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

[superr]

I think that in many ways Kira's attempt to kill the "bad" people is wrong. I mean we're all human beings for Christ sake; criminals in this world turn to a life of crime cuz of many factors. Most of them grew up in crappy environments and most resorted to crime as a last resort. Given the proper causes and conditions, any human can be inclined to rape, theft, assult, or homicide.

For example, many years ago, a group of Vietnamese refugees attempted to enter america through a small ricketty boat. The navigator died so the people on the boat were left to find their way to america by themselves. Guess what happened? They were lost for a long period of time in open water (much longer than it would take to get to america). The people on the boat resorted to cannibalism to survive, first eating the dead and then eventually killing each other. In the end, the small boat was spotted by a cargo ship with only one surviver. The point of the story is that under specific conditions, people can do some crazy shiet. Therefore killing "bad" people is not justified cuz we can't necessarily blame them for doing the things they do. Their environment warps their perception.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

Lower the crime rates mean less people would get hurt. Of cuz the root problems still there and always will be there, but no one can help it, there are no perfect systems to fix it.

I've got a few issues with this statement. First off, there's lots of ways of lowering the crime rate that don't make anyone safer. The crime rate only measures how many crimes are reported, and a change that modifies this figure may or may not do anything to the public. This is one of the reasons why a straight comparison of the crime rate between jurisdictions is not always meaningful.

Another problem is that, the way you frame it implies that lowering the crime rate is meant to be a cosmetic solution. That is, it's meant only to make people think that they're safer. In essence, it's about lying to the public. Effectively, it's no different than a company claiming that their products are safe while their internal studies suggest otherwise. I'd say that this is a blatant form of dishonesty and that it's generally unethical behavior.

Finally, your wording also implies that if we can't perfectly address the root of a problem, we should simply go for the cosmetic fix. Again, this is pretty much against all the rules of ethics. We shouldn't expect perfection in anything, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do all that we can to alleviate any problems. In the event of crimes, there's lots of measures that we can take to make the problem less severe - some of these measures attempt to address the root problems, while others try to mollify the symptoms. It's altogether unobservant to say that nothing can be done. This is even more apparent given that violent crime (and I believe crime in general) has generally been falling throughout the Western world since the '70s.

[ThisIsDream]

The crime rate is not from Kira is from the current law system. Kira is only the executer so if lower the crime rate mean less report then is not Kira's problem is the police, law judge problems. Kira just give the plenty.

[4Tran]

Are you kidding me? Light is killing people, and it's somehow not his responsibility? Moreover, he's behaving quite opposite from that of someone truly interested in contributing to public order and safety. In fact, I think that it's more accurate to categorize his killings as the actions of a sociopath - he even admitted to Ryuk that he was doing it because he was bored.

[ThisIsDream]

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

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

[Mephisto2k]

I dont think light is "evil", and as he said himself, he is the only one who didnt use the note for his own benefit but for the good of everyone. Im not the person who is against death penalty too since there are just some cases where there is no helping and imprisoning costs money too + maybe the fact that I myself would rather die than spend the rest of my life in prison.
Reducing in crime rate and wars even results in much less people getting killed all in all and those who are killed are the "evil" ones. Not only that but also everyones character will become better, not only because of fear but because society itself will change. Stuff like bullying, descriminationa, forced prostitution and so on will reduce.
The only critic i have on something like that is that I am not sure if there is someone who can judge who is to kill and draw the line between absolute scum (creazy rapist murderer homocide who have no chance for improving) and those who's crime was bad but not that horrible depending on the situation. Who has the right to draw the line. Each crime have different backgrounds and not everything can be investigated correctly and therefore on a large scale there might be people who are misjudged.
But I think thats a small price to pay in comparism to the benefits. Nothing is for free. Life is priceless and every life is equal? Thinking like that is blinded and untopian idealism.

I dont think its right to put hypocrite ethnics and morals in the way of everything. Like with genetic science (I dont know the english terminilogy here). Is it right to make experiments on unburn undeveloped "babies". WHen does a life start. But in fact those experiments save lifes and helps to create medicine. Is it right to forbid this because we dont know when a life acctually starts and counts as life. I dont think so.

But the death note author's opinion on this matter becomes quite clear when we look at how many times he make light claim he is a god. In movies and literatur those who claim they are gods are always the evil ones. Light-kuns creazy, pathetic, and almost disgusting behaviour in the end proofs this too, even though this side is just a part of lights chaotic genius character.
But during the manga Ive always rooted for light, or rather for a semi pro light ending where light dies or looses his power or sacrifices him, but his ideas live on.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by ThisIsDream

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Mephisto2k

But I think thats a small price to pay in comparism to the benefits. Nothing is for free. Life is priceless and every life is equal? Thinking like that is blinded and untopian idealism.

But would it really be a small price? Light's methods are, by necessity, much less complete than what the police do. Given that even the police make many mistakes, Light's actions would have to lead to a large number innocent deaths. In an anime, these deaths are very abstract, but in a matter of morality, they aren't meant to be so. If one of these innocent deaths occurred to someone you knew, would you be so willing to acknowledge it as a worthy sacrifice?

Moreover, why would you think that the intrinsic value of human life is hopeless idealism while simultaneously thinking that Light's dreams of a utopia created by his tyranny are not?

Originally Posted by Mephisto2k

I dont think its right to put hypocrite ethnics and morals in the way of everything.

Why do you think morality and ethics are hypocritical?

[Mephisto2k]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

But would it really be a small price? Light's methods are, by necessity, much less complete than what the police do. Given that even the police make many mistakes, Light's actions would have to lead to a large number innocent deaths. In an anime, these deaths are very abstract, but in a matter of morality, they aren't meant to be so. If one of these innocent deaths occurred to someone you knew, would you be so willing to acknowledge it as a worthy sacrifice?

Moreover, why would you think that the intrinsic value of human life is hopeless idealism while simultaneously thinking that Light's dreams of a utopia created by his tyranny are not?

I already thought about what would I think if one of those "mistakes" would happen to someone close to me. I dont dare to think I can predict or imagine how I would feel then. How would I feel if for example my brother is a good person but would be judged by Kira because he killed someone in an car accident. Kiras way is by any means not perfect. But acctually how would I feel if my brother would be killed by some creazy murder rapist. How acctually do all the victims all around the world feel about it. Injustice is everywhere. Catching a criminal; the police can do this too. But perform a revolution in society they cant. The status of a god Kira has; he who is everywhere and can judge everyone, makes people fear doing "evil" things and eventually society will change. Not only because of fear, but also because everyone changes. Crimes will strongly reduce (of course not those of those who are mentaly ill).
You ask what about those who are judged wrong, and I ask what about those who fall victim to a crime. Not only small crimes but also little crimes that make people's life harder every day will decrease. Of course someone close to you might be misjudged, but just as well can he fall victim to a murderer.
And besides that -quote by Kira (or maybe Lelouch I forgot): "Those who are rightenous, seek me; those who are evil, fear me!"
If you got a white west false judgements are even more inprobable.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Why do you think morality and ethics are hypocritical?

Why? Just take the the religion or the pope for example. They say abortion and using condoms are wrong. And why? It's just wrong....thats way. It goes agains our religious believes? But whats really wrong with it? Moral is related to society and in different societies there would be different values. If morals are so vague how can they be worthy when in the end absolutely nothing goods comes from it? Whats good in woman having to carry out a child they got from a rapist and carry out a child when they cant afford being mother? Whats good in spreading aids and getting more and more children especially in poor countries and poor families because you are not allowed to use condoms? Are you allready destroying the life of a child using condoms? Or arnt you rather destroying the lifes of the poor parents and women all over the world by having those values as religious rules?
In our many social conventions, norms and morals have lost their meaning or were men-made and had never any to begin with. Often the only way to justify us acting according to those morals is to say "this just isnt right", "it has always been that way" and so on.
That is what I mean with hypocritical morals. Morals that have lost their meaning and benefit for society and are based on nothing but thinn air.
Of course its not quite as easy to apply this on Light's actions or death penalty, but there are definetly strong tendencies of what ive said in those who criticize those 2.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Mephisto2k

Injustice is everywhere. Catching a criminal; the police can do this too. But perform a revolution in society they cant.

But why is such a revolution either necessary or desirable?

Originally Posted by Mephisto2k

Crimes will strongly reduce (of course not those of those who are mentaly ill). You ask what about those who are judged wrong, and I ask what about those who fall victim to a crime. Not only small crimes but also little crimes that make people's life harder every day will decrease. Of course someone close to you might be misjudged, but just as well can he fall victim to a murderer.

There's lots of ways to reduce crimes without having to go to such extremes. Reducing crimes through fear is also not all that different from what Stalin did. However, most people would say that the cure was much worse than the disease. The case with Light is not altogether different.

It's also inherently a worse thing for an innocent person to die by the actions of the law than it would be for him to die at the hand of a criminal.

Originally Posted by Mephisto2k

Why? Just take the the religion or the pope for example. They say abortion and using condoms are wrong. And why? It's just wrong....thats way. It goes agains our religious believes? But whats really wrong with it? Moral is related to society and in different societies there would be different values.

The last sentence is correct. But even if some systems of morality are invalid (and indeed, some are), that doesn't mean that all of them are.

Originally Posted by Mephisto2k

In our many social conventions, norms and morals have lost their meaning or were men-made and had never any to begin with. Often the only way to justify us acting according to those morals is to say "this just isnt right", "it has always been that way" and so on.

Morality has always been a man-made artifact. I'm not sure, however, why you seem to imply that there's anything negative about that. Why would you say that it's either lost its meaning or its validity. It seems to me as if you're projecting a problem with one system onto morality as a whole. It doesn't seem like a valid argument to make.

Originally Posted by Mephisto2k

That is what I mean with hypocritical morals. Morals that have lost their meaning and benefit for society and are based on nothing but thinn air.

On the contrary. Morality addresses the question of how we should behave towards one another. If it really loses its benefits to society, then society itself would collapse. Since this doesn't seem to have happened, the logical explanation is that morality is still alive and well.

[ThisIsDream]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

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

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

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

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

[4Tran]

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

[Ptolemi]

People here don't understand how history works. Winners get to write it. If Light wins then he is right. If he looses he is wrong.

Simple as that.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

People here don't understand how history works. Winners get to write it. If Light wins then he is right. If he looses he is wrong.

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

[ThisIsDream]

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

[4Tran]

Sigh... It doesn't have anything to do with Light; I was trying to use it as an example of why just lowering the crime rate doesn't necessarily accomplish anything. Since the point seems to have completely sailed over your head, I'll repost our exchange:


You:
Ya, nice.
Kira's world = Criminal rate drop
Law = Criminal rate drop
I see the common ^^ in different ways

"It doesn't mean as much as you may think. Technically, just killing everyone will make the crime rate drop, as will making all crimes legal. The questions are whether the gains outweigh the drawbacks, and whether the solution is proportional to the problem."


You:
what do u mean by making all crimes legal.

"It means that if you all of a sudden you legalize some crimes (say drug trafficking), then that act would no longer count as a crime.

To illustrate:

Month 1
Drug Trafficking - 1000 acts
Other Crimes - 5000 violations
Total Crimes = 6000 violations

Month 2 (Drug Trafficking is legalized)
Drug Trafficking - 2000 acts
Other Crimes - 5000 violations
Total Crimes = 5000 violations

You haven't actually done anything to make anyone safer, but there's now technically less crimes committed."


You:
Can u make it more specific, what kind of crimes did Raito legalized?

"I'm not trying to claim that Light legalized any crimes; I'm merely pointing out that just lowering the crime rate isn't really indicative of anything. It's more important to look at it on a cost/benefit basis."


Please try to comprehend what other people are trying to say before complaining about it and trotting out the same tired arguments.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Hi everyone,

I would have much preferred to have started a new thread rather than to add to this one, but I don't have the privileges to do so.

In some parts of this thread, there has been the suggestion that morality is relative. In particular, it is used to defend Light's and L's actions in various different contexts, ie, that the ends justifies the means.

The philosophical debate on morality is a very old one. And very unfortunately, it is very often linked to religion as well, so references to it cannot be avoided.

(1)
There is the popular belief if a Divine Law-Giver does not exist, then there would be no difference between right or wrong, ie morality is relative.

Any discussion on morality must necessarily involve a discussion about Truth. If morality were relative, then so would Truth be relative -- your judgement/opinion on a moral issue would be as equally true as the next individual's.

(2)
But it can be demonstrated that at least 2 absolute truths exist.

a) You exist. The very fact that you are aware of your own existence is an absolute truth.

b) You can reason. The fact that you are capable of doubting your own existence, but come to a reasonable conclusion that you do exist ("I think therefore I am") is another absolute truth.

Without these two axioms, there can be no basis for logic to begin with.

(3)
Since absolute truths do exist, it follows that Truth cannot be relative.

It then follows that there must exist an absolute, or rather, a universal set of morals that is true for all human beings, regardless of race, language or religion.

(4)
Then why the popular contradiction? It's unfortunate, but it's usually the case that people confuse different "perceptions" of absolute Truth as evidence of the existence of relative Truth.

The Earth is round. It is a sphere. That is an absolute Truth ever since the world was created. But at one point in time, people sincerely believed that the world was flat. But just because they believed that to be the case doesn't change the fact that the world was INDEED round. They just haven't discovered the Truth yet.

(5)
By extension -- Light's actions, from the very beginning, cannot be considered moral.

We can easily rationalise why his actions, to create a world free of criminals, is justified. But at the same time, we cannot deny that our gut feelings tell us that what he is doing is wrong.

That "gut feeling" comes our perception of an absolute moral -- that it is simply wrong to deny someone else his most basic right to existence, whatever your reason for doing so.

Now, this perception has by no means been fully described by the best philosophers out there -- the jury is still out. But, from observation, because almost all civilisations espouse this belief, there is a very reasonable chance that "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral that is universal to all.

[ThisIsDream]

The thing is Light know there are crimes he cant stop, but there are crimes such as planned crimes, malicious crimes can be lower or can be stop.
And what do u mean by Other crimes? Impulsive crimes? Ya, Light knows that, he is not perfect.
Your example can fits in the current law system as well.

[myopius]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

(2)
But it can be demonstrated that at least 2 absolute truths exist.

a) You exist. The very fact that you are aware of your own existence is an absolute truth.

b) You can reason. The fact that you are capable of doubting your own existence, but come to a reasonable conclusion that you do exist ("I think therefore I am") is another absolute truth.

Without these two axioms, there can be no basis for logic to begin with.

What does it mean to be aware of your own existence? To experience perception? What is that? You assume that for experience to "occur" (I quote that since there's no word which exists which fully describes what I mean) then it (which you, by the way, fallaciously assume to be related to an experiencer, but that's another issue entirely) must exist, because to occur is to have a property and that which has properties must exist. However, you have not yet proven that that which has properties must exist. In other words, there is this phenomena which we call experience, which you have decided to use as the basis for your conclusion but which you have yet to fully justify. Also, you have yet to establish that contradictions cannot exist. I'm inclined to believe they can, because as one philosopher said, "Anything follows from a contradiction", which is more convenient for me since then I can renconcile that that which has properities must exist and that non-existence is a property (since it's describable).

More importantly, what is the difference between truth and absolute truth and relative truth? Is relative truth less true than truth which is less true than absolute truth? Is what's relatively true only part of the time actually true? But, what if all humans were to die--would that experience itself justify that a human (experiencer) exists still be true? However, in that case, it describes a hypothetical situation, not a concrete and immediately usable one. I confused myself, in any case.

On a more serious note, I don't understand why you should say that logic is justified by these two. Do you mean there's no purpose to it if there's no human to use it? Well, that's true. However, logic can exist just fine without humans. For instance, "Humans do not exist. That which reasons must exist. Therefore, humans cannot reason." (The word "justified" is beautiful and cool, but if you didn't mean by it "make true", then that is what confused me, because whenever I see it in a formal setting, I assume it means that.)

(3)
Since absolute truths do exist, it follows that Truth cannot be relative.

It then follows that there must exist an absolute, or rather, a universal set of morals that is true for all human beings, regardless of race, language or religion.

Aye, if morals exist, and in the way you assume them to. In other words, if I read your words correctly, you say that because truth isn't relative, the truth of morals must not be relative. However, morals are just ideas, so how do we conclude that they exist? Hmm, I bet this has been cause for a lot of confusion between people--the difference between ideas of morals and morals themselves.

By extension -- Light's actions, from the very beginning, cannot be considered moral.

We can easily rationalise why his actions, to create a world free of criminals, is justified. But at the same time, we cannot deny that our gut feelings tell us that what he is doing is wrong.

That "gut feeling" comes our perception of an absolute moral -- that it is simply wrong to deny someone else his most basic right to existence, whatever your reason for doing so.

Now, this perception has by no means been fully described by the best philosophers out there -- the jury is still out. But, from observation, because almost all civilisations espouse this belief, there is a very reasonable chance that "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral that is universal to all.

If killing were acceptable, what kind of civilizations would we have? And if evolution didn't provide us with the ability to socialize that it isn't, would the impact of that on social order have allowed us to dominate the planet as we have? Actually I haven't really thought about this until just now, but you can just consider that food for thought, if you want. Anyway, the real issue at hand is, what is human instinct's connection with an "absolute moral" (if I'm correct to assume that by that you mean a moral which is absolutely true--if you didn't mean it by that, then what is an absolute moral, can we relate it to absolute truth and if so how)?

[TinyRedLeaf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[squish]

Wow, that was a well written post, and it inspired a lurker, me, to post a reply . Your post is clear and concise on what you want to say, which is rare. However, there are some areas in your argument that I find flawed.

(1)
First of all I agree with you that as humans we probably don't have or yet to have the capacity to draw the fine line between good and evil, if there is good and evil at all. I recall that your argument is that there is a universal set of morals that we ought to obey, this set is unchanging, and independent of what we believe morals are i.e. relative morality. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You say that different people draw the line between good and evil at different points on the spectrum and that this implies that there are extreme ends i.e. absolute good and evil. But you refute and contradict your conclusion by saying we don't ask whether the line exists or not, which means we don't ask if there is good and evil at all. Maybe its just that I don't understand the wording properly?

I dislike those who oppress their religious beliefs onto others as well. Expressing their faith is one thing, they are free to believe whatever they want but they should not force others into sharing their faith.

Although I agree with you that "thou shalt not kill", there is a difference between knowing and believing. You don't actually know that "thou shalt not kill", you only know that you believe that "thou shalt not kill". Knowing that "thou shalt not kill" means that you have seen or read the universal moral laws, which i doubt you have or else you would have said so .

Looking at the human world as an example is not sufficient to prove that there is a universal set or morals. If you look further back into time, some civilizations made human sacrifices, and many had no problems with waging wars in their own self interests. This actually implies moral relativity moreso than set moral codes.

(2)
I see you read Descarte's meditations it's an awesome read. But you did not see where he failed. Yes, there is absolute truth that one exists when he thinks, and that there is truth in what you believe your senses are telling you, but even Descarte and his followers could not make the link from one's psychological beliefs to the world outside the mind. Let me give an example to clarify:

My eyes tell me, there is a bug in my soup.
From this I can say "I know that my eyes are telling me there is a bug in my soup." but I cannot say "I know that there is a bug in my soup." because under the skeptical analysis senses are not 100% accurate and can be decieving and thus it cannot be knowledge which is 100% true.

(3) this is from your earlier post
I think here you have mistaken truth with knowledge. True/False is a property of a statement, Truth and Falsehood must always accompany a statement or else it is meaningless. So saying that there is absolute truth means nothing at all. If you mean that there is knowledge in this world, then by all means I agree with you.

Even if you ignore the paragraph above, your argument that if there are 2 absolute truths, then there are set moral codes does not make sense. If there are 2 absolute truths then there are only 2 absolute truths. 2 cows are blue does not mean all cows are blue. You are under the assumption that there are moral codes to prove that there are moral codes which is circular, you follow the same mistake as those you try to disprove.

This argument on whether there are ethics has been going on forever and has not been settled yet, and I don't believe it will ever be settled.

Now for my opinion on Light. He has a good intention, I think preventing crime is a desirable thing, however he is just using the wrong methods. Plus, when he dies of old age, how can he assure that someones gonna keep doing his job? People will soon notice that they can get away with crimes again, and all his murdering will have been for naught.

Peace