[Qilin]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

My question is more along the lines of WHAT makes Makishima better/more respectable than some cutthroat? The fact that he talks fancy and has ludicriously expensive first edition copies of 1984?
I'm quite aware of that point, and I've had it in the back of my mind. All Science fiction is fundamentally about our present day life. To make the issues more relatable to us...which is probably one reason I roll my eyes at people who go "Well if only Makishima wasn't in this horrible future dystopia! Then he wouldn't have to kill!"

Well, if that's your question, I have nothing. Whether a person is respectable or not is entirely up to the person's subjective judgement. But I was under the impression that were discussing his motives rather than the moral reprehensibility of his actions.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Here's the thing you don't get though. I AM seeing Makishima's perspective on things...but for me, seeing that perspective from someone like that just emphasizes the need for them to be killed/incapacitated immediately.

Right. I'd agree with you personally on that, I wasn't even defending him in the first place. All I want to do here is to discuss a character's actions without bringing moral biases into the picture.

He's an irredeemable monster that resorts to murder to further his plans, we all get that. Its just that he just doesn't kill for the sake of itself. That's the only thing I want to say.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

There is a difference, but why should I care about the difference?

For somebody who has to intervene or do damage control for the victims, what's the difference between a mass murderer who sadistically derived pleasure from killing, and a politically motivated mass Murderer like Brevik? Is Brevik somehow more dignified because he wrote a manifesto?

The difference is the motivation, and that's already a huge one by itself.

One is not necessarily better than the other, but the difference has to be drawn between the two categories. Each interpretation creates a drastically different picture of the character we're trying to analyze. It does no good to study a character if we simply lump all mass murderers into the same psychological profile. Now that would be naive.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

What makes you think I don't understand that Makishima has a different perspective on all of this? That's lunacy. What you seem to be doing though, is assuming that acknowledging that someone has a different perspective on morality than you means that you HAVE to take it into account.

Again, the objective here is to analyze the character. Understanding the character's perspective is a necessity for that, and propagating generalizations borne from moral bias is counterproductive to that.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

If a hungry tiger or a man with a knife is lunging towards you, do you take it's perspective into account before deciding to raise and fire your rifle? Only if you're a weirdo who doesn't mind dying to satisfy a tigers hunger or whatever motivation the guy with the knife had.

Moral relativism is only useful when it's used as a tool to help foster tolerance between different groups that have different world views, but that are capable of peaceful coexistence. It's nonsensical navel gazing when coexistence is impossible. There are allot of times to put yourself in another parties shoes, but not when they're trying to off you or somebody you like.
I'm not sure what that'd accomplish. As a character, my assessment of Makishima is pretty much the same, if more detached.

Given that we (probably) aren't on the receiving end of a hungry jaw or a sharp knife at the moment, I'd say we can afford to take such liberties when analyzing his character here on this forum.

The thing about appreciating fiction is that it is mostly an exercise of putting yourself in the shoes of another character, understanding his/her motivations and mental process to the fullest. For me, moral relativity serves as a means of appreciating the beauty found in fiction. It's not something so simple that you can just insert yourself in a character's shoes and then judging everything from your own perspective. But then, maybe it's just me.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE Makishima as a villain character. But he's the kind of villain that's good simply because of how monstrous he is to me personally.

I agree with your sentiment, but I live by the belief that even the villains we perceive to be monstrous can be analyzed, reduced to their basic psychological elements.