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

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Neux

Every time I try to make a point, you dismiss it quickly as being "intentionally made to skew facts" or that I'm "intentionally trying to make lies to mislead people". I am sick of that. I make a valid counter example, then you say that it's dishonest and you ignore it without saying why. You might as well label everything I say as lies. There is no point for me to continue, and this has gone on long enough. All in all, I am sick of your attitude. And why the heck must I debate with you? Are you going to win a prize for winning?

No one is forcing you to debate with me, but if you do want to respond to my posts, I expect you to actually address my points. There's no need to talk about abstract lines of arguments about penguins and abortion and things like that. If you want to argue that "You haven't proven that when Neux uses poison to kill someone, it's murder.", then do so instead of skirting around the issue.

By the way, I see that you still haven't defined murder yet. Can you do better than telling us that it's a complicated subject?

Originally Posted by anselfir

the basic thing with the matrix is the disconnect between sense and "everything else." Another way of seeing it is that only senses exist, and only senses can be talked about in an absolute way that people usually use to refer to "reality."

It's sort of nihilistic to argue "reality" from any other perspective.

Originally Posted by Neux

Instead of morals depending on the society they grew up in, is it also possible for morals to be innate? That is, is it possible for people have morals the moment they were born (which is not influenced in any way by society) or do morals need to be learned? Or do morals even exist..

Much like language, morality has to be learned, but they both spring from the same socialization impulse. Without both, societies cannot form.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Society has no power over those with power above them. This is the case where the weak stand below the strong. In today's society that can't happen, because we vote for the president and everything, but nobody can take real control of us because nobody has the appropirate power.

Light has the appropriate power and therefore he can rewrite history and the way society views things. The bad thing is his life span is no where near enough to accomplish it all.

But doesn't this just argue that "might makes right"? Morality is supposed to dictate how you behave, so the amount of power isn't really an issue. Besides, there have been lots of historical rulers who exercised power equal to, or greater than Light's with the area they controlled. Does this automatically make them right as well?

By the way, you may want to change your signature as it may be against forum rules.

[ThisIsDream]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Much like language, morality has to be learned, but they both spring from the same socialization impulse. Without both, societies cannot form.

There are many kinds of societies and language.

[GUTB_]

Every positive change in human social conditions in at least the last thousand or more years has occured because of rebellion and revolutions in which one side rises up against another side, and the victor kills, expells, imrisons and terrorizes the other side. So, for instance, killing Nazis in Nazi Germany would be a crime because the Nazis wrote those laws, ie, they were in power. When they were deposed, they turned into criminals because the side which opposed the Nazis took over the laws.

The rule of civil law only occured because the law of the royalty was defeated via cvil wars and revolutions all over the world, in which a lot of relatively nice and lawful people were mercilessly killed for just being being normal members of their social order at the time.

Right now, we live in a world in which a tiny minority of people control most of wealth. That is both unjust from the perspective of the majority and also legal and normal at the same time. Death Note is a bit scared of addressing this -- instead of the powerful, those that are in control of the society of crime, hegoes after legal criminals and maybe the most obvious offenders. But he'll never address things like property rights, the power of the government, wealth distribution, and so on.

[anselfir]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

It's sort of nihilistic to argue "reality" from any other perspective.

regardless, it is reality that reality can only be talked about in terms of individual or relativistic senses.

for gutb, you are trapped by "realistic situations" that are circumstances. Although you may formulate certain actions to be preferable for a large number of people, please do not say these actions are justified, just say to you they are justified, if you believe death and destruction is a part of your justice.

[Aidan]

Sorry if I disseminate your post Ptolemi,

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

I do believe that fear installs peace. If i have a gun to my head i would shut the fuck up and listen, but that is just me.

Here's were we differ I think, I'd probably resist and die for my cause. But I do agree that most people will shut up and listen, but I don't agree that they would accept the things they are told. They'd only act according to the new rules as long as they fear the alternative. When you take away the fear, they go back to their old ways. And when you keep applying fear, the thing you say in the quote below happens...

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Of course when i meant fear that is only the initial stage. Fear would work to keep others under your boot, but that also makes them dislike you. If their lives begin to suck enough they will use the fear you install as a driving measure to rebel.

But as you said...

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Everything works with time.

and again

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Everything takes time to be accepted.

As you said, it takes time to change peoples ways, but fear can't be used to achieve this long term goal, because as you said, the longer fear is applied, as a way of making people accept their situation, the more likely it becomes that they will use it to rebel.

Also fear.... perfect example Communism. In the begining it used fear to take control. Millions were killed to protect that ideal. People who even showed a shed of Westernization were thrown in jail. Society was stable and fear was used in the begining to set the guide lines. After those guide lines themselves became accepted.

But last time I looked communism was fading from the world, it would seem that people only accepted those rules for a time, for as long as they were kept in check.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

If Light takes the seat of power he won't change the morlas,

Which is the thing I was arguing with you about, I'm glad we agree in the end.

[anselfir]

Not sure what ptolemi is doing here. he makes some observations on how "most" people behave, and suddenly declares such and such are justified. -_- Nice application of reasoning. Talking with mentalities like this causes me physical pain, so let's leave it there.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

There are many kinds of societies and language.

Exactly. That was the point I was trying to imply. Likewise, there are many kinds of moral systems. However, much like different languages, they also tend to have a lot of common points although they may address them in different ways.

Originally Posted by anselfir

regardless, it is reality that reality can only be talked about in terms of individual or relativistic senses.

That's technically true, but I don't really see the point of talking about reality other than in terms of the things we can perceive.

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by Aidan

Sorry if I disseminate your post Ptolemi,
Here's were we differ I think, I'd probably resist and die for my cause. But I do agree that most people will shut up and listen, but I don't agree that they would accept the things they are told. They'd only act according to the new rules as long as they fear the alternative. When you take away the fear, they go back to their old ways. And when you keep applying fear, the thing you say in the quote below happens...

But as you said...
and again
As you said, it takes time to change peoples ways, but fear can't be used to achieve this long term goal, because as you said, the longer fear is applied, as a way of making people accept their situation, the more likely it becomes that they will use it to rebel.


But last time I looked communism was fading from the world, it would seem that people only accepted those rules for a time, for as long as they were kept in check.


Which is the thing I was arguing with you about, I'm glad we agree in the end.

No we still differ.

I said his doings will be excused because he has taken the seat of power. He would change the world and he would be accepted as a savior to put it in simple terms.

Communism faded because there was the West to oppose it. Enough people were in power to oppose. They were enough to bring it down.


That won't be the case in Light's world He would take complete control because he knows what he needs to do to get to the end of an issue.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

No one is forcing you to debate with me, but if you do want to respond to my posts, I expect you to actually address my points.

It does not mean I have to address every single one of them, as you have not addressed all my points.

And if I do not respond, it does not give you the right to label me as an outright liar or that I'm avoiding the issue. You have suggested countless times I am intentionally lying to mislead people. If you disagree fine. If you don't think it makes sense, fine. If you think it's wrong fine. But don't spouting nonsense about other debater is intentionally lying. It really makes you seem like a close minded person who can't accept reason. Close-minded people like that generally call any reason which goes against their thinking "twisting facts", as you have done. And I'd rather not debate with a person who does not seem to listen to reason, and says everything the other person says is an intentional lie.

I do have arguments. But I'd rather not address them if someone is constantly going to accuse me of intentionally twisting the facts. And I could care less if you agree with me or not. But attacking me is unacceptable. Even if you don't view it as an attack, I have told you about it. Any considerate person would stop. It's like calling a person a "jap" because you don't think it's a racist term, and even when told that it's a racist term, you still continue using it.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Much like language, morality has to be learned, but they both spring from the same socialization impulse. Without both, societies cannot form.

Not all people agree with that notion. And as someone suggested,this is a complex issue and he or she also brought up things even I'm not fully aware about. If morals have to be learned, in the beginning, who did people learn it from if no one knew about morals? One answer is that people are born knowing what is right and what is wrong.

[AvatarST]

Moreover, if subjects were entirely passive in their socialization process, everyone's behaviour would be the same. Morals aren't only learned but also depends on people's interpretations on the values and rules they take in - this is a well known and documented issue in social psychology.

[Aidan]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

No we still differ.
I said his doings will be excused because he has taken the seat of power. He would change the world and he would be accepted as a savior to put it in simple terms.

Could you substantiate that bold claim for me. Why would people accept him? Or is this just an assumption you make, something you'd like to believe?

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Communism faded because there was the West to oppose it. Enough people were in power to oppose. They were enough to bring it down.

No, Communism is still alive and well in places like China, but it is fading because they are adopting capitalism, of their own free will. And of course with capitalism comes the erosion of the communist rules, as we see happening.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

That won't be the case in Light's world He would take complete control because he knows what he needs to do to get to the end of an issue.

Would be, could be, should be, does not an argument make. I tire of this. I could claim that as soon as he took control, the people of the world would oppose him. Can you say that they wouldn't? No. You can only say that you wouldn't.

Further more, you can't take a seat of power in anonymity, if you want to rule you have to get down and dirty and manage that which you rule. Lights power is largely based on his anonymity, which is why the alias is used.

EDIT: I see that our argument has detracted into a debate about Light when we were talking about morals, I don't really want to debate an example.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Neux

And if I do not respond, it does not give you the right to label me as an outright liar or that I'm avoiding the issue. You have suggested countless times I am intentionally lying to mislead people. If you disagree fine. If you don't think it makes sense, fine. If you think it's wrong fine. But don't spouting nonsense about other debater is intentionally lying. It really makes you seem like a close minded person who can't accept reason. Close-minded people like that generally call any reason which goes against their thinking "twisting facts", as you have done. And I'd rather not debate with a person who does not seem to listen to reason, and says everything the other person says is an intentional lie.

I challenge you to find where I labeled you "as an outright liar", or "intentionally lying to mislead people", or "twisting facts".

Originally Posted by Neux

I do have arguments. But I'd rather not address them if someone is constantly going to accuse me of intentionally twisting the facts. And I could care less if you agree with me or not. But attacking me is unacceptable. Even if you don't view it as an attack, I have told you about it.

Incorrect. While it may be good form to accede to someone else's requests, it's not really necessary to do so. I find that your requests are unreasonable since my statements were not attacks; and by no means were they tantamount to racist remarks. I suggest that you withdraw your words.

Originally Posted by Neux

Not all people agree with that notion. And as someone suggested,this is a complex issue and he or she also brought up things even I'm not fully aware about. If morals have to be learned, in the beginning, who did people learn it from if no one knew about morals? One answer is that people are born knowing what is right and what is wrong.

Simply stating that not everyone agrees with my statement is not a real argument, nor is pointing out that morality is a complex subject. Since I related moral systems to language, who do you think people learned that from? The belief that people are simply born knowing right and wrong doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence. Do babies know right and wrong?

Originally Posted by AvatarST

Moreover, if subjects were entirely passive in their socialization process, everyone's behaviour would be the same. Morals aren't only learned but also depends on people's interpretations on the values and rules they take in - this is a well known and documented issue in social psychology.

That's an excellent point. I hadn't considered the possibility that this topic had been covered by researchers. I suppose that this should put this matter to rest.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I challenge you to find where I labeled you "as an outright liar", or "intentionally lying to mislead people", or "twisting facts".

You yourself should find what could be wrong, as I have told you many times where you did so. And every time you have ignored what I have said. Maybe not explicitly, but from your use of language and the words you chose to use, it certainly implies those things:

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

"you're just trying to confuse the issue." You have said this mean times, implying that I'm purposely trying to do so.

"An honest counterargument would show how Act A is not murder." You are implying that I'm being dishonest, and somehow I refusing to give arguments when I have given many. Perhaps arguments not to your liking, but I have given many.

In your PM you have also suggested that I'm being intellectually dishonest among other things.

You're obsessive use of using me in your example to paint me in a negative way.

Your frequent remarks about questioning my literacy and debating skills.

You're overall use of language in dismissing my points, and your attitude of continuing using that language even though you yourself have stated that it is inconsiderate, even after I have told you many many times. Seems to me someone is trying to hide behind language while attacking someone.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I suggest that you withdraw your words.

Why would I withdraw my words when I'm the one being attacked. Perhaps, I misunderstood the way you wrote things. But, if that's the case, it is your writing style that caused this misunderstanding and you are still responsible. And you are aware of what your writing style is, and I have told you about it. No excuses.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Simply stating that not everyone agrees with my statement is not a real argument, nor is pointing out that morality is a complex subject. Since I related moral systems to language, who do you think people learned that from? The belief that people are simply born knowing right and wrong doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence. Do babies know right and wrong?

Despite what you might think, that was not an argument against you. That was just a statement that other views exist. And explaining this view will mean explaining other concepts, that probably go beyond the scope of this discussion as someone said before.

And who is to say babies don't know. They might know but can't articulate their thoughts. You say it doesn't seem to be supported by evidence. Does that mean there is actually evidence against it? No evidence means it is inconclusive. It does not mean it's not possible. All theories must start somewhere, and if there's no evidence, we try to find it. And who is to say there is no evidence. But I'd rather not get into this. One might as well make a separate thread just for this topic. And psychology and philosophy don't always share the same opinions.

And if you do believe morals can be learned, then that means Light's actions can be taught to be morally right does it not? Basically as long as Light has power to do so, he can teach people that he is morally right and justified in doing what he is doing, as someone has been suggesting.

[Killa_hurtz]

From the way the series ends, obviously not.

The theme of Death Note may appear complex and intricate, but in truth it is really quite simple. It can't be up to just one person to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is evil and what is just. There is always going to conflicting points of view that will collide head on with eachother over these matters.

The side that wins that collision is the side that was right. It's that simple.

[EragonJeriel]

Originally Posted by Killa_hurtz

From the way the series ends, obviously not.

The theme of Death Note may appear complex and intricate, but in truth it is really quite simple. It can't be up to just one person to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is evil and what is just. There is always going to conflicting points of view that will collide head on with eachother over these matters.

The side that wins that collision is the side that was right. It's that simple.

haha, the ones who are left are right. Wow they sure are going off topic...

[anselfir]

Morality, as a guideline for action, arises as soon as the actions are contemplated from an ethical point of view, that is to say, "value judgments." Whether this is a part of the "socialization instinct" or not, it is sufficient to discuss it completely by assuming the definition of a value contemplation on action. The social part of it is treated as circumstance.
For relativism, it is not necessary to refer to society as a reason for this relativism, it is sufficient to say different individuals have different ideas of right or wrong(more precisely defined above by me), whether they act in a social context is treated as a circumstance and can be ignored in the discussion, that is to say, whether they act in a social context or not does not necessitate the discussion to be in a social context.

[4Tran]

Excellent! You saved me the time of looking these up for myself.

Originally Posted by Neux

You yourself should find what could be wrong, as I have told you many times where you did so. And every time you have ignored what I have said. Maybe not explicitly, but from your use of language and the words you chose to use, it certainly implies those things:

I have not ignored what points you made. If I dismissed them, I would almost always provide the reason for doing so. There is a major difference between that and simply ignoring a salient point.

If I did not explicitly claim something or accuse you of something, then you shouldn't bring it up as part of an argument. It might be a good idea for you to figure out what I said, rather than jumping to conclusions. I'll take the opportunity to explain these statements:

Originally Posted by Neux

"you're just trying to confuse the issue." You have said this mean times, implying that I'm purposely trying to do so.

This is quite correct. When the topic is murder and specifically the actions Light undertook, trying to bring up war and euthanasia and abortion without first establishing their relationship to the topic is an attempt to muddy the issue. The question at hand is what Light did, and trying to bring up random items in the hopes of furthering your argument is exactly as I described it. Note that I'm not trying to claim that you are trying to deceive anyone.

Originally Posted by Neux

"An honest counterargument would show how Act A is not murder." You are implying that I'm being dishonest, and somehow I refusing to give arguments when I have given many. Perhaps arguments not to your liking, but I have given many.

The proper way of arguing a point is to tackle it directly. There are some allowances for tangents, but only to a degree. Trying to argue against the logic of a specific scenario predisposes you to actual make points about said scenario. Bringing in random flying penguins does not address the scenario, and hence it's not an honest counterargument. This is a way of saying that your logic is not flowing properly; it's not an accusation that you're lying or that any deception is involved.

Originally Posted by Neux

In your PM you have also suggested that I'm being intellectually dishonest among other things.

That too is correct. Specifically, I said "I think that the way that you use evasion instead of actually addressing points much more offensive, and intellectually dishonest to boot." Many times, people have asked you direct questions; the reason for these questions is twofold: to find out where you stand, and to get a handle of how to address further lines of argument. So far, you've shown a disturbing tendency to ignore these questions (Trax's question of how you defined murder, among others). This is a sign that you're just using avoidance in order to not have to take a stand. It's extremely frustrating to debate people who do this, and intellectual dishonesty is an apt description of it. Note that this isn't a question of you outright lying or anything like that, it just means that you're not debating things properly.

Originally Posted by Neux

You're obsessive use of using me in your example to paint me in a negative way.

You are misunderstanding my reasons for using you in my scenario. I suspected that people would tend to look at Light's actions in a very abstract manner; that they were merely seeing the deaths of nonpersons. I used your name not as a way to belittle you, but to get people into thinking of this as if these events were happening to real people. If a real person were to kill people like Light did, then there's far less question of the actions being justifiable. If you or someone you knew were to suffer from his "justice" would you still be able to see it so abstractly? I also hoped that doing so would convince you to actually address the actual argument rather than skirting around the issue. Indeed, it's hardly the first time I did so in this thread. Admittedly, your reaction to my usage amused me a little, but that was hardly my main reason for doing so.

Originally Posted by Neux

Your frequent remarks about questioning my literacy and debating skills.

And I continue to do so. You've misunderstood me so many times in this thread that I can't help but wonder.

Originally Posted by Neux

You're overall use of language in dismissing my points, and your attitude of continuing using that language even though you yourself have stated that it is inconsiderate, even after I have told you many many times. Seems to me someone is trying to hide behind language while attacking someone.

Incorrect. I never said that it was necessarily inconsiderate. I said that my language may be a little forceful, but I also explained why I used it like that. It's not my fault that you decided to read my statements as some sort of attack when they were nothing of the sort. Nor do I think that it's reasonable for you to try to force me to change it. Let me make myself clear - I have not, nor do I plan to attack you personally, either directly or by implication. If it seems otherwise to you, then you should ask yourself if you may be reading too much into things.

Originally Posted by Neux

Why would I withdraw my words when I'm the one being attacked. Perhaps, I misunderstood the way you wrote things. But, if that's the case, it is your writing style that caused this misunderstanding and you are still responsible. And you are aware of what your writing style is, and I have told you about it. No excuses.

Accusing someone of making statements tantamount to racist remarks is pretty close to a personal attack. Even if I had directly insulted you and swore at you, it still would not amount to the same degree of offensiveness. Personally, I know that my remarks were nothing of that nature, so I don't particularly care, but it's quite unwise to make such accusations without a proper foundation.

Originally Posted by Neux

Despite what you might think, that was not an argument against you. That was just a statement that other views exist. And explaining this view will mean explaining other concepts, that probably go beyond the scope of this discussion as someone said before.

In that case, what was the point of bringing it up?

Originally Posted by Neux

And who is to say babies don't know. They might know but can't articulate their thoughts. You say it doesn't seem to be supported by evidence. Does that mean there is actually evidence against it? No evidence means it is inconclusive. It does not mean it's not possible. All theories must start somewhere, and if there's no evidence, we try to find it. And who is to say there is no evidence. But I'd rather not get into this. One might as well make a separate thread just for this topic. And psychology and philosophy don't always share the same opinions.

If you've ever had to take care of babies, this should be obvious; they don't even know what is and isn't dangerous to them, much less have the higher cognition required for morality.

Scientifically, the line of your argument doesn't make any sense. Proving a negative is physically impossible, so no one bothers with trying to do it. The onus is always on the person trying to prove the positive to come up with evidence for it. If no evidence can be found, then the assumption is that it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Neux

And if you do believe morals can be learned, then that means Light's actions can be taught to be morally right does it not? Basically as long as Light has power to do so, he can teach people that he is morally right and justified in doing what he is doing, as someone has been suggesting.

It doesn't really matter because most moral systems, particularly all of the valid ones, would still view Light's actions as murder.

[Rheinhard]

Not having read the manga I don't know how all this comes out and whether Kira is stopped or not, but supposing he isn't, and the investigations fail and he's still out whacking people he doesn't like...consider the following:

Certainly Kira won't stick to whacking petty violent criminals. In order to truly remake the world in his image, he's eventually going to have to get around to whacking major international leaders. In our current world this would likely include major terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden, but could also very well include leaders like the President of the US (if you feel that the world's only superpower were abusing its might to push other nations around) or officers of major transnational corporations (arms manufacturers or monopolistic conglomerates).

If you were, say, president of the USA, and had sworn an oath to protect the population and the government of the USA from all threats foreign and domestic, and you knew there was some mysterious power out there kacking your cabinet members or American citizens of note, and you also knew (thanks to L) that the source of the threat, whatever its exact nature, was localized to the central Kanto region of Japan; and you knew that covert law enforcement ops to ferret out the danger had failed: would you be justified in launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike to turn the entire Kanto plain into radioactive glass?

(Tactically this would have to be a submarine-launched strike, since the target is so close to the sea you could minimize the time between launch and impact -- needed to prevent Kira from getting a warning of his impending doom and quickly bumping off as many people in retaliation as possible. An ICBM strike could give Kira a full 30 minutes to scribble names of half of Congress in the Death Note.)

Before answering, consider: many people in these threads have argued that Kira isn't an altogether bad guy because he's whacking evil people, and preventing threats from worsening. Wouldn't you, as president, be doing fundamentally the same thing in preventing Kira from threatening the government and peoples of the USA? And considering you'd be removing threats to their nations as well, most other countries (other than Japan, naturally) would probably reluctantly support you.

And if you are horrified by this concept, why is what Kira is doing different/morally superior?

[anselfir]

Since everyone acts as an individual, the actions of others are properly considered a part of the external reality in which the individual acts, and upon which he has no control. In this regard, action is not necessitated, one can just let what happens happen. Since obviously the option of perfection is not available due to both limitation on information and general lack of power, there is no reason for anyone to do anything in this situation you have described if they cannot do what is perfect. It is not a question of moral superiority of one action over another (me wonder how this comparison can be made in the first place, or how it can even be constructed as a comparison). Instead, one should consider the nuclear strike as an action in itself.

So, kira to you, the individual who has his hand on the trigger, is a natural phenomenon, just like a tornado or a tsunami. I suppose it is valuable to consider a parallel situation in which a tornado is hitting an area, and you have the option to stop it by killing 10 people.

As stated previously, the dichotomy between end and means does not exist, instead one can view the whole time-space containing the discussed action as an end in itself, assuming causality is effective. In this case, a comparison between action and inaction is possible, however one cannot, with this result, say, the nuke was good. One can only say, the nuke killed 10000 people, kira probably/will/perhaps kill 20000, since this is obviously not a perfect condition, and perfection is the only absolutely defined good. However, if this outcome is satisfactory to you, you might well choose to act, albeit it is still an evil act. At this point it is impossible to frame the action as anything but a personal preference. Still not discussed is the issue of uncertainty in time, but that is small cakes.

Obviously this viewpoint will be seen as impractical to some of you, and it certainly will not help you justify wars or any other evil actions, since it does not recognize connections between actions, however, this is truth. The truth is that, in a situation in which evil exists, evil will exist as long as there is no option for perfection, and action will forever remain befuddled and chaotic. That is what evil is, it corrupts all that it touches, and you as limited humans cannot do anything to save yourself from it.

[anselfir]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

That's technically true, but I don't really see the point of talking about reality other than in terms of the things we can perceive.

Not sure what you are getting at here. ^^;