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

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by Neux

Good point. Deterring crime does not eliminate the reason for crime such as poverty. But is it humanely possible to stop something like poverty? Maybe it's not possible to eliminate the reason for crime, and that the next best thing is to deter crime? As Kira is trying to do by raising the risks involved in making a crime as a means of deter crime.

Anyways, I wouldn't say Light is planning to become God (at least not literally, but maybe more metaphorically?), but be more of a leader to oversee, to make sure everything continues working in his system. Just like how political systems have Presidents or Prime Ministers as leaders in the government. He is trying to do the same to make sure everything works and to resolve conflict in his world. If no one is going to lead his "better" world, it may well fall into chaos. So he thought that he could fill the role as leader of that world. And least that is my interpretation.

I understand he means leader when he says God. That is pretty much given.

See the difference i was trying to make by compairing Death Note to Childhood's End is how the power in each source is applied. In the book a man questions the Overlord's leader by saying the logic the Overlord's were using was "Might makes right!" However the Overlord leader countered his statement by saying "We are not using might. We have power and are using it the right way. You as humans never had power nor know how to apply it"

The thing is they changed the roots of the problems he was trimming the branches. That is the best comparison i can give.

This show could have taken two roads. The "is it right" road and the current road it is taking. Both choices would have delivered a completely solid show. With the current path we are seeing a phsycopathic story develop now. He completely steered off the "right" thing to do and went after innocent people.

So now i am waiting how it will play out, but because i am a dumbass i accidentaly read what happened on wikipedia so it is a bit spoiled for me

[musouka]

That is a good point, Ptolemi. It's been vaguely touched upon, but no one really summed it up succinctly before you did. The power the Death Note gives is the power to put fear into the hearts of people. But many crimes aren't premeditated, but are in the heat of the moment. It doesn't help much if after you've killed your husband you realize "Oh shit, Kira might get me."

There's also the issue of the fact that Kira cannot "punish" all those that do evil. That murder case in Small Town might only only make the local or state news. It becomes a lottery system, and you will always find people willing to gamble.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Sinestra

I beleive that morality does achieve the desired effect majority of the time unless you get someone like Light whose views on the world is so damn messed up that it henges on insanity. but your point is well taken

Light's views are hardly unprecedented. Lots of people have thought that deterrence alone would be sufficient to eliminate (or drastically lower) crime. A few have even had the power to implement Light's goals seem to be: a society where obedience is enforced by terror.

Originally Posted by Neux

Even if it is more accurate to call it murder, it is still euthanasia. Euthanasia and Murder are not mutually exclusive. There are many forms of murder, and euthanasia may be one of them. Just because something is murder doesn't make it separate from euthanasia.

While it may be possible for murder to be classified as euthanasia as well, the fact that the former so overshadows the latter, that the classification is trivialized. Ethically speaking, it's quite possible to regard to regard these as two separate categories. Your argument is little more than an attempt at obfuscation.

Originally Posted by Neux

And I have given examples.

If you don't mind, can you repost them? Mind you, I'm actually looking more for case studies than hypothetical situations here.

Originally Posted by Neux

The undercover cop may have to do some bad things to do good. Light is doing bad things in order to do "good".

Your analogy is flawed. The main impetus for the cop's action is self-preservation. Even so, it cannot justify all manner of immoral acts (like mass murder). Light is hardly compelled by the same kind of concerns.

Originally Posted by Neux

Because it is a complicated issue, that is why people should discuss it. And not avoid it like you are.

Nonsense. It's only important to discuss it to a degree. The fact that capital punishment has properties which are morally debatable while murder does not already indicates that the two are not equivalent. Hence something that may mollify the former will have no bearing on the latter.

Originally Posted by Neux

...I'm saying that could just be as wrong as murder. That any killing regardless of purpose or means can also be immoral.

If that really is the case, then how can a comparison with capital punishment justify what Light does?

Originally Posted by Neux

What is your point? "Universally accepted" doesn't mean that it's right and that everyone thinks that way. You shouldn't throw a fit because someone has a different opinion than you, they have their right to believe what they want.

The definition of "monster" is a trivial point, and I won't belabor it further unless it comes up in a different context. However, you seem to be under the impression that all opinions are equally valid. I'm afraid that this is far from the truth.

Originally Posted by Neux

Before putting down on someone as immoral or moral, isn't it important to look at other moral issues and understand what moral really means? Does morality even exist? Or is morality merely a concept that humans, as imperfect beings, made up?

No. Since we are really discussing the morality of deeds, it's only important to explore the morality of actions which are equivalent to those deeds. Murder is the best descriptor for Light's deeds; therefore, I've concentrated on the morality of murder.

There are several different ways of defining morality. My favorite is that morality is a decision-making system designed to weigh the relative worth of different courses of action. The fact that it's man-made has no bearing on anything as far as I can see. To question morality's existence is sort of silly - it's a little bit like asking "Do questions exist?"

My question to you is "how do you define morality?"

Spoiler for Offtopic response:

Originally Posted by Neux

It doesn't mean you should force your views on other people or insult people who don't agree with you. What is with "Can't you read"? comment anyways. There are countless other ways to say the same thing and make it sound less insulting. I'm saying you what you wrote needs more explaining. Instead of saying something is complicated, and avoid answering, you could actually explain yourself.

I'm going to have to comment on your debating skills here. Get this straight: I haven't insulted you yet. Saying that your statements are incorrect or irrelevant does not amount to insults. It's fine to ask for more clarification, but don't expect it on every minor point. As far as I'm concerned the actual morality of euthanasia, capital punishment and undercover police officers are only relevant insofar as they relate to Light. I've been trying to establish that they are not equivalent to what Light did, hence an actual debate on those actions is relatively unimportant.

I asked you "Can't you read?" because so far, you seem to have been unable to understand my arguments. Heck, just look at this sentence: "This is a more complicated matter." You questioned why I didn't explain why it's a more complicated matter when I did so, just two sentences later: "Other considerations like self-preservation tend to be far more important." Isn't the implication here that there are more factors to consider? Isn't a situation with more factors more complicated than one with less? Do I really have to spell this out for you, or are you capable of understanding it on your own? This isn't an insult - I'm actually trying to find out what you can read.


While I'm at it, I've noticed that you haven't addressed a lot of my points. Are you conceding them?

If you really want to discuss this further, I suggest you take it to PM.

[ThisIsDream]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

I understand he means leader when he says God. That is pretty much given.

Good thing ppl understand, and remebere we are the audience when raito saying he want become god and something proud he only said those to himself he cant share his feeling to other people. No matter what he thinks he is his action is doing the "big" good while it contains "many" immoral actions.
(Note: Raito knows he is killing which is wrong, but he had to overcome his guilty to do it for the "big" good.

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

Raito is like everyone else, when he first took someone's life, he thought, Do i have the right to do this ? (he felt guilty, he knows this is wrong).

He gotta have a strong mind to bear this "immoral action" while he needs a clean conscience to not get blind by "Money" "authority" and such .... and he can not share his "success" or feeling to anyone else.
Is there anything wrong to just make proud of himself? He can not share his happiness, excitement, guilty and feeling to other people. he gotta put everything inside in his hearts

[ThisIsDream]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Light's views are hardly unprecedented. Lots of people have thought that deterrence alone would be sufficient to eliminate (or drastically lower) crime. A few have even had the power to implement Light's goals seem to be: a society where obedience is enforced by terror.

I just find out one thing, we are all using the "punishment" which done by human, but "haert attack" is just more natural thing, it doesnt seem like a human "punishment", but it more like "God" area thingy ... dO u get my point? We are the audience we know Raito is the one doing this, but other people didnt know, so they made up a name "Kira".

[musouka]

ThisIsDream, why are you insisting that we have to look at it from the perspective of someone in the world of Death Note? Death Note isn't real, it's a story. We are privy to this information for a reason. Telling us that Light is talking to himself when he says he'll become a god doesn't mean that he didn't actually say it and that we can't judge him by those desires.

[ThisIsDream]

nono, I am not saying u HAVE to, I am saying it is better to see things from a neutral stance . I understand ppl can have different opinions, I am a human being myself sometimes I can see things from a neutral place, but I am leaning more on one side I know human sympathy and have emontional and such etc.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Light's views are hardly unprecedented. Lots of people have thought that deterrence alone would be sufficient to eliminate (or drastically lower) crime. A few have even had the power to implement Light's goals seem to be: a society where obedience is enforced by terror.

You have only stated your opinion, not justifications on why it won't work. Saying it didn't work in the past is just like pointing out past examples, and not exactly justification, or if it is, it's a very weak way of justifying things.

Even if it doesn't work, sometimes, it may be a solution to certain problems we need solved. Of course, that solution isn't strictly better than all other solutions we have, since every solution will have its advantages and disadvantages. If you can't stop crime, then you may have to deter crime. And that is what some people think, and it's not like they don't realize it when they are trying to enforce something like that. They think it's best for them, considering their situation, their case, so they choose that system. Not necessarily that it's the best and perfect system, but instead that it's a better system for them.

Now, I would not say Kira's goal is the same as terror, and Kira realizes this.

Spoiler for 2nd half of manga:

There is an example of someone using terror later on in the manga, whose methods are different from Kira but is doing it for the same reasons: to kill only criminals. And Kira had to stop that person from using terror because he knows it will cause panic

And when you say can only be enforced by terror. Then how about jail, fees, death sentences. They can also be seen as fearful things that can induce terror to deter crime.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

While it may be possible for murder to be classified as euthanasia as well, the fact that the former so overshadows the latter, that the classification is trivialized. Ethically speaking, it's quite possible to regard to regard these as two separate categories. Your argument is little more than an attempt at obfuscation.

Obfuscation? Please. You are entitled to your opinion, but stop insisting I'm somehow hiding the truth, and you are not.

The end result is the same, and the means is the same. Yes, you can argue that, but it does not mean I can't either.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

If you don't mind, can you repost them? Mind you, I'm actually looking more for case studies than hypothetical situations here.

If you really wanted to know, and if you had time to look for definitions to prove me wrong, why can't you do a simple Google search. There are lot's of references on Euthanasia. I'm not going to spend time reiterating the same points or repeat stuff that can easily be found elsewhere. Doing, so and this will turn into a book on Euthanasia (from a simple point I was trying to make) which is not my intent.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Your analogy is flawed. The main impetus for the cop's action is self-preservation. Even so, it cannot justify all manner of immoral acts (like mass murder). Light is hardly compelled by the same kind of concerns.

Flawed? Impetus? Again, you dismiss it so readily. It is not self-defense, what do you even mean by self-preservation. The cop didn't need to go undercover. Even if he was undercover, he could have quit. It was the cop's choice to do those things despite it's morals to do good to bring down a large criminal organization.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Nonsense. It's only important to discuss it to a degree. The fact that capital punishment has properties which are morally debatable while murder does not already indicates that the two are not equivalent. Hence something that may mollify the former will have no bearing on the latter.

Nonsense? If no one discusses those complicated issues, when will they be resolved. If people only talk about trivial issues, what is there to discuss? The point of debates is to talk about these complicated issues. Otherwise it won't be much of a debate.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The definition of "monster" is a trivial point, and I won't belabor it further unless it comes up in a different context. However, you seem to be under the impression that all opinions are equally valid. I'm afraid that this is far from the truth.

You're basically saying that the opinion of the majority is valid, but the opinion of the minority is invalid. I would say opinions are equally valid. People may feel the opinions of the minority are less important compared to opinions of the majority, but it does not make the opinions of the minority invalid.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

No. Since we are really discussing the morality of deeds, it's only important to explore the morality of actions which are equivalent to those deeds. Murder is the best descriptor for Light's deeds; therefore, I've concentrated on the morality of murder.

There are several different ways of defining morality. My favorite is that morality is a decision-making system designed to weigh the relative worth of different courses of action. The fact that it's man-made has no bearing on anything as far as I can see. To question morality's existence is sort of silly - it's a little bit like asking "Do questions exist?"

My question to you is "how do you define morality?"

I suppose I'm taking the philosophical approach to this moral issue. If you're not a fan of philosophy then, they may ask seemingly odd questions like "Do we really exist or are we just living in some matrix world and our bodies are just figments of our imagination". "Is there really morals, or is that an imperfect concept because we are imperfect beings who invented that concept?" "Can there be true justice where an act will only do good but no evil?"

Spoiler for response to 4Tran:

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I'm going to have to comment on your debating skills here. Get this straight: I haven't insulted you yet. Saying that your statements are incorrect or irrelevant does not amount to insults. It's fine to ask for more clarification, but don't expect it on every minor point. As far as I'm concerned the actual morality of euthanasia, capital punishment and undercover police officers are only relevant insofar as they relate to Light. I've been trying to establish that they are not equivalent to what Light did, hence an actual debate on those actions is relatively unimportant.

I asked you "Can't you read?" because so far, you seem to have been unable to understand my arguments. Heck, just look at this sentence: "This is a more complicated matter." You questioned why I didn't explain why it's a more complicated matter when I did so, just two sentences later: "Other considerations like self-preservation tend to be far more important." Isn't the implication here that there are more factors to consider? Isn't a situation with more factors more complicated than one with less? Do I really have to spell this out for you, or are you capable of understanding it on your own? This isn't an insult - I'm actually trying to find out what you can read.


While I'm at it, I've noticed that you haven't addressed a lot of my points. Are you conceding them?

If you really want to discuss this further, I suggest you take it to PM.

You are forcefully insisting that your beliefs are correct, and are quick to dismiss points that are different from yours. Even if I misread your posts, that has nothing to do with debating skills. It is your writing that is causing someone to believe they are insulted. I have told you in the past, that they were insulting, but you knowingly continued to write in that way. You could have said, I'll try to use less forceful words, but instead, you still insisted that you were right in using those words. Not very considerate if you ask me.

Yes. In a debate it is not unusual to be called a wrong, but in the way that you are doing it can make a debate erupt into a fight. Just because it is a debate, does not mean you can use language like you have. You should at least show some respect and courtesy to the other debaters.

"This isn't an insult - I'm actually trying to find out what you can read." That is an insult! You are implying someone is illiterate and can't read! And your last statement, essentially, further suggests this.

Someone may not be able to understand you because your justifications were not convincing enough. The things you wrote may have been insufficient and not in-depth enough. You shouldn't attack the reader by questioning the reader's intelligence and literacy skills. That I call an insult.

If I do not address all points, then you should bring them up again if you feel it's important and think I have made a mistake. You have wrote a lot and it is not uncommon to miss a few points. I believe you have also not addressed all of my points either. Like I said, some points do not need to be addressed, and can be ignored. Some I agree, or disagree, yet I do not have to make a separate post do I. I'm sure there are a lot of people perusing this thread and do not make a reply. Are they wrong because they haven't addressed the points you make?

Originally Posted by musouka

ThisIsDream, why are you insisting that we have to look at it from the perspective of someone in the world of Death Note? Death Note isn't real, it's a story. We are privy to this information for a reason. Telling us that Light is talking to himself when he says he'll become a god doesn't mean that he didn't actually say it and that we can't judge him by those desires.

I think the point ThisIsDream is trying to make is that this story is a work of fiction and that it doesn't have to be realistic. That some people may be trying to too hard to think too deeply on how Light's actions affect the real world, and instead should think about how Light's actions apply to the world in death note. The (human) world in death note may be very similar to the world we live in, but it may theoretically have fundamental differences that make Light's actions more valid.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

The thing is they changed the roots of the problems he was trimming the branches. That is the best comparison i can give.

So now i am waiting how it will play out, but because i am a dumbass i accidentaly read what happened on wikipedia so it is a bit spoiled for me

Yep, I agree. But again, I'm not sure how Light could have done so considering the death note's power mostly revolves around death. And in your case, the "Overlords", aren't exactly human and have more power than Light could ever have, so they could have done more to ensure the right thing is done. And Light is only one person as opposed to many. Anyways, heh, so I guess you already know the "plot twist".

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Neux

You have only stated your opinion, not justifications on why it won't work. Saying it didn't work in the past is just like pointing out past examples, and not exactly justification, or if it is, it's a very weak way of justifying things.

Nonsense. It's called learning from history.

You're not addressing the point: do you think that Light's views are historically unprecedented?
Do you think that his ideas have never been implemented before?
Exactly how is what Light is trying to do all that different from what Stalin did?

Originally Posted by Neux

And when you say can only be enforced by terror. Then how about jail, fees, death sentences. They can also be seen as fearful things that can induce terror to deter crime.

And they are also proportional punishments for the severity of the crime committed. You can't say that they're the same thing and ignore half of the equation.

Originally Posted by Neux

Obfuscation? Please. You are entitled to your opinion, but stop insisting I'm somehow hiding the truth, and you are not.

Obfuscation is not necessarily about hiding the truth, it's also about obscuring it by going off on unrelated tangents.

You didnt address the point: do you really not think that murder overshadows euthanasia?
Are they the same thing?

Originally Posted by Neux

If you really wanted to know, and if you had time to look for definitions to prove me wrong, why can't you do a simple Google search. There are lot's of references on Euthanasia. I'm not going to spend time reiterating the same points or repeat stuff that can easily be found elsewhere. Doing, so and this will turn into a book on Euthanasia (from a simple point I was trying to make) which is not my intent.

That's not the way it works. You made the claim, you get to supply the evidence. If you prefer, you can simply drop the point altogether.

Originally Posted by Neux

Flawed? Impetus? Again, you dismiss it so readily. It is not self-defense, what do you even mean by self-preservation. The cop didn't need to go undercover. Even if he was undercover, he could have quit. It was the cop's choice to do those things despite it's morals to do good to bring down a large criminal organization.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm simply telling you that you were oversimplyfying the comparison to begin with. Are you trying to imply that self-preservation (among other things) is not a factor?

In addition, as Neux said earlier, "I'm saying that could just be as wrong as murder. That any killing regardless of purpose or means can also be immoral." If that's truly the case, then how does it justify Light's case?

Originally Posted by Neux

Nonsense? If no one discusses those complicated issues, when will they be resolved. If people only talk about trivial issues, what is there to discuss? The point of debates is to talk about these complicated issues. Otherwise it won't be much of a debate.

The way to discuss complicated issues is to reduce them to their essential terms. Often this is done by eliminating the irrelevant points and cutting out the nonsense so that the effort is spent on the matters that are actually important to the issue. The thing is that nitpicking statements without actually addressing the points (even if it's only to show their irrelevance) is not discussing the issue, it's just more obfuscation.

Originally Posted by Neux

You're basically saying that the opinion of the majority is valid, but the opinion of the minority is invalid. I would say opinions are equally valid. People may feel the opinions of the minority are less important compared to opinions of the majority, but it does not make the opinions of the minority invalid.

Incorrect. I'm saying that opinions that are based on less accurate information are less valid than those based on superior information. The question of majority and minority opinions are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Neux

I suppose I'm taking the philosophical approach to this moral issue. If you're not a fan of philosophy then, they may ask seemingly odd questions like "Do we really exist or are we just living in some matrix world and our bodies are just figments of our imagination". "Is there really morals, or is that an imperfect concept because we are imperfect beings who invented that concept?" "Can there be true justice where an act will only do good but no evil?"

You didn't answer my question: ""how do you define morality?"

Originally Posted by Neux

The (human) world in death note may be very similar to the world we live in, but it may theoretically have fundamental differences that make Light's actions more valid.

Do you know what these fundamental differences are?

Spoiler for Offtopic:

Originally Posted by Neux

You are forcefully insisting that your beliefs are correct, and are quick to dismiss points that are different from yours. Even if I misread your posts, that has nothing to do with debating skills. It is your writing that is causing someone to believe they are insulted. I have told you in the past, that they were insulting, but you knowingly continued to write in that way. You could have said, I'll try to use less forceful words, but instead, you still insisted that you were right in using those words. Not very considerate if you ask me.

I haven't made any personal attacks, and I haven't tried to be insulting so far, but I also have no intention of modifying my language. I tend to use more forceful words to call to account the accuracy and relevance of your statements, which is altogether different from merely holding a different opinion. In these cases, I find more "considerate" language inadequate for my purposes.

Originally Posted by Neux

"This isn't an insult - I'm actually trying to find out what you can read." That is an insult! You are implying someone is illiterate and can't read! And your last statement, essentially, further suggests this.

Someone may not be able to understand you because your justifications were not convincing enough. The things you wrote may have been insufficient and not in-depth enough. You shouldn't attack the reader by questioning the reader's intelligence and literacy skills. That I call an insult.

I'm not trying to imply that you are illiterate, I am, however, trying to question your reading comprehension. Now, a lot of times, people simply don't understand what's written. However, it's generally a good idea to try to get more understanding before proceeding to criticize a statement. Saying "I don't understand this. Can you clarify it?" is a perfectly legitimate way to do this. However, simply ignoring the point altogether to nitpick at unrelated details is not, and I will call attention to it.

By the way my last statement was a suggestion to move this to PMs. How does it suggest anything?

Originally Posted by Neux

If I do not address all points, then you should bring them up again if you feel it's important and think I have made a mistake. You have wrote a lot and it is not uncommon to miss a few points. I believe you have also not addressed all of my points either. Like I said, some points do not need to be addressed, and can be ignored. Some I agree, or disagree, yet I do not have to make a separate post do I. I'm sure there are a lot of people perusing this thread and do not make a reply. Are they wrong because they haven't addressed the points you make?

Obviously, if people don't reply to my posts, then I don't expect them to address my points. However, you've been replying to them and yet failing to address them at the same time. I highlighted some examples above.

[Neux]

4Tran:

I am going to keep this is short and simple as possible.

Learning from history. Learning is one thing, but your statement implies that because it failed in history, it will never work. Which is not true.

My point is that there may not be a clear right or wrong answer to morality. The point in those cases is that the issue of morality is heavily debated, and that morality is a very complex issue. That the very concept of morality may not even exist. This is very relevant in knowing what morality even is, if you don't even know what morality even is, then what is the point of discussing morality. And as I have said before, morality is relative, what could be moral for someone could be immoral to another. It seems you only accept things as either moral or immoral, but it does not occur to you that some things may not be either or that it could be both.

If you don't see how it is relevant, or understand someone's intent, ask to clarify before accusing someone of "obfuscation", or stating that certain points are irrelevant like it's a fact. Those are your opinions not a fact. Even if you ask to clarify, and they don't, doesn't mean you're right.

The cases are to get people to think about certain issues, to know that they exist. They may be my opinions, and they may not. But you shouldn't ignore them and pretend they don't exist. Cutting down irrelevant points...sounds good in theory, but then you are overgeneralizing a complex issue. Cutting out points you think are wrong, and only keeping points you think are right until the answer is the same as yours. And who is to say they are irrelevant, and how do you even define irrelevant. What is irrelevant to someone may be relevant to someone else. Even relevant is a matter of opinion. You shouldn't treat relevance as fact.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Incorrect. I'm saying that opinions that are based on less accurate information are less valid than those based on superior information. The question of majority and minority opinions are irrelevant.

Please, so you are implying you have superior information and that everyone who has a different opinion doesn't?

And even if I have replied to your posts, doesn't mean I suddenly have to respond to every single point you make. People respond to points they feel are important. If I don't respond, it may be the case I feel it's right or I feel it's wrong, don't just suddenly assume I "concede". I don't have time to respond to every single point you make, and I am within right to not respond to some points.

I do not drop my point on euthanasia. It seems to me, you are unwilling to make an effort to understand euthanasia. Until you show effort in understanding what it is, I won't go into this complex issue.

[ThisIsDream]

I dont know there were something like many Criminals died from a heart attack in history before =\.

[AvatarST]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

And they are also proportional punishments for the severity of the crime committed.

Regarding this, since it's been brought up before, you do realize that law varies a lot in different countries, right? Which one do you take as the correct one? If in some countries rape merits the death penalty and in others it doesn't, why are those countries applying punishments not as proportionally well as the one you take as your legal frame?

Death penalty is forever abolished in my country in any case, and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but I thought I'd ask those questions to see where exactly you stand. You've been talking about this issue on more or less absolute terms (for example, "rape doesn't merit death penalty because the victim is still alive, murder I could see it", IIRC), when in the world there seems to be a lot of disagreement in these law, crime and punishment matters.

By the way, forgive my English if it's poor and please ask if there's anything you don't understand, I'd try to make it clearer. It's not my first language.

Originally Posted by musouka

It doesn't help much if after you've killed your husband you realize "Oh shit, Kira might get me."

Yes, I agree, but does it help if the woman in question is like "Oh shit, I'm gonna get locked up."? Nope. Unless it was in self defense, she'll get punished, and in some countries she'll even get the capital punishment; and many people will think "she deserves it", without thinking about law. Kira is making decisions because he has the power to back them up; the difference between him and the justice system is that in the latter all of society is supposedly involved (rofl, ok, but at least more people than Kira, for sure). It's still arguable whether punishing, hurting people keeps on being a barbaric action or not. Why is killing "wrong"? Because we have no right to decide who lives or who dies? Before, people did have that right, and now we see it as "wrong". Will locking people up be considered "wrong" in the future? Will people look back at our society and think we were barbarians? The thing is that these are all relative matters, which is the reason why they're complicated.

[musouka]

Originally Posted by AvatarST

Yes, I agree, but does it help if the woman in question is like "Oh shit, I'm gonna get locked up."?

Well, no, it doesn't, but that's not my point. My point is that since so much of violent crime is in a moment of passion and not premeditated, when these people are murdering other people, they're not thinking about what the future consequences will be. They're not stopping to think "If I kill or hurt or rape someone, Kira will punish me." And after the fact, the crime has been commited, so...

Chances are, if you're actually sitting there thinking of a way to kill someone, you're already going to try do it in a way that it can't be connected back to you and the police can't find you. And if the police can't find you, Kira can't find you.

[AvatarST]

Ahh, I see, that's what you meant, the failure of deterrence. Yeah, I agree. Especially on the second point; the police could find a premeditated crime with due time, resources and investigation - but what does Kira have at his disposal?

[musouka]

Originally Posted by AvatarST

Especially on the second point; the police could find a premeditated crime with due time, resources and investigation - but what does Kira have at his disposal?

Oh, yeah, that's a good point too. Kira is dependent upon others in order to exact his "justice". A man could murder someone and hide it for several years without ever being caught unless the police find him. But even if they do, that man has still had many years of freedom even though he's broken one of Kira's laws.

The message Kira is sending isn't really "don't kill", it's "don't get caught."

[Neux]

Originally Posted by musouka

Chances are, if you're actually sitting there thinking of a way to kill someone, you're already going to try do it in a way that it can't be connected back to you and the police can't find you. And if the police can't find you, Kira can't find you.

True, Kira won't find them. And I think the reason why Light wants the public to view Kira as the God of Justice, is so people will think that he has supernatural power that allows him to judge them from anywhere anytime. The criminals may not fear the police finding them since they are only human, but they may fear an all-knowing God that supposedly watches over them, even when "Kira the God of Justice"is merely something Light invented. Maybe this similar to using hell as a means to deter people from doing "evil" acts, and heaven to entice people to do good acts?

[musouka]

But again, while that might stop superstitious people from doing bad things they might otherwise, it won't stop people caught up in the heat of the moment any more than the nebulous threat of "hell" has stopped crime throughout the centuries.

And there will always be intelligent bad people that will notice that Kira is only killing those that have been caught/are in jail and will continue on with whatever crime they're planning.

[Neux]

Originally Posted by musouka

But again, while that might stop superstitious people from doing bad things they might otherwise, it won't stop people caught up in the heat of the moment any more than the nebulous threat of "hell" has stopped crime throughout the centuries.

And there will always be intelligent bad people that will notice that Kira is only killing those that have been caught/are in jail and will continue on with whatever crime they're planning.

Heh, good point. Though the difference in "hell" is that "hell" is something they can't really see while living. They can't see someone else going to "hell". So they might not believe in "hell". But they can actually see what "Kira the God of Justice" is doing, as they will be seeing other criminals die in front of their eyes. So they may be more inclined to believe Kira, and not do those things.

But yeah, it won't stop certain at the moment type crimes.

[Ptolemi]

My view on the issue is this:

Thesis:

A good dictator is better than a good democracy. That is it. No arguing about it.


Now we need to look at how things work in life. We need something to take care of the trash, We have the trashman for that. We need somebody to clean the room. We have the janitor for that. The list keeps going. Somebody has to take the great leap foward and be the one who does the dirty work for the society.

Now when i say dirty it isn't always the bad kind, but when we talk on a scale that involves the society and such it will be a major leap that the person/s take.

Example:

Forming of America. We need leaders to have the balls to take the revolution up. They were considered terrorist in their time (according to the defenition of a terrorist) and they were called immoral by the Loyalists and the British people, but somebody had to get the job done.

Conclusion:

Well i can keep going about revolutions but that would be pointless. So how far have we really as a society gone? That is the key difference here. We have only gone up to maybe mass murder, to wars, to revolutions. We never as a species had the power to accend those.

Maybe the nuke, but the difference is it is controlled by more than one person while Light has sole control of the Death Note. So the tables are turned in the fact now one man, who is bored and pretty much king of his world (that is extremely important to remember when we talk about his specific case, because in the end he is just human), has the most power in the world.


Is Light doing the right thing? Well let's look at it compared to other things in history. American Revolution i am sure innocent people died. French Revolution i know innocent people died. However in the end they were both for a better good for the people and society.

PERFECT example is Japan. We decided to nuke because that would be less casualties. Here we talk about two of the lesser evils. So is his sacrificing of a few to better the whole world comparable to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would have had less people die in the end?


Him wanting to be god of the new world (a.k.a ruler) viewed as greed overcoming his human side? You can argue he is too logical for that and only wants to ensure its success after it's birth. Maybe he wants to satisfy his sudden craving for power. To be honest all of those answers would apply. Even if it is greed do not forget he is human and in the end if you accept the end justifys the deeds then he is forgivable for power overcomming him.


I am sure that my logic is flawed somewhere or that somebody can easily argue it, but that is what i have in the end.


My view: He wants a better society. With his power it is impossible. He does not nearly have enough power to change the world. Fear works wonders, but he just can not uproot all of the problems with fear. His power is lacking and he needed to understand that and never have started the crusade.

EDIT: However if he reveals his identity to the public and he is not listened to and commits a mass murde he could possibly gain control, but it would be very hard. If he mass-murders and gets people to actually listen to him then hell it just might work.

[musouka]

It's not the fact that innocent people died, it's that innocent people were murdered.