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

[Mephisto2k]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Lol, thanks for the reasonable reply. I expected to have been firebombed for having inserted something unrelated to the latest posts.

You raise valid objections. It's a complex argument to compress into a few paragraphs, so I'm certain the point didn't come across as clearly as it should.

What I did want to push across however, is that I'm seriously disturbed by anyone who believes that morality is relative.

(1)
It cannot be. There are certainly different interpretations of where the line between Good and Evil should be drawn, but notice we don't question whether the line actually does exist.

It must necessarily follow that there is such a thing as Absolute Good, and it's complement, Absolute Evil.

Just because our intepretations differ does not at all imply that morality itself is relative/subjective. It's more the case that it is humanly beyond our ability to conclusively describe where the line between Good and Evil lies.

As an agnostic with atheist tendencies, it concerns me greatly that there are people who accuse me of not being able to distinguish between Good and Evil because I reject the idea of God, He who is supposed to set the rules.

Because it's plain bullshit. Common sense ("reason") tells me that this is so. I KNOW it is wrong to kill. I KNOW it is wrong to rape a minor. I don't have to be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or whatever, to KNOW these.

At some basic -- biological or psychological, or maybe both -- level, I'm programmed to be absolutely disgusted by such deviant behaviour.

Now, it's possible that I'm programmed by my culture to believe this. But when you look across all human civilisations, you notice these commonalities -- crimes that are considered equally repulsive to all humans ("Thou shalt not kill"). It becomes reasonable therefore to believe that a universal set of morality does INDEED exist -- only that we lack either the words or the wisdom to adequately describe it.

(2)
In order to build any logical debate, we must first start with a set of axioms -- truths that are self-evident.

The truth of our existence is self-evident. That you are aware of your own existence confirms your existence. If you're not even conscious of your existence, well, then the question is moot.

But, it is possible that you are deluded. Who knows? Maybe you're just a butterfly who dreams that it is human. But, because we can "test" our existence through our physical senses, it becomes far more reasonable to trust the fact that we do indeed exist.

It's from this angle that I claim that these are 2 fundamental building blocks towards the construction of all other logical deductions.

(3)
If it's true that Absolute Truth exists, then by definition, Truth cannot be relative. It's absolutely contradictory -- it's either All True, or not True at all. Binary, discrete, black and white.

(4)
So, I find it dangerous that anyone can think that Light is doing something right by killing people at his own discretion, because he is trying to rid the world of crime.

Even if he had not, as the evidence shows, grown deluded, his original premise was already morally wrong to begin with.

I'm sorry folks, though it is indeed cool to think that the ends justifies the means, and that in sad reality, this is what usually happens, it still doesn't change the fact that his actions are absolutely wrong to begin with. We have to be sure of that -- set that as the First Principle, if you will.

Once that is clear, we can then go on to the more enjoyable discussion of just how much of an evil bastard he is.

I think your resoning is flawed.
"I think therefore I am". As you already put it, you might be fooled to be a human.
So we should be not that specific and only claim "I think therefore something got to exist", or "I think, therefore existance is an absolute truth".

Then I just dare to go as far as to take it for a given that the universe as we know it, exists as we know it (or at least close to something like that).
Then existance, the unverse and the earth we live is in fact the only absolute truth. We grasp that truth with our senses. We see, we smell, we feel it and so on. But the moment we do so and the information goes to our brain, it is not absolute truth anymore, but the way we realize our surroundings (our eyes cannot see and our ears cannot hear all the frequencies therefore what we realize is individual). The moment we think or reason based on our logic and experience, we leave the realm of absolute truth. We might at times be accurate with our resoning but there is no guarantee for it, ever.
Therefore morals arent absolute neither. Evolution of human race caused some morals to be present in every culure but that doesnt make them absolute morals similar to devine laws. If the world or human race would be slightly different those morals could become invalid as well. For example of humans had to kill one another to reproduce.
And if you had to kill one single rapist murderer criminal to get rid of all crimes and deseases and plagues and evil in the world, wouldnt you do so. Of course you would. Everyone would because the price would be so small. Isnt it pretty similar with Light. Its just that the lines are different. He has to kill more to get less success. Its just about the lines and thats why everyone can have his own opinion on this matter.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Thanks for the feedback, Mephisto2 and Squish

(1)
There's the danger of playing with too much semantics when discussing the question of your own existence -- at a certain point, conclusions can become very absurd.

What does your common sense tell you? If you didn't in fact exist, then who is replying to my post? The forum server? Wow, if so, then it's just passed one heck of a Turing Test.

My point: Of course your own personal senses can be faulty, and your observation alone cannot prove your existence.

But I didn't say that the test stops at your own observation alone, does it? I also observe that you exist, based on my senses. So, corroborative evidence strongly suggests you exist.

Ah, but then, we could all be equally deluded ("we live in the Matrix, oh noes!").

That may be possible, but scientific inquiry doesn't work that way. We must first start with a positive statement -- a hypothesis if you will -- and keep testing the facts against that statement. The statement becomes false only when we can regularly prove that it is not true.

(The Matrix became false the moment someone takes the red pill, and then his senses prove that it was all false, an observation backed up by all the other people who have been rescued from the Matrix.)

(2)
1+1 = 2

That's an absolute truth.

But, say perhaps, you're dyslexic (I'm not sure if dyslexia applies to reading numbers, if not, pardon the example), and somehow or rather, the figures read to you as: 1+1 = 11

In that case, it's your observation that is flawed, in relation to what the absolute Truth should be in this case.

(3)
Relativity is unfortunately a terribly misunderstood concept. To relate something to another, you are necessarily making a comparison.

John is 1.8 metres tall. Tom is 1 metres tall. Jerry is 2.2 metres tall.

John is shorter than Jerry => this is a relative truth.

At the same time, John is taller than Tom => this is also a relative truth.

So, John can be both tall and short, depending on who you are comparing him to.

BUT, the absolute fact remains that John is 1.8 metres tall. That is an immutable, basic fact, without which there can be no comparison in the first place.

(4)
By the way, before we can even say how tall John is in metres, we have already implicitly accepted a simple axiom, ie, how long a metre is supposed to be.

It is defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

Yup, it's entirely arbitrary, but we have to take it as a self-evident fact. Otherwise, everything quickly becomes absurd -- we can't even begin to measure anything anymore. :P

(5)
If we're going to play semantics, I could also point out that simply by making the statement.

"Morality is relative."

You are making an absolute statement. By definition, that statement contradicts itself. Because you are stating definitively that my belief in absolute morality is absolutely wrong. Which must in turn make your belief in relative morality absolutely right.

But if morality were relative, then we would both be equally right. Contradiction!

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

This is a tautology at best, and inaccurate at worst. We're not really interested in how history will view Light. We're simply exploring the morality of his actions; facts here are more important than political spin.

Morality is defined by the winners.

EDIT: It is as simple as that. Those who win define reality. Those who loose suck on their thumb. Light wins he is right. Light looses he is wrong. Simple as one, two, three.

EDIT: To the guy above me. Morality is relative. If i define it it is my morality. If you define it is your morality.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Morality is defined by the winners.

False. History is written by the winners, but often, through careful study, people will come away with different perspectives. Even if it takes hundreds of years. If your generalization was true then there why would history books be now admitting that things like the Trail of Tears were wrong?

Furthermore, you are not helping the discussion by blithely using such pat phrases. We're not talking about "history" we're talking about a series of actions we are supposing are happening in real time. Furthermore, since we are witnessing exactly what happens, we are in a situation that allows us to discuss the morality of Light's actions. We don't have to wait until there is a "winner" or a "loser".

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by musouka

False. History is written by the winners, but often, through careful study, people will come away with different perspectives. Even if it takes hundreds of years. If your generalization was true then there why would history books be now admitting that things like the Trail of Tears were wrong?

Furthermore, you are not helping the discussion by blithely using such pat phrases. We're not talking about "history" we're talking about a series of actions we are supposing are happening in real time. Furthermore, since we are witnessing exactly what happens, we are in a situation that allows us to discuss the morality of Light's actions. We don't have to wait until there is a "winner" or a "loser".

Let's talk in todays terms: He is wrong

Let's talk in the futures terms if he wins: he is right

Lets talk in the futures terms if he looses: he is wrong


There did i "contribute" to the discussion even though i had lines upon lines posted earlier in here. I don't want to be mean, but if you do not understand a situation do not get into it without doing the research.

If my comment was too complicated you could have asked me to dumb it down so that you can understand it. You don't need to come out with such statements. If i did not understand something you said i would ask for you to simplify. Now read it over again and try to do some analyzing.

EDIT: My "generalization" ehh? I don't see how that "fight" was won. Indians are still here and the ones who were in power were "overthrown" by others who had different ideas... back to the statement of winners write the morals

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Morality is relative. If i define it it is my morality. If you define it is your morality.

If only it were that simple. Your position leads to very dangerous slippery slope that we must all strive to avoid in order to live meaningful and productive lives.

I take it that you either:
1) do not understand why saying that "morality is relative" is inherently self-contradictory, or

2) that you believe that my set of first principles are totally arbitrary and wrong to begin with, ie, I take it as universal that all humans agree that killing is wrong.

To be sure, I dislike debating ethics on the basis of semantics -- it goes against my sense of judgement to think that something as important as the knowledge of good and evil can be determined by a clever play of words. So, point (1) is not something I will elaborate further on, except to say that it should be self-evident to a reasonable man.

And as for disagreeing with my choice of axioms, this is where the real debate lies. There is a huge amount of discussion, both among and between secular and religious thinkers, on the nature of morality -- and the sad fact is that we are still no closer to agreement. It may be humanly impossible for us to come to an agreement.

But disagreement does not imply that Truth is relative at all. It merely means that we have different interpretations of the Truth, due to our inability to perceive the whole picture.

Some things are "intuitively" certain. For some reason, by virtue of being aware of our own existence, we are driven by an innate impulse to stay in existence for as long as possible. Yup, it's a survival instinct , and this instinct is equally observable in all human beings.

We all want to live, as long as we can, and as happily as we can. It then follows that it is absolutely wrong to kill somebody just because you can, because you are deliberately taking away his right to live.

That, in my reasonable opinion, and in the reasonable opinion of most people in the world, regardless of race, language, culture or religion, is held to be true.

It therefore makes intuitive and reasonable sense to believe that a universal code of ethics does indeed exist.

Now, to say that "morality is relative" is to make complete nonsense of this intuitive fact. Because if everyone is equally right, and no one is ever wrong ("it's a matter of perspective") then you should not see any problem in having somebody walking up to you with a sledgehammer and smashing your head into a bloody pulp.

If morality were relative, all of us would simply give a collective shrug, and just walk away as though nothing extraordinary had happened.

If morality were indeed relative, then this would truly be a very horrifyingly meaningless existence, and we should just all proceed to kill ourselves to save ourselves the misery.

And yet, I want to live. Why? The urge to live already suggests that there is something we want to live for. So, by deduction, there must be meaning for our existence, only that we may not yet perceive it fully.

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

If only it were that simple. Your position leads to very dangerous slippery slope that we must all strive to avoid in order to live meaningful and productive lives.

I take it that you either:
1) do not understand why saying that "morality is relative" is inherently self-contradictory, or

2) that you believe that my set of first principles are totally arbitrary and wrong to begin with, ie, I take it as universal that all humans agree that killing is wrong.

To be sure, I dislike debating ethics on the basis of semantics -- it goes against my sense of judgement to think that something as important as the knowledge of good and evil can be determined by a clever play of words. So, point (1) is not something I will elaborate further on, except to say that it should be self-evident to a reasonable man.

And as for disagreeing with my choice of axioms, this is where the real debate lies. There is a huge amount of discussion, both among and between secular and religious thinkers, on the nature of morality -- and the sad fact is that we are still no closer to agreement. It may be humanly impossible for us to come to an agreement.

But disagreement does not imply that Truth is relative at all. It merely means that we have different interpretations of the Truth, due to our inability to perceive the whole picture.

Some things are "intuitively" certain. For some reason, by virtue of being aware of our own existence, we are driven by an innate impulse to stay in existence for as long as possible. Yup, it's a survival instinct , and this instinct is equally observable in all human beings.

We all want to live, as long as we can, and as happily as we can. It then follows that it is absolutely wrong to kill somebody just because you can, because you are deliberately taking away his right to live.

That, in my reasonable opinion, and in the reasonable opinion of most people in the world, regardless of race, language, culture or religion, is held to be true.

It therefore makes intuitive and reasonable sense to believe that a universal code of ethics does indeed exist.

Now, to say that "morality is relative" is to make complete nonsense of this intuitive fact. Because if everyone is equally right, and no one is ever wrong ("it's a matter of perspective") then you should not see any problem in having somebody walking up to you with a sledgehammer and smashing your head into a bloody pulp.

If morality were relative, all of us would simply give a collective shrug, and just walk away as though nothing extraordinary had happened.

If morality were indeed relative, then this would truly be a very horrifyingly meaningless existence, and we should just all proceed to kill ourselves to save ourselves the misery.

And yet, I want to live. Why? The urge to live already suggests that there is something we want to live for. So, by deduction, there must be meaning for our existence, only that we may not yet perceive it fully.

But it is so very relative. For a person it is completely fine to strap a bomb to his chest , run into a crowd and blow himself up. For me it isn't.

Your morality is your morality and that is that. A different person can have a whole new set of moral codes. You might not understand but he does. They belong to him and according to him he is right and you are wrong.

Is it ok by me for a guy to walk up to me in my house and smash my face with a sledge hammer? No

Is it ok by him? Yes


Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Universal ethic code exists? Yeah the ones we set for this time period. About 300 years ago it was perfectly fine to own a slave. Today it is not. In maybe 300 it might be fine to again. Who knows? I do not and neither do you. All we know is who ever wins gets to write history and who ever lives gets to dictate what is right and what is wrong. Ypur ethics means squat around the Dark Ages and maybe in half a millenia they will mean squat as well.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

There did i "contribute" to the discussion even though i had lines upon lines posted earlier in here. I don't want to be mean, but if you do not understand a situation do not get into it without doing the research.

There isn't much to "understand" about what you're saying. You're just mouthing tired old truisms about how "winners write history blah blah blah", "winners = right". It's hardly something that requires in-depth analysis.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

I don't see how that "fight" was won. Indians are still here and the ones who were in power were "overthrown" by others who had different ideas... back to the statement of winners write the morals

They weren't "overthrown", history was re-evaluated by us, in modern times. The people who were responsible for the Trail of Tears were generally not condemned within the time they lived. It came afterwards.

Maybe you should do a little research or reread. My point is that something that was once deemed historically "right" is now considered historically "wrong". According to your scenario, this doesn't happen because once something is decided that is the way it always is. Whereas I'm saying "winners write the history books, but that doesn't mean the truth won't come out eventually".

If Light "won" then his actions might be considered "right" by the general public for a period of time. That does not mean that morally they will always be considered "right". It's very possible that history will one day be re-evaluated to reflect the morals of the current time, even if he "wins".

If that's too complicated for you, tell me and I'll try to simplify it for you.

EDIT: Also, to address what what you just said to TinyRedLeaf, it appears we are we are in agreement that morality changes, but very rarely does it go "backwards". Three hundred years ago it was okay to own slaves, but it is very hard to imagine that with the way morality is currently evolving that it will be okay to own them again sometime in the future.

Think about this carefully. The way you talk, you make it seem as though morality is completely random. It's not. As we progress we grow more and more liberal, we don't bounce from one thing to the next like a pinball.

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by musouka

There isn't much to "understand" about what you're saying. You're just mouthing tired old truisms about how "winners write history blah blah blah", "winners = right". It's hardly something that requires in-depth analysis.



They weren't "overthrown", history was re-evaluated by us, in modern times. The people who were responsible for the Trail of Tears were generally not condemned within the time they lived. It came afterwards.

Maybe you should do a little research or reread. My point is that something that was once deemed historically "right" is now considered historically "wrong". According to your scenario, this doesn't happen because once something is decided that is the way it always is. Whereas I'm saying "winners write the history books, but that doesn't mean the truth won't come out eventually".

If Light "won" then his actions might be considered "right" by the general public for a period of time. That does not mean that morally they will always be considered "right". It's very possible that history will one day be re-evaluated to reflect the morals of the current time, even if he "wins".

If that's too complicated for you, tell me and I'll try to simplify it for you.

I like how people get hung up on their idea so damn much they start to imagine things. I don't think i said his actions would be accepted as correct for ever did i? I never specified what kind of time frame that would be. Next time when discussing my posts don't add things that weren't there.

Also i did give the perfect answer to the debate. Winners decide what is what. I do not see how that is bad answer. That is the truth anyways so i don't see what the hell is wrong with it.



Also it is not correct now about the Trail of Tears. I wonder if the South had won the Civil War. If slaves were not freed and the country split into two new contiries would that be such a correct statement now? If you are confused which statment the one on how we regard the Trail.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

I like how people get hung up on their idea so damn much they start to imagine things. I don't think i said his actions would be accepted as correct for ever did i? I never specified what kind of time frame that would be. Next time when discussing my posts don't add things that weren't there.

Next time say what you mean. If you mean that morality is relative to the time, then say that. Saying things like "If Light wins in the future he was right" does nothing to clarify what you are trying to say.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Also i did give the perfect answer to the debate. Winners decide what is what. I do not see how that is bad answer. That is the truth anyways so i don't see what the hell is wrong with it.

We're not talking about if Light would change future morality, we're discussing how moral his actions are now. It's about judging him by our moral standpoint, not his own.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Also it is not correct now about the Trail of Tears. I wonder if the South had won the Civil War. If slaves were not freed and the country split into two new contiries would that be such a correct statement now?

The Trail still happened. The people that wanted it to happen "won", yet history doesn't look upon their actions favorably. The South winning would have just delayed the inevitable process. As I said, morality is generally evolving. The rest of the world was changing, the South would have had to too eventually.

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by musouka

Next time say what you mean. If you mean that morality is relative to the time, then say that. Saying things like "If Light wins in the future he was right" does nothing to clarify what you are trying to say.



We're not talking about if Light would change future morality, we're discussing how moral his actions are now. It's about judging him by our moral standpoint, not his own.



The Trail still happened. The people that wanted it to happen "won", yet history doesn't look upon their actions favorably. The South winning would have just delayed the inevitable process. As I said, morality is generally evolving. The rest of the world was changing, the South would have had to too eventually.

If the South won we would have the Third Reich ruling the world and then i guess the Indians would be ignored as well as all of their suffering. The Trail would be recorded as something minor by the South wouldn't it (Morality in the eye of the beholder)?

I am observing Light based on what is going on. All i was saying is that the only way he can excuse his actions is by if he wins. If he looses then he was wrong.


Also i do not know to what point it is evolving. If you look at how moral we are today would you say we have GREALTY degenerated in a lot of parts? The biggest strides we have made are towards equality of people. All it takes is someone like Hitler, a death note, or a couple of hundred nukes to change the world. With the change comes the change in mind. With the change in mind comes the change in outlook. With the change of outlook comes the change of what is ok and what is not ok.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Morality is defined by the winners.

Since when has that ever been true? Winners, even sympathetic ones, are often condemned if they perform immoral acts. The only thing that winners get to do is to hide their shameful acts better. In other words, it makes easier for them to lie.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

It is as simple as that. Those who win define reality. Those who loose suck on their thumb. Light wins he is right. Light looses he is wrong. Simple as one, two, three.

That's also incorrect. Reality is what it is, and no human act can modify the past (barring the invention of time machines).

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Let's talk in todays terms: He is wrong

Let's talk in the futures terms if he wins: he is right

Lets talk in the futures terms if he looses: he is wrong

So would you say that Hitler was a moral person if we somehow find out that Neo-Nazis will take over the world in the distant future?

By the way, if you admit that Light is wrong in today's terms, you're also tacitly conceding your argument.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

If my comment was too complicated you could have asked me to dumb it down so that you can understand it. You don't need to come out with such statements. If i did not understand something you said i would ask for you to simplify. Now read it over again and try to do some analyzing.

Musouka didn't have any difficulty understanding your arguments. She was outright saying that they are invalid. Her reaction makes sense since you're doing little more than stating tautologies.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

My "generalization" ehh? I don't see how that "fight" was won. Indians are still here and the ones who were in power were "overthrown" by others who had different ideas... back to the statement of winners write the morals

What are you trying to get at here? Please note that repeating your argument again and again doesn't somehow lend it any more strength.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Now, to say that "morality is relative" is to make complete nonsense of this intuitive fact. Because if everyone is equally right, and no one is ever wrong ("it's a matter of perspective") then you should not see any problem in having somebody walking up to you with a sledgehammer and smashing your head into a bloody pulp.

Thank you. I've never understood why people have tried to argue from a "morality is relative" standpoint. Given your explanation, it would seem as if they don't actually have a justification for an action, and are therefore trying to render the very question of morality moot. After all, if morality is completely relative, then no one can really perform an immoral act (unless she feels guilty about it, I guess). I think the only thing that really supports such a position is that people tend to value things differently, and hence have slightly different moral positions.

However, such an interpretation ignores the fact that a great many deeds are almost universally regarded in the same way regardless of culture and other differences. Moreover, if one views morality as a tool for determining how we should behave towards one another, it's sort of self-evident that morality isn't truly relative at all. In fact, a position of "morality is relative" is pretty much equivalent to "morality doesn't exist". Obviously, such an argument won't work for anyone other than a sociopath.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Also it is not correct now about the Trail of Tears. I wonder if the South had won the Civil War. If slaves were not freed and the country split into two new contiries would that be such a correct statement now? If you are confused which statment the one on how we regard the Trail.

Even if the South had won the American Civil War, slavery of course would still be immoral. This doesn't even bear analyzing - slavery was condemned even during the period before the war, so why would it change afterwards? Ptolemi, answer this - why is slavery immoral?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Universal ethic code exists? Yeah the ones we set for this time period. About 300 years ago it was perfectly fine to own a slave. Today it is not. In maybe 300 it might be fine to again. Who knows? I do not and neither do you. All we know is who ever wins gets to write history and who ever lives gets to dictate what is right and what is wrong. Ypur ethics means squat around the Dark Ages and maybe in half a millenia they will mean squat as well.

(1)
In opposition, I would say that the people in the Dark Ages didn't know better. Killing other people has always been morally wrong, but they didn't realise it at the time.

Yes, I am fully aware that that sounds suspiciously imperialistic. A very similar argument has been used by European powers to impose their Christian moral values on the people of their colonies, simply because they felt that the poor natives "didn't know any better, and should therefore be saved from themselves." That is a moral/historical debate for another day, another thread.

Of this I'm certain: at no point in history has people not known that killing other people is wrong -- ask the victims.

Just because the victors (the killers) have written history to put themselves in favourable light does not change the historical fact that they have killed -- they had taken away someone else's fundamental right to existence, and had therefore committed an immoral act.

(2)
If morality were relative, I wouldn't even be able to care whether you felt that it was wrong for a random stranger to just smash your head in.

That stranger believed he had a right to do so, but in so doing, he had infringed upon your right to live. By killing you, he has committed an immoral act.

But if everyone were equally right, and no one is ever wrong, I couldn't care less whether you lived or died. That would be the kind of world we'd be living in if there weren't such a thing as Absolute Good and Evil.

And the historical record shows that humans don't kill each other randomly, or for fun, unless they were truly evil to begin with.

But if I lack the ability to be able to tell between right or wrong, I wouldn't even be able to say that a killer was evil -- he'd merely be different.

Common sense, ethical intuition, whatever label you want to use, tells me that is quite simply wrong. I wouldn't want to exist in a world like that.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In opposition, I would say that the people in the Dark Ages didn't know better. Killing other people has always been morally wrong, but they didn't realise it at the time.

Actually they did, murder was murder in the Dark Ages as it is now. The difference is just that they tended to place a slightly different value on human life.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

And the historical record shows that humans don't kill each other randomly, or for fun, unless they were truly evil to begin with.

Technically, they'd have to be mentally unbalanced as well. The lack of morality such a person would require is considered to be a pathology.

[musouka]

Excellent point, you two. You're right when you say "murder" has always been considered wrong. It's the definition of murder that changes.

[ThisIsDream]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

The current law system are just want more ppl committ less crime, and light is just making this system much more effective, but not perfect.

Current system - Crime rate 100%, root problem here
Light - Crime rate 30%, root problem still here

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Your math is completely off. Here's a more likely figure:

Pre-Light - Crime rate of 1000 violent crimes per 100,000 population per annum.
Light - Crime rate of 1000 violent crimes per 100,000 population per annum, not counting additional deaths caused by a mass murderer.

You seem to be making two mistakes here. The first is assuming that there's no way to address the issue of crime, and the second is assuming that the first bad plan to come along is supposed to make any difference (or at least a good difference).

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

LOL why the crime rate are the same, didn't u say the crime rate drop? GOod math

Originally Posted by 4Tran

That was a completely different scenario where drug trafficking was legalized. Please pay attention.

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

Where the hell did drug legalized has anything to do with light lol. Stop trying to add things or try to confuse the issues ^^.

You are the one should pay attention U quoting my post which has nothing to do with legalize crime or not. It just showing the crime rates between the current law system and Kira one.

At last, why did u use "the crime rate of legalize and not legalize crimes" to compare with "the crime rate of Kira world and the current law system"?
Like u said legalize crimes has nothing to do with Light, may be u should use another example would be better.

[Clarste]

Absolute morality does not exist. Yes, I also mean that morality itself does not exist. The human right to live does not exist. However, pragmatism exists. Evolutionary forces exist. It is these things, and the specific circumstances of the apes known as humans, that have determined that societies develop in such a way that discourages killing of their own (note that humans have long considered it acceptable, or at least justifiable, to kill people who are "different" and still do today; look at wars, death penalties, etc, but that's a different line of argument that I don't care for).

Anyway, it is in no way absolute that killing your own kind (family, species, whatever) is wrong. It's just counterproductive for humans. There are plenty of animals that eat their own children in times of hardship, murder the offspring of their rivals, and so on. Are you going to call them wrong? Or are you going to argue that humans are fundamentally different from them? Morality, or more accurately normative behavior, is in fact relative to the environment of the species. Just because it's not useful genetically for humans to create societies that condone killing does not mean that there's any fundamental property of the world that makes killing "wrong."

In fact, it's entirely possible that modern circumstances have already changed to favor the killing of people, and that we just haven't adapted to it yet. This would mean that the only concrete basis for morality (pragmatism) would have changed and we'd actually be "morally" wrong to discourage killing. I'd certainly hope not though, and it seems doubtful anyway.

Anyway, I've said all this against absolute morality, but I think the genetic basis for not killing is pretty sound, and I see nothing wrong with arguing for "correct" behaviors based on that. It's somewhat limited though, since there's no particular reason that what's genetically helpful overall is necessarily helpful in any specific circumstance. In fact, that's probably why reason evolved, to overcome instinct with reason and adapt to a wider variety of situations. Reason can still lead to pacifism, but it's more susceptible to changing situations, and even less stable a foundation for morality.

[anselfir]

descriptive relativism should show your analysis in a different light, i will elaborate later. final exam in 2 hours. xD

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Bahamut89

Absolute morality does not exist. Yes, I also mean that morality itself does not exist. The human right to live does not exist. However, pragmatism exists.

I would be tempted to think that you've merely replaced one label with another, ie, you've renamed morality as "pragmatism".

That said, I do understand what you are trying to state, because of what you wrote next:

Evolutionary forces exist. It is these things, and the specific circumstances of the apes known as humans, that have determined that societies develop in such a way that discourages killing of their own.

What you have written is in fact very much in line with a very recent and exciting development in the science of moral philosophy. There is a developing body of evidence that suggests that human beings evolved "morals" as a survival trait.

Personally, I take it as increasingly convincing evidence of what I have always intuitively known -- that we as human beings instinctively know the difference between right and wrong. We don't need a supernatural law-giver to impose that difference on us -- we already "know" it intuitively.

Anyway, it is in no way absolute that killing your own kind (family, species, whatever) is wrong. It's just counterproductive for humans.

Myopius, Squish and Mephisto2k have already correctly pointed out the one fatal flaw in my whole line of reasoning so far -- which is that I have assumed the existence of absolute morality to be a self-evident fact.

In defence, I replied that in order to build any argument based on logic and reason, we must first start with a first principle -- which is that killing another person is morally wrong. Without making a first assumption, Reason itself cannot work.

You see, evolutionary psychology is providing increasingly compelling evidence for me to believe that the assumption that "killing is morally wrong" is not unsound. It then becomes increasingly likely that my line of reasoning is leading closer to the absolute Truth.

That said, to your credit, you have indeed pointed out yet another plausible reason why my first assumption is wrong, ie, that killing is something that sometimes happens for pragmatic reasons, and is not inherently right or wrong.

It then follows that assigning the act of killing with a value -- Good or Evil -- is in your opinion, absurd.

It sounds attractively true, except for one intuitive hurdle that I find very difficult to cross.

What you are in fact saying is that Man is no better than an animal.

There are plenty of animals that eat their own children in times of hardship, murder the offspring of their rivals, and so on. Are you going to call them wrong? Or are you going to argue that humans are fundamentally different from them?

I'm going have to say that yes, Man is fundamentally different from animals.

Because human beings possess one evolutionary trait that lower animals do not possess -- the ability to reason.

Humans also have the evolved trait of being able to learn from experience, which animals do not. Animals behave by instinct alone, and not by making reasonable judgements on one action or the other.

I take the two points above to be self-evident.

In fact, it's entirely possible that modern circumstances have already changed to favor the killing of people, and that we just haven't adapted to it yet. This would mean that the only concrete basis for morality (pragmatism) would have changed and we'd actually be "morally" wrong to discourage killing. I'd certainly hope not though, and it seems doubtful anyway.

In the last line of that quote, I have to ask, why should you feel that it is morally wrong to discourage killing? If, as you said, killing is sometimes pragmatic, given the environment, then you should have no doubts about the necessity of the action at all.

This is what I mean by "ethical instinct" -- human beings do inherently believe that killing is wrong, and it is an evolved trait, which can be used as a basis for moral debate.

Reason can still lead to pacifism, but it's more susceptible to changing situations, and even less stable a foundation for morality.

On a fundamental level, I cannot dispute what you state here. But I would counter that you are taking a fairly depressing view on human nature....

[AvatarST]

So what do we do about killers? We lock them up? Is that moral?

Perhaps it isn't, but we don't know any better right now.

I don't think we're very different from animals either. Just that our society is organized in a different way.