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

[ArrowSmith]

I like how the anime has a slightly different ending then the manga, making Light examine himself at the end before he dies. I feel the anime was better.

[Roduigez]

Light said that his goal was to rid the world of it's rotten people, and had this been real, I'll admit, I would have been a Kira supporter, but if I had watched what he had done, I would have not supported him.

He claimed to be this God-like figure fixing the world, killing off the evil, yet he kills innocents too? A real God would have done everything in their power to stop the evil, and not kill innocent people. What's more, when killing people, even innocents, he takes pleasure and enjoyment from it! Is that really the attitude of a God?

Spoiler for Episode 7:

Like when he kills Naomi Misora, and smiles as she walks away to comit suicide

He claims he's made this ultimate sacrifice of his sanity and soul, but all he's lost is his boredom. A real sacrifice would be him doing everything humanly possible to act as Kira and not get arrested by the authorites WITHOUT having to try and kill them off, by moving to a remote location or something like that. If you're going to take the responsibility of a god, you'll need to sacriface more than nothing.

So, all in all, if he had just killed brutal criminals, I would probably say that due to the downfall in crime, the end would justify the means, but as he's killing off innocent people too, I do not think they do justify the means.

[hanasanaide]

Originally Posted by ArrowSmith

I like how the anime has a slightly different ending then the manga, making Light examine himself at the end before he dies. I feel the anime was better.

damn i agree..i watched the anime till the end and it was a full blown ending..though i still think the ending was rushed a bit. XP

[Roger Rambo]

It's established very early on in the series that Light is not remotely moral or heroic in undertaking his killing spree. It's all a vanity based ego trip on his part.

Recall when he first tried to *murder* L. When L had a double go on TV and give a broadcast denouncing Lights murders in an attempt to lure him out and confirm that he resided in a specific area in Japan. Light did not try to Murder L after hearing the broadcast, where L announced his intention to bring Light to justice, because L was a threat to what he thought was a noble goal. Light tried to Murder L because L assaulted his vanity. For all his genius, he ultimately reacted like a child throwing a temper tantrum. And this was a respected champion of justice who had captured many criminals.


So no. It should be pretty obvious that Light is meant to be a villain. I think people just have a hard time realizing that the story is predominantly told from the villains perspective.

[marine_seb]

I think that the only time where death penalty should be used, it's when it is 100% sure that the criminal is really the criminal (because errors are possible) to be sure it's not an innocent person that is killed and that the crime comitted is worth death (don't kill if someon steals some bread...) So Light's idea is good but he is too selfish though. Since he wants to become a god, and he kills all these people, i would put him in the category of those eligible for death penalty. Why? because it scares the whole population and also... he kills! I thought that light was the bad guy all the time and L, the good guy. and the reapers... well they're reapers, there's nothing you can do with it...

[DukeOfVeglia]

Well, the topic isn't really all that complex if you look at the obvious. And yes, I will push the topic a bit beyond Death Note.

Light is acting in a childish manner in the sense that he avoids facing things as they are because it's "too painful", instead he wants everything to go his way. In other words, he is avoiding the issue while through his action creating even more issues to deal with. He then substitutes the need to face any of it by satisfying this killing "fix" of his, because it literally became a mental addiction. An interesting fact of life in general: Every single human being seeks one thing in life, love. And if one think he doesn't have love, he attempts to substitute it with power. Torment unless faced brings more torment. It's Light in a nutshell.

Really, the psychology of the show is amazing. Reason why I love it so much

As for the whole moral aspect... In order to discuss whether or not something is "good" or "evil", there would first have to be such things AS good and evil. Even though people are afraid to think about these things, good and evil are no more than concepts and as such do not exist in reality. The reason why they feel real is because in our minds we give them power. The thing that psychologists want out of their patients is a "clear, healthy mind" and the only way you can really achieve such a thing is if you see that a thought is just thought, a feeling just a feeling. They have no control over you except the control you give them. Obvious, but illusive, isn't it?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Roduigez

He claimed to be this God-like figure fixing the world, killing off the evil, yet he kills innocents too? A real God would have done everything in their power to stop the evil, and not kill innocent people. What's more, when killing people, even innocents, he takes pleasure and enjoyment from it! Is that really the attitude of a God?

Spoiler for Episode 7:

Like when he kills Naomi Misora, and smiles as she walks away to comit suicide

I don't think that his apparent pleasure came from the killing, itself, but from outsmarting people. It was the idea that he bested someone, and that he was getting away with these acs undetected. If he were enjoying the killings, themselves, he probably would have spent more time coming up with creative ways to die, and he might have even watched them. Instead, everything revolved around going undetected.

As for killing innocents, this is where morality enters a gray zone. Take a look at our world: our country (USA) has a death penalty. There are people who are against the death penalty, purely on principle. Even if there were a person convicted of murders and other horrible crimes with solid proof in all cases, those opposing the death penalty would want the criminal to be jailed, and to be allowed to die of natural causes. They occasionally mount legal challenges and protests to the death penalty, attempting to remove it from the justice system's options.

Light was attempting to carry out justice through the death penalty, essentially, and he took it to an extreme form that cut out many other elements of the justice system. While this appeals to some people's ideals, there would be people who would want to stop it based on principle alone (and perhaps for other reasons). What happens then is a fight of good vs. good: Light attempting to rid the world of criminals, and L (among other characters) attempting to stop killing (or at least, killing that occurs outside of the justice system). Both sides are just, in their own way, yet both also threaten each other's ideals. Given that sort of conflict, what is to be done?

Originally Posted by marine_seb

I think that the only time where death penalty should be used, it's when it is 100% sure that the criminal is really the criminal (because errors are possible) to be sure it's not an innocent person that is killed and that the crime comitted is worth death (don't kill if someon steals some bread...)

It's impossible to be 100% sure that the suspect is really the criminal in question, and that's part of the reason why people are against the death penalty, and why there are groups who try very hard to do things like DNA testing to re-analyze the cases of people who have been sentenced to death and are waiting for their execution. As to your second part, it's highly subjective to consider what should be deserving of death. For example, you say that petty crimes shouldn't be deserving of death, which I agree with. But consider this: if even the smallest crimes would put a person to death (assuming the evidence was there), would there be less crime overall? If so, wouldn't that be a good thing? I'm sure some people would think so, and hence it's subjective.

[WitchOfDoubt]

Morality in DN?

So, the Fate of the World is a contest between two or three young guys, because nobody else is smart enough to match them - not even the combined experience and intelligence of every other spy and detective on the planet. Sometimes a team will pop up, but hey, they're expendable. We know who the stars are!

Think about the implications of this.

On the one hand, pitting a Hero against a Nemesis is a standard storytelling move.

On the other hand, doesn't accepting this premise force us to accept Light's crazy narcissism at face value? "Well, Light thinks he's the most important person in the world, and that L's the only one who can match him, and... okay, he's right! Totally correct, no experienced detectives or clever people who can smack him down! All those intelligence operatives who were good at figuring stuff out during the Cold War? Useless! Sorry to doubt you, Teenage God King!"

Spoiler for Ending spoiler:

Oops! He was wrong... because TWO people in the entire world can match him. This makes him the "third most important person out of six billion," I guess?

Making Light pathetic "in the end" doesn't really cancel out the sheer over-the-top idealization he gets before then.

Death Note has great scheming and a cool premise. But mentioning "serious morality" and Death Note in the same sentence puts the series in an indefensible position.

[Amorok]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

It's established very early on in the series that Light is not remotely moral or heroic in undertaking his killing spree. It's all a vanity based ego trip on his part.

Recall when he first tried to *murder* L. When L had a double go on TV and give a broadcast denouncing Lights murders in an attempt to lure him out and confirm that he resided in a specific area in Japan. Light did not try to Murder L after hearing the broadcast, where L announced his intention to bring Light to justice, because L was a threat to what he thought was a noble goal. Light tried to Murder L because L assaulted his vanity. For all his genius, he ultimately reacted like a child throwing a temper tantrum. And this was a respected champion of justice who had captured many criminals.

So no. It should be pretty obvious that Light is meant to be a villain. I think people just have a hard time realizing that the story is predominantly told from the villains perspective.

Couldn't have said this better myself. I admit to a certain level of irritation when I meet people who seem to believe that Light was some misguided but ultimately well-intentioned idealist whose only real motivation was the betterment of society via mass murder. He is a textbook sociopath, plain and simple.

L, on the other hand, I find to be an archetypal hero. I didn't sense any moral grey idea with L at all. Can someone enlighten me here?

[Avectius]

I agree with what Light was doing... And I wish he would have kept doing so, even though the world will always remember Kira, and thus, make a god out of him ( despite him being killed in the end )

It may seem morally incorrect... but really.... what other way is there of "cleaning up" our world?

There are evil people out there who risk innocent people's safety on a daily basis... innocent lives will be lost because of those individuals.

In order to keep our world safe, evil must be destroyed. Period.

Light was no murderer... it was necessary. He was Justice.

If the notebook had landed on the grounds of my university... I would have done the exact same thing.

I still hope for a day that someone will rise to power and "cleanse" our world.

That will be a pure world.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Avectius

I agree with what Light was doing... And I wish he would have kept doing so, even though the world will always remember Kira, and thus, make a god out of him ( despite him being killed in the end )

It may seem morally incorrect... but really.... what other way is there of "cleaning up" our world?

There are evil people out there who risk innocent people's safety on a daily basis... innocent lives will be lost because of those individuals.

In order to keep our world safe, evil must be destroyed. Period.

Light was no murderer... it was necessary. He was Justice.

If the notebook had landed on the grounds of my university... I would have done the exact same thing.

I still hope for a day that someone will rise to power and "cleanse" our world.

That will be a pure world.

The reason why it becomes an ethical issue is because justice is not always so clear-cut. For example, right now we have the death penalty in America. It is frightening how many people are on death row, awaiting execution, only to be pardoned because new evidence is brought to light that exonerates them. How many innocents have been executed for crimes that someone else committed?

It's the same problem with Death Note. Light probably killed a number of people who were truly guilty, and who may have never changed their ways. Yet how could he know who was wrongly convicted of a crime? Furthermore, where does justice end? It's one thing to look at extreme crimes and say that those people have to go, but where do you draw the line?

[Avectius]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

The reason why it becomes an ethical issue is because justice is not always so clear-cut. For example, right now we have the death penalty in America. It is frightening how many people are on death row, awaiting execution, only to be pardoned because new evidence is brought to light that exonerates them. How many innocents have been executed for crimes that someone else committed?

It's the same problem with Death Note. Light probably killed a number of people who were truly guilty, and who may have never changed their ways. Yet how could he know who was wrongly convicted of a crime? Furthermore, where does justice end? It's one thing to look at extreme crimes and say that those people have to go, but where do you draw the line?

Anyone can easily distinguish delinquents from people who are likely to change their ways.

However, my post was solely referring to criminals. Look at our world today: Violence, war and destruction.

People who risk the safety of innocent individuals should not exist. I mean, what good are they to society? How do you plan on fixing this? Give them proper education? Sure... but can you educate ALL of them? Nope...

Frankly, If there are "parasites" out there, corroding society with their actions, then they must be eliminated. Period.

Also, the typical ignorant teenager, who is likely to become a cirminal in his or her future life, should also be dealt with.

Sick and tired of coming across such pathetic excuses for human beings... "The world is in the hands of the children" .... We are so fucked.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Avectius

Anyone can easily distinguish delinquents from people who are likely to change their ways.

I think that delinquents can usually be identified... but not people who are likely to change their ways. I say that because personal changes are usually not due so much to the individual, but to their environment: the events that happen to them, things that they witness, and other individuals who influence them. There's really no way to predict who's going to change their life around.

For that matter, it also works in reverse: some "good apples" can go bad, again depending on what happens to them in their life. There's no way to really predict it.

Originally Posted by Avectius

People who risk the safety of innocent individuals should not exist. I mean, what good are they to society? How do you plan on fixing this? Give them proper education? Sure... but can you educate ALL of them? Nope...

That sounds good at the extreme ends, but where do you draw the line? People who go even 5 MPH above the speed limit are arguably risking the safety of innocents - do we remove them from society, too?

Originally Posted by Avectius

Also, the typical ignorant teenager, who is likely to become a cirminal in his or her future life, should also be dealt with.

Are you saying that teenagers who are just "likely to become criminals" (even though we can't really predict such a thing) should be killed?

[Avectius]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I think that delinquents can usually be identified... but not people who are likely to change their ways. I say that because personal changes are usually not due so much to the individual, but to their environment: the events that happen to them, things that they witness, and other individuals who influence them. There's really no way to predict who's going to change their life around.

For that matter, it also works in reverse: some "good apples" can go bad, again depending on what happens to them in their life. There's no way to really predict it.


That sounds good at the extreme ends, but where do you draw the line? People who go even 5 MPH above the speed limit are arguably risking the safety of innocents - do we remove them from society, too?


Are you saying that teenagers who are just "likely to become criminals" (even though we can't really predict such a thing) should be killed?

There's a difference in going 5mph above the speed limit, and (for example) getting into drugs or getting your hands on guns, vandalizing, being violent, etc.

Those kinds of people WILL in some point in their lives ( probably on a daily basis ) risk people's lives or end up killing a few individuals along the way. That's where you draw the line.

Those individuals are usually uneducated, they don't have families, nor do they have friends. Overall, they're a threat to society.

When it comes to the speeding jerks on the high-way, they're probably quite educated, might have families and friends too. But they're still seperated into two categories:

The one who's doing it on purpose and simply doesn't care about anyone's safety. And the one who's in a hurry to get somewhere or simply didn't notice the speed he was at.

Sure, we won't be able to tell who's who most of the times, but it's easily analyzed.

Now as for the teenagers, It's the same thing. They may change their ways in a few years or so, but what will happen until then? How many bottles of beer, drugs, other substances or sheer stupidity will lead to the deaths of innocents? How many people will get injured? Heck, will they end up killing themselves?

I know you think we should give them the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not willing to take chances.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Avectius

I know you think we should give them the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not willing to take chances.

It's not really about giving people the benefit of the doubt, but rather recognizing that people occasionally do dumb, risky things and don't recognize the potential consequences of their actions. For example, consider graffiti artists: I would wager that the majority are not intending to hurt anyone or damage anything, but they tend to create eyesores and the law dictates that they are committing acts of vandalism. Should they be put to the death?

There are people who commit terrible crimes and are beyond rehabilitation. There are a lot more people who commit acts against others either without realizing it or without intending for it to be something major. I don't think that they should be grouped together.