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

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I don't think anyone's saying that, for example, if Light wins the battle and becomes accepted as the god of the new world, it makes everything he's done up to then moral. It's more like, if that happened, the morality of his actions would no longer matter.

What you seem to be suggesting is that, if he wins, the morality of Light's actions doesn't matter in the sense of applying punishment to him. However, punishment and morality are different things as it's possible to be punished for moral actions or to get away with immoral ones.

Originally Posted by Jaden

Little different crazy situation: me and another person are the only self-aware creatures in the universe. we get into an arguement about if the ends justify the means. I get tired of it and take out a death note/gun/baseball bat/pointy stick and kill the other person. I then come to the conclusion that the ends justify the means. Since there's no one to argue against me, I must be right!

Nope. The morality of an action isn't dependent on the number of people agreeing or disagreeing with it. What you'd commit is murder, and no amount of hand waving can change that.

[Jaden]

Nope. The morality of an action isn't dependent on the number of people agreeing or disagreeing with it. What you'd commit is murder, and no amount of hand waving can change that.

Sure, but I don't care. Even if morality is omnipresent, in this case it's the same as if it wasn't! It can't be used as a tool to determine that my actions are wrong as long as I, the "winner", don't believe in it.

Same thing if Light doesn't believe he is wrong and there's no chance of him getting caught, morality becomes worth less than nothing. It's just not a useful tool in every instance.

[anselfir]

I think those who say things like "human construct" like it is so simple should be sent to labor camps where proper philosophy is taught.

[Jaden]

Yeah. Of course the basics of morality come to us naturally. Like murder being a bad thing etc...it's like an instinct, that's what seperates us from machines.
But our intelligence and willpower can override instinctive thoughts and actions, and so we're different from animals.
Humans are interesting, as Ryuk says ^^

[UchihaByakuya]

"Nope. The morality of an action isn't dependent on the number of people agreeing or disagreeing with it. What you'd commit is murder, and no amount of hand waving can change that."

What he is saying no one will argue with him. He cannot be proven wrong. Its morally incorrent but moral changes with society

anselfir:
"I think those who say things like "human construct" like it is so simple should be sent to labor camps where proper philosophy is taught."

If its not a human construct what would it be? Am i morally incorrect? No i believe killing is wrong but im saying it depends on the environment i grow up. You just haven't seen diverse people or haven't considered this.

4Tran
"What people believe to be right and wrong is, rather ironically, irrelevant to the morality of their actions."

If noone observes these guys to say they wrong then which mind in existence would believe that the actions are morally incorrect? Remember these people who are "immorral" also have a set of morals, a handyway of thinking about this is to put yourselves in thier shoes.

"Irrelevant. The morality of an action is not affected by how it's generally viewed by people, nor by what can be legally proven, or anything like that. What you're really arguing is that it's immoral to be caught for your actions, rather than being immoral for the commision of those same actions. This is an argument that doesn't even make sense."

read it closely i said it was imorral but in other people's eyes it isnt so you win and other believe that your right.

"Then all that would do is make him into a liar. It in no way absolves him of the immorality of his actions. You don't all of a sudden stop being a mass murderer just because you got away with it."

Yup he is a liar and would still be imorral in my books but think how "others" will see this situation and take the example of a kid growing up ni a society where light is god.

"What people believe to be right and wrong is, rather ironically, irrelevant to the morality of their actions."

I think this is where the problem is. Can you provide a definition of the word moral and like outline your basic views its interesting

I disagree with morals being an instinct. When someone does some bad lets say. And our media presents him as imorral and no extra imformation CAN BE OBTAINED, what will you conclude? An example in ym country where a president used it to win an election is CLAIMING REFUGEES THROW CHILDREN OVERBOARD TO GET TO HERE. The citizens thought be accepting this and rejecting those refugees what they were doing was right. But the refugeese were throwing there babies into adult hands as the boat was sinking, In thier eyes what they did was correct ( we found this out after the elections think about this issue in the timeframe that our election was happening.)

Moral I beleive is not an instinct. Its like culture influenced by those around you. How else would we have people of diverse views? To see my point of views you have to imagine and put yourselves in other poeple's shoes. You cannot think that what you say is imorral is imorral. Remember that you can be a minority. IF society decides soemthing is moral all you got is conflicting views. That does not make the community imorral nor does it make you (if you got reasoned arguments that is) But in each other eyes the opponent is immoral. Can you see how its just a human contruct? and how it varies from people to people?

[anselfir]

normative thinking is as instinctual as feeling good or bad, or liking something or disliking it.

i would like to point out that you are engaging in a bit of reduction without properly defining what it is that you are reducing. if i happen to feel a sense of moral indignation, you will have a tough time reducing that without engaging in a bit of fancy metaphysics, that is not good philosophy.

You just haven't seen diverse people or haven't considered this.

how do you know i haven't considered this? just that "this" is a bit of a wild strain of irresponsible thinking in the grand continental tradition and i dont feel like dealing with it. maybe later when i finish burning this stash of integrals in hell.

read the thread if you haven't, a host of your objections were clarified before and there when you can engage the discussion on an appropriate level get back to me.

this:

If its not a human construct what would it be? Am i morally incorrect? No i believe killing is wrong but im saying it depends on the environment i grow up. You just haven't seen diverse people or haven't considered this.

is not an argument.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

No i believe killing is wrong but im saying it depends on the environment i grow up. You just haven't seen diverse people or haven't considered this.

Different people have different ways of doing things, but not all the different ways are equally right.

If noone observes these guys to say they wrong then which mind in existence would believe that the actions are morally incorrect?

We've debated this same point on-and-on in previous posts, so do read them please, otherwise we'd just be repeating ourselves over and over again.

I wish there were an easier, more elegant way of explaining this. Assuming that you believe in God (I don't personally, but many people do), even if there were no-one else left around, you'd still be judged by God.

Please don't take me literally here -- I'm not necessarily referring to the Christian God. I'm using the idea of "God" here as an analogy of what a perfectly moral being would be.

I think this is where the problem is. Can you provide a definition of the word moral and like outline your basic views its interesting

We've defined it several times before, and it's really a very simple rule.

Do unto others as you would wish others to do unto you.

But, I need to qualify further -- your actions must be done out of goodwill. If you help others only out of self-interest, then it isn't "good" behaviour either.

Moral I beleive is not an instinct. Its like culture influenced by those around you. How else would we have people of diverse views?

I assume you like puppies (or maybe kittens)?

Suppose there are two societies. One society kicks puppies like it's nobody's business. They routinely torture the animals, and think that it's the highest form of entertainment around.

The other society pampers puppies, and treats them kindly, as it would any other animal that feels pain and suffering.

You are an outsider looking at both societies -- you don't come from either society, and your "morals" are not shaped by either one of them. Gut feel -- which society is right, which society is wrong? (I sincerely hope you would pick the same answer as I, otherwise..... )

So you see, it's highly erroroneous to claim that you are entitled to behave any way you like, just because you come from a different society and practise a different way of life. You, as an individual, and your society as a group, are being constantly judged from the outside, and it must be able to stand up to fair and reasonable judgement.

The reason we can "judge" at all, starts with a deeply felt instinct that there ought to be a better way. It doesn't matter yet if you don't know a better way to do things -- what matters is whether you feel that things are being done the wrong way.

As long as you are aware of a difference between "right" behaviour and "wrong" behaviour, you are aware of your "moral instinct". What moral philosophers try to do then, is to explain why we feel some things are right, and some things are wrong, and come up with ways to help us identify the difference.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I assume you like puppies (or maybe kittens)?

Suppose there are two societies. One society kicks puppies like it's nobody's business. They routinely torture the animals, and think that it's the highest form of entertainment around.

The other society pampers puppies, and treats them kindly, as it would any other animal that feels pain and suffering.

You are an outsider looking at both societies -- you don't come from either society, and your "morals" are not shaped by either one of them. Gut feel -- which society is right, which society is wrong? (I sincerely hope you would pick the same answer as I, otherwise..... )

Er.......

Well-explained point.....but from my point of view, there's a certain flaw in this example. It makes use of the presumption that there is a third-party society that the "outsider" comes from; on one hand, you have a society that thinks it's okay to mistreat animals. On the other, you have a society that thinks it's wrong to do so.

The basic premise to this argument is that there is a third opinion on this matter, a sort of in-between, if you will. What I can't get my mind around is, how do you define this in-between between the "it's fine" society and the "it's wrong" society? I'm just not seeing where the gray area here is.

In other words, if I was the outsider, definitely I'll go with the "it's wrong" opinion.....but that's only because I know myself, enough to know that I hail from the "it's wrong" society, in the first place. I just can't put myself into a spot where it's neither "it's fine" or "it's wrong" side of the debate.....because as far as I'm concerned, such a thing cannot possibly exist.

I'm not really interested in joining into this overblown argument of egos, though, so please don't pull me in too deep. I'm just pointing something out.

[Asphyxiate]

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started discussing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue discussing it forever just because...

Morality is a pointless institute that people use to justify their actions. Even though the real reason behind it is just to maintain order!

And to the above post...the overused case of how the blind can't imagine sight comes to mind.

[anselfir]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Er.......

Well-explained point.....but from my point of view, there's a certain flaw in this example. It makes use of the presumption that there is a third-party society that the "outsider" comes from; on one hand, you have a society that thinks it's okay to mistreat animals. On the other, you have a society that thinks it's wrong to do so.

The basic premise to this argument is that there is a third opinion on this matter, a sort of in-between, if you will. What I can't get my mind around is, how do you define this in-between between the "it's fine" society and the "it's wrong" society? I'm just not seeing where the gray area here is.

In other words, if I was the outsider, definitely I'll go with the "it's wrong" opinion.....but that's only because I know myself, enough to know that I hail from the "it's wrong" society, in the first place. I just can't put myself into a spot where it's neither "it's fine" or "it's wrong" side of the debate.....because as far as I'm concerned, such a thing cannot possibly exist.

I'm not really interested in joining into this overblown argument of egos, though, so please don't pull me in too deep. I'm just pointing something out.

read the thread again, especially where the discussion on a priori morality is contrasted with a subjectivist discussion.

[anselfir]

Originally Posted by Asphyxiate

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started discussing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue discussing it forever just because...

Morality is a pointless institute that people use to justify their actions. Even though the real reason behind it is just to maintain order!

And to the above post...the overused case of how the blind can't imagine sight comes to mind.

It is not a battle egos, it is just a lack of proper analytical background to discern the various layered concepts involved here. the confusions are simple however to explain them takes a lot of time so I dont want to do it right now.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

What he is saying no one will argue with him. He cannot be proven wrong. Its morally incorrent but moral changes with society

This is merely an appeal to popularity. Such an appeal is fallacious and it does not make for a valid argument.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

If noone observes these guys to say they wrong then which mind in existence would believe that the actions are morally incorrect? Remember these people who are "immorral" also have a set of morals, a handyway of thinking about this is to put yourselves in thier shoes.

The witnesses of an action are immaterial as to the morality of it. For example, if you steal something, it doesn't really matter when or if anyone notices that you've stolen it. You seem to be thinking about the consequences of an action, but that's quite different from morality.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

read it closely i said it was imorral but in other people's eyes it isnt so you win and other believe that your right.

Irrelevant. Popularity is a poor gauge of morality, so what other people may think doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

Yup he is a liar and would still be imorral in my books but think how "others" will see this situation and take the example of a kid growing up ni a society where light is god.

Why should we care what other people think about it?

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

I think this is where the problem is. Can you provide a definition of the word moral and like outline your basic views its interesting

This is less of a definition than it is a general guildline for examining morality, but here goes:

1. Morality is not about right and wrong, instead, it's a practical tool for making decisions (in a social context).
2. Different moral systems work differently, but what matters is the results that they generate.
3. A valid moral system will therefore generate more desirable results consistently than an invalid one.
4. When talking about matters of morality, it's best to limit ourselves to valid moral systems.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

I disagree with morals being an instinct.

You're mistaking my position. I'm not claiming that all morals are instinctual - I specifically said that the taking of another human life is, and gave my reason for my conclusion. What evidence do you have to support your position?

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

When someone does some bad lets say. And our media presents him as imorral and no extra imformation CAN BE OBTAINED, what will you conclude?

It depends on the strength of the evidence and the trustworthiness of the source. The important thing is to not make hasty judgments based on insufficient (or unreliable) information. However, the morality of an action still isn't based on what I may think about a situation, it's based on the reality of the action. Even if everyone in the world interprets an action incorrectly, the morality of it remains unchanged.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

The citizens thought be accepting this and rejecting those refugees what they were doing was right. But the refugeese were throwing there babies into adult hands as the boat was sinking, In thier eyes what they did was correct ( we found this out after the elections think about this issue in the timeframe that our election was happening.)

Ah... I guess you're from Australia. What this shows is that people are easily fooled; it's actually a very good illustration of why appeals to popularity can be a very bad idea.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

That does not make the community imorral nor does it make you (if you got reasoned arguments that is) But in each other eyes the opponent is immoral. Can you see how its just a human contruct? and how it varies from people to people?

You're making the unfounded assumption that the community is not immoral, and basing your conclusion off of this. The question of whether morality is a human construct is utterly irrelevant. After all, logic is a human construct as well, but that doesn't make it any less useful.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Well-explained point.....but from my point of view, there's a certain flaw in this example. It makes use of the presumption that there is a third-party society that the "outsider" comes from; on one hand, you have a society that thinks it's okay to mistreat animals. On the other, you have a society that thinks it's wrong to do so.

The basic premise to this argument is that there is a third opinion on this matter, a sort of in-between, if you will. What I can't get my mind around is, how do you define this in-between between the "it's fine" society and the "it's wrong" society? I'm just not seeing where the gray area here is.

An outsider might simply have not held an opinion upon the matter up until that point.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

...from my point of view, there's a certain flaw in this example. It makes use of the presumption that there is a third-party society that the "outsider" comes from.

It's not a flaw. It's an important point that I'm trying to make, lol. Many readers are confused about what a "relative" argument is, especially with regards to morality.

The popular confusion is that because different ethical systems exist -- as a result of environments that we don't have firsthand knowledge of -- we are therefore not in a position to judge other people. For example, people think it's wrong for America to tell the Middle East that democracy is good for them, because America is in no position to tell other people to behave like Americans. (Note: This is a very sensitive topic because of the amount of politics involved, so let's not discuss it too much further. I'm only using it as a handy real-life example. I haven't forgotten that this thread is supposed to be about Death Note, and not current history ).

The popular idea today is that we live in a global community with diverse cultures and histories, and we must therefore learn to respect each other's unique way of life.

Don't get me wrong -- that is definitely a worthy ideal. But at the same time, we must also be wary against societies such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Against societies/governments that are plainly doing something morally wrong, we can't just simply say, "Oh, they're not evil. They're simply different."

So, the tricky question is, who are we to judge other people? After all, we are not perfect either -- no-one is. Well, we judge other people not by our own society's standards, but rather against a universal standard that we can all equally aspire to. We judge the "goodness" of any given ethical system based on its relative position versus that universal standard (ie, where does your ethical system stand, relative to a priori morality?).

This "universal" standard is the "third-party society" I'm referring to.

[UchihaByakuya]

No what i mean trying to say is different people have different moral view points. Your morals cannot be right as it conflicts with his. Which one is right? We do not know. We only base the answer from our experiences. We can be brainwashed and fooled into thinking what is right and wrong. So moral isnt really concrete in every person as someone like stalin or Hitler can easily change your view of morals. Sorry if i caused any misconceptions. And though logic is a human contruction it does not render it useless. Just like feelings. Being happy is good even though we invented the concept of happeness. Im not saying human construct things are bad. Im jsut saying things that are not concrete can vary in different ways from person to person. 4tran i think you(i might be wrong) base your arguments on absolute vaules. If you do not believe you think killing is wrong right and will not do it (im making an assumption here need to use examples) But what about others who mass murder for the greater good. Who is wrong who is right ? we do not know so you cannot say that Morally correct choices are the same for everyone or situation. Im trying to say that the thing that decides what is morally correct is society. They chose to believe in the media etc etc etc. From this they decide if you are morally correct or not. You might think you can hold out against the majority and keep true to your views but what if you grew up ni this environment? And jsut say if you die and only people whom consider killing for whatever reason is not wrong. Will this becoem morally correct? I say yes because if none is there to say no then what makes it imoral? ( you have to use your imagination).

4tran:
Why should we care what other people think about it?

Well we ahve to take into account that you might be morally wrong (btw testing out these quoting tags)

So yea TinyRedLeaf What you consider wrong might be right for stalin's country ( face the facts majority of his people loved him) so YOU are morally incorrect in thier eyes My definition if morals is that its your guideline to live. Morallity just does not refer to actions are correct. It Refers to what the person giving thier viewpoints believes is correct.

How does this relate to deathnote(trying to keep on topic here)

basically we both have different definition of the word morals i think

If Light where to brainwash citizens of his utopia he can dictate to them what would be morally correct. Basically brainwash them.

Cheers please do not bash me on my views im just presenting i believe is an unchangable truth. I still think that stealing and killing is bad .

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

No what i mean trying to say is different people have different moral view points. Your morals cannot be right as it conflicts with his. Which one is right? We do not know. We only base the answer from our experiences. We can be brainwashed and fooled into thinking what is right and wrong.

You're making the mistake in assuming that every viewpoint is equally valid. This is not true at all.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

So moral isnt really concrete in every person as someone like stalin or Hitler can easily change your view of morals. Sorry if i caused any misconceptions.

We call such people sociopaths; it's an unusual enough condition that psychologists classify it as a pathology.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

And though logic is a human contruction it does not render it useless. Just like feelings. Being happy is good even though we invented the concept of happeness. Im not saying human construct things are bad. Im jsut saying things that are not concrete can vary in different ways from person to person

And? I'm afraid I'm not seeing your point here.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

4tran i think you(i might be wrong) base your arguments on absolute vaules.

Why do you think that?

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

If you do not believe you think killing is wrong right and will not do it (im making an assumption here need to use examples) But what about others who mass murder for the greater good. Who is wrong who is right ? we do not know so you cannot say that Morally correct choices are the same for everyone or situation.

Why would it be impossible to tell who is correct when two people have different viewpoints? While we may not be able to make grand moral statements that will work in every situation, why is it impossible to find out what would be the most moral choice in a particular situation?

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

Im trying to say that the thing that decides what is morally correct is society. They chose to believe in the media etc etc etc. From this they decide if you are morally correct or not.

It seems to me like it's just another appeal to popularity. Can you further justify your position?

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

You might think you can hold out against the majority and keep true to your views but what if you grew up ni this environment? And jsut say if you die and only people whom consider killing for whatever reason is not wrong. Will this becoem morally correct? I say yes because if none is there to say no then what makes it imoral? ( you have to use your imagination).

I'm not sure if I see your point. What my personal opinion is won't really change what is or isn't a moral choice. After all, morality is a tool for making decisions. So if I adopt an invalid moral position, then I won't be consistently getting desirable results. No matter how much I believed that I was acting morally (or how much society believed that I was acting morally for that matter), I still wouldn't necessarily be.

Your argument effectively boils down to society perhaps being an arbiter for the consequences of morality. This is quite true, but it doesn't really address morality itself.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

Well we ahve to take into account that you might be morally wrong

How is it supposed to achieve that? Whether my position is correct is completely dependent on the strength of my arguments and the only way to refute it is through logic and counterargument. The number of people who agree and disagree is utterly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

So yea TinyRedLeaf What you consider wrong might be right for stalin's country ( face the facts majority of his people loved him) so YOU are morally incorrect in thier eyes My definition if morals is that its your guideline to live. Morallity just does not refer to actions are correct. It Refers to what the person giving thier viewpoints believes is correct.

So? Why should we accept Stalin's take on morality?

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

basically we both have different definition of the word morals i think

I don't know if you're referring to me, but my take on morality is basically a more refined version of yours. A guideline for living your life is going to dictate the kind of choices you make.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

If Light where to brainwash citizens of his utopia he can dictate to them what would be morally correct. Basically brainwash them.

It just means that Light would escape punishment; it doesn't exactly make his actions any more moral. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Originally Posted by UchihaByakuya

Cheers please do not bash me on my views im just presenting i believe is an unchangable truth. I still think that stealing and killing is bad .

If what you believe is the "unchangeable truth", then do you have any arguments supporting it that don't rely on popularity?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by anselfir

read the thread again, especially where the discussion on a priori morality is contrasted with a subjectivist discussion.

You know, when it comes to threads like this, I really wish I won't keep getting these kind of responses. I mean, in a thread where the argument is so fragmented over so many pages.......where's one to start?!

Originally Posted by 4Tran

An outsider might simply have not held an opinion upon the matter up until that point.

Er, sorry, but......huh?!

That doesn't really answer my question very well.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It's not a flaw. It's an important point that I'm trying to make, lol. Many readers are confused about what a "relative" argument is, especially with regards to morality.

The popular confusion is that because different ethical systems exist -- as a result of environments that we don't have firsthand knowledge of -- we are therefore not in a position to judge other people. For example, people think it's wrong for America to tell the Middle East that democracy is good for them, because America is in no position to tell other people to behave like Americans. (Note: This is a very sensitive topic because of the amount of politics involved, so let's not discuss it too much further. I'm only using it as a handy real-life example. I haven't forgotten that this thread is supposed to be about Death Note, and not current history ).

The popular idea today is that we live in a global community with diverse cultures and histories, and we must therefore learn to respect each other's unique way of life.

Don't get me wrong -- that is definitely a worthy ideal. But at the same time, we must also be wary against societies such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Against societies/governments that are plainly doing something morally wrong, we can't just simply say, "Oh, they're not evil. They're simply different."

So, the tricky question is, who are we to judge other people? After all, we are not perfect either -- no-one is. Well, we judge other people not by our own society's standards, but rather against a universal standard that we can all equally aspire to. We judge the "goodness" of any given ethical system based on its relative position versus that universal standard (ie, where does your ethical system stand, relative to a priori morality?).

This "universal" standard is the "third-party society" I'm referring to.

Ah, I'm starting to see where you're coming from, then. *nod nod* Makes sense. Thanks.

Still, I have some thoughts on the matter, and to be honest, they may be a little off-topic.....but I'm going ahead anyway. Well then, let's think about it.....about the current guidelines on morality, where did it all come from, anyway? I'm fairly certain that the general consensus would be that it all originated from Christian guidelines on morality......and here's where it gets blurry. Because, from what I remember, the monopoly that Christianity had on morality, they didn't get by following the moral standards we know presently; they did it with things like the Inquisition and the Crusades, persecuting those who weren't in their group, so to speak. So there is some validity to the claim that moral standards are decided by the victors........the world today is living proof of that.

So, if Christianity attained its position by acts that we would consider immoral today, how did it end up engendering the moral standard that we all go by today? Well, what I'm thinking is that the statement "morality is absolute" isn't exactly 100% accurate.....but that doesn't mean I'm subscribing to the "winner-decides-all" argument, either. What I'm thinking is, is that what we have here is not an absolute, or a relative, moral standard......what we have here is an evolving moral standard.

How am I going to explain this? How about, we put it this way......let's put aside the Nazi treatment of Jews for the moment, and for the Caucasians, look inside your own hearts. How did the whites historically treat other races? As inferior beings, that's what. America's KKK in the case of the African-Americans. South Africa's apartheid in the case of the Africans. The Opium War in the case of the Chinese. And even colonization of South-East Asia in the colonial era.......and it was the moral standard at the time, because the mainstream thought at the time was that the white people were the morally superior people, who had to bring the inferior peoples in line!!! Why, Rudyard Kipling was practically the voice of this movement!

Rudyard Kipling's The White Man's Burden

And really, if one studied in detail about how the white men really treated the "sullen peoples" back then.......is that really any better than how the Nazis treated the Jews?


However, that is history. This is now. And honestly, if you asked the descendents of the "white men" - the Caucasians - today, most of them would not have thought of the actions of their ancestors as the right thing to do. At least, most of the reasonable ones who think with their heads rather than their dicks.....but I digress. Why is this so? It's because moral standards have evolved; it's not an absolute moral code, but one that has evolved over time. Slave labour is no longer condoned where once it was the norm; women are equals where once they were inferior, and all human life is now held equally sacred where once this was only the case for the whites.

Therefore my point is......moral standards are evolutionary in nature, not static. They evolve to reflect the increasing moral awareness of the people in any given time, and the changes in view that comes along with it. That's not to say that a day will come when murder will be considered moral if it's for the good of society as a whole; in fact, the moral standard has already evolved past that, in my opinion. But still, the fact remains is this; what we think of now as the mainstream moral standard, has not always been the case - it started out from a "winner-decides-all" moral code, and only later on did it evolve into the moral code we subscribe to today, where we can say that just because somebody goes unpunished from a bad deed doesn't mean it becomes moral.

Okay, I've said my piece. And if I'm not making any sense here.....blame it on the cognac I've had tonight.

[anselfir]

moral standards can be broken down into a process or simply a consensus and does not itself constitute the end-all of normative thinking.

[-HyugaNeji-]

A perfect society was impossible, is impossible and will always be impossible. As well as every human soul struggles throughout a whole lifetime, societies, countrys, worlds struggle throughout their lifetime. But this doesn't mean, the people in power are always right. Wrong is wrong, even if it becomes standard. If Hitler would have suceeded in creating his "ideal" world, the 3rd Reich, it still would be a foul world. It would be a world, destined to fall, because it's fundament would have been based on the blood of millions of innocent lifes. And on top of that, he didn't strife for a noble goal, but for just ruling the world. Just like Light is doing. It's not about helping people or society. It never was. For Megalomaniacs it's only about their ego, but not other people.

I don't know why it's so hard for many people to accept good or evil, when it is so clear to see.

Beeing good, having good intentions, doesn't mean to be perfect. Of course some of the actions of L, are quite drastic. But it's for a higher good. It's for catching Light. So i can clearly say, L is the GOOD one.

Sure, with this logic, you could also protect light and say: Criminals are the Bad ones, so it's ok what Kira is doing. Problem here is. He even killed people, who commited minor crimes and he also killed innocents. Thats when he crossed the line. The other problem is: He would never be able to create a perfect society, because the seed for violence is buried deep within everyone. So is the seed for moral understanding (whats good/bad?) This seed can't be removed, but it can be hold under control by proper socialisation, love, family and friends. On the other hand, if all those things are granted, it's likely that you will develop a good moral and sense for right and wrong. Most of the criminals never had this kind of proper socialisation. Sure, this can't be used as an excuse, which isn't even my intention. But it shows that there must be other judgement then death for beeing "defective" in a certain way.

A death note would only create a world full of fear, because you never know what the standards for a "good" human will become someday. It may be, that even the people who thought are "good" will be labeled as "defects" and put to death, because society has forgotten the struggle of life and thinks: There is a problem, lets kill it. There is again a problem. Lets kill it. Sooner or later, like the Shinigami said, Light would be all alone in this world, because he would see that his perfect world was an impossible illusion from the beginning.

So, for me, it's pretty easy to say: Light is evil. I hope he will be torn apart later in the story. (I'm only at episode 18 now)

[UchihaByakuya]

This is what im getting at. The morally correct action depends on the person observing it, I used extreme examples of hitler and stalin to show to illustarte this point. The decision of what is correct of this person will be based on his experiences and teachings. This stems from parents and his or her surrounding. So basically Whats moral to you is not moral to someone else. light's citizens will probably believe his is moral while they think your imoral. My examples and stuff were meant to reinforce the point that the winner is right ( sorry for forgetting to state this and causing massive confusion). So if light wins What he does would be right because by him winning he is in compelte control and can make society potray him as morally correct. Morals exist in our minds and is not absolute (look @ Ascaloth reasoning ). SO if only the view that light is right exist only then that would be morally correct.

[Moon Eclipse]

I think the problem with all the arguing is that through all this we have yet to define the criteria's by which you would try and judge something as moral or immoral.

The arguments I've put forth is that there is no universal criteria to make this judgment.

Counters that I've read simply assume that there is yet I have yet to read anyone's outline of these assumed universal rules that govern the morality of an action.

Please outline what you believe to be the moral guidelines or these judgments.

My own being that morality is defined by the concluding result of an action. If that action achieves a predetermined or predefined "greater good" I would deem that action as moral regardless of how vile that action may be viewed in and of itself.

Thus applying it to Light. Were he able to achieve his ideal utopian society or something close to it I would deem his actions moral.

To answer 4Tran's last question to me: I think killing is okay as long as it's interpreted as self defense, in the defense of someone else, for country or belief (like in times of war) or accidental.