

But 4Tran, your example is still flawed and doesn't work.

What example are you talking about, and why is it flawed?

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

I can actually seeing there are ppl who are living in a circle of laws, rules etc..
In their circle, Law are used by some ppl, like i mention before. We can't do much about it, like someone said it is utterly horrifying, but we just gotta live in a world like this =\

What the heck are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by Neux

If that is your definition fine. But to me, it is inaccurate and does not truly capture what murder really means. By that definition, some things that are not considered murder will be also be considered murder in that definition. And I'm sure you will think this is not related again, but abortion is not considered murder by some people. Yet it can fit with your definition, so your definition is somewhat too broad and general for some of those people.

You managed to post a great deal without actually defining murder, as per Trax's request.