Death Note thread is retired, as you surely know, but i just recently finished watching it and basically read almost anything that got posted in the DN thread, and there found a topic that picked up my interest, which was http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...723#post724723 . I read kinda everything, but i wasn't really satisfied of users's answers: i actually felt like they were skipping something about this anime and its contents, so i wanted to bring up this matter again, but widening the discussion to a more philosophical level(and that's why i'm posting in here):
The matter i'm going to discuss is quite serious and delicate, and it's easily misunderstandable, so try to pay the maximum attention to the points i'm trying to make, because i have no bad intentions:
Before introducing you to my reasoning, i have to put some premises and hypotesis, so that i won't get misunderstood:
We are born, we don't know why, we don't know what we really are, and why we actually think. However, while we deal with these existence problems, we understand that we actually enjoy what's called happiness, and while we think about what/why/how we are, we seek happiness, eventually forgetting the main question. This is a thing one subconsciously does, and heavily influences our actions. Eventually the men come up with the concept of good and evil, and a good amount of people agrees with that concept, but what about those who don't? Are their opinions somehow inferior for who knows what reason? Then, are their opinions superior? Neither of those: they have the same weight. But then, who is right and who is wrong? Noone, simply because noone is in the posistion to state such thing. If it existed, only a superior being, often labeled as God, could say what is right and what is wrong, but so far noone showed up.
But then, what is good and what is evil? As stated before, we aren't in the position to say what is right and what not, therefore neither good nor evil exists: good and evil are only nouns that identify a set of behaviors, actions, traits, etc that are easy to use in the common language (With good you identify: altruism, charity, loyalty, sincerity or a set of actions considered good, such as helping others, not envying others, not stealing nor killing nor torturing etc. With evil you identify: egoism, greediness, lust, avarice or a set of actions considered bad/wrong, such as envying others, stealing, killing and so on. I just named the first that came in my mind, the lists could go on forever). My point is that with good and evil we can only identify a set of actions and behaviors or traits, but this doesn't imply whether those actions/behaviors/traits are right or wrong (where by "right" i mean something "that should be")
Now, as stated before, we seek happiness, but if i put it this way, you surely won't get the message, so i'll make an example:
Before being born i don't think, i'm not doing anything, i simply am not(or maybe i am, but i'm not conscious of it). When i'm born i wonder what is it, why i am here, who i am, but since i can't answers those questions for the moment, i start moving onwards and see what this world is about: i come to understand that i enjoy "happiness" (Put between "" because the concept of happiness is different from person to person, even tho there are some COMMON TRAITS), and since i'm here, i do my best to achieve it. I eventually grow up, get used to the society's stereotypes, get used to society's fashion, go to school, university, get a job, make a family and die happy. That is what people would define a "normal" life and a good goal of life(Even tho, in this case aswell, the concept of normal only identifies a set of behaviors and actions that are shared by a good percentage of people, but this doesn't mean that this is the right or wrong way of living a life). So, since i'm not able to answer the questions about myself at the moment, i put happiness as my main goal, and eventually forget about them.
I don't want to be misunderstood when i say "we seek happiness", because it may sound selfish; the thing is, it is selfish. You say that you would sacrifice everything for someone's happiness, therefore trying to tell me that it isn't true you seek your own happiness? The truth is that that person's happiness is your happiness, and what you are doing is according to your own goals of being happy. It surely sounds harsh put this way, but this is because everyone sees the word "selfish" under a very bad light, and tries in any way to deny it. I'm sure many of you won't agree with this, but i can easily understand why. I myself put a huge effort to admit it, and it wasn't easy, but after some reasoning i came to that conclusion. There is a person i would sacrifice everything for, but i understood that that person's happiness makes me happy, and eventually doing so would directly or indirectly lead to my happiness anyways. Once again, i put it in a quite harsh way, but there is no offense intended. Just trying to move a step towards the comprehension of ourselves, so i'm asking you to be a bit more open minded than usual.
Now, if it was this simple, and people didn't interfere with others' happiness, everything would be fine: people wouldn't steal/kill/rape etc in the first place, therefore not disturbing others' happiness, we wouldn't have the need of police, of laws, of a kind of government, or the need of locking our own house's door. Such thing exists only in our fantasy, and is commonly labeled as utopia.
Since that kind of happiness is very far from reality, the only thing we can do is to minimize this problem, by applying come corrections, that come in the ways of laws, by making a corpus that is able of administrate a society (democracy, monarchy, ....), by creating a corpus called police to prevent or stop the "bad" people (Once again, i'm using the term "bad" or "evil" just for ease of speech, identifying, with it, a set of actions and characteristics) that will eventually get arrested for their "evil" deeds etc etc.
However, i think all these things are wrong (i don't want to get misunderstood, so i'll explain myself): laws obviously go against a man's freedom, but it's the least "evil", since it prevents many other potential "bad" things. Democracy or any kind of government itself is wrong, for many reasons that i won't list here (i do not want to start some politic flamewar), but it's considered (by some) the least "evil", since it prevents many "bad" things; arresting someone is wrong, because you are in no position of destroying someone's freedom, but it is the least "evil" since, by doing so, you prevent a lot more of evil.
All these things are corrections; i would define them as an approximation of "good" (this time, by good i mean anything that allows the maximum amount of happiness for everyone, considering all the "bad" things there are at this world; this doesn't imply that everyone is getting the same amount of happiness, or that everyone is going to be happy, but just that this set of measures and corrections is intended to provide the maximum obtainable "good". Yes, we could do better than this, and that is why i said an "approximation" of good.). If this isn't enough clear, i'll make another example that should be easier to comprehend:
- Let's say i wanted to exactly determine the distance between earth and the moon, from where i am at the moment, to the center of the moon: by doing some calculation i come up with a result: is that result correct? Hell no, but since it is impossible to exactly make ANY determination without making some error, i'm happy with a good approximation of that distance.
After these premises, i'll get to the point:
- Light of Death Note wanted to clean the world from evil, by killing any criminal with the note. Countless debates went on for long, with the main subject being "Is light right or wrong? Is he some mad dude with a god complex or a good person? Is he morally right or wrong?" and everyone just kept answering "right" or "wrong", justifying their points.
However, i felt all the way like they weren't putting much effort in deeply thinking about it. What is the real answer? Is Light wrong or right? Both:
What Light is doing is (morally) "wrong", because he's in no position to judge, and hasn't any right to put an end to someone's freedom or life just because he thinks it's the right thing; on the other side, what he's doing could be considered a good approximation of good, since he's minimizing the overall evil, taking the burden of becoming himself evil. This is how i tend to see it. I'm not saying that Light is right (I am against any kind of penalty involving death, and stated before that we are in no position of judging others), but that he's the least evil, let's even say the best compromise, since he's favoring the COMMON TRAITS of our happiness (Meaning that he's making everyone happy, no matter what concept of happiness we have). Let's say he's eliminating what could constitute an obstacle to our happiness, even tho what he's doing is wrong. Once again, don't get me wrong: i'm not saying that what Light is doing is right.
Now, i wanted to hear again your opinions about this subject, hoping this time you'll think a bit more about it.
IMPORTANT:
My intention isn't that of causing a flamewar, neither of igniting your spirits; i would like you to reflect some more before replying, and to try to comprehend my points. I'm aware that not everyone will agree to this, but that's the reason why i made this topic: i wanted to share my thoughts with you and learn your points of views on the matter, eventually confrontating our points and ideas. As i tried to say many times, i didn't make this topic with the intention of offending anyone, so if something about what i said bothers you, let me know about it, because it may just be a misunderstanding(since the matter is quite delicate and things easily equivocable): i am very willing to further explain my views, in the case i hadn't been enough clear. I hope we can build up a constructive conversation without deviating in some raging battle.
The matter i'm going to discuss is quite serious and delicate, and it's easily misunderstandable, so try to pay the maximum attention to the points i'm trying to make, because i have no bad intentions:
Before introducing you to my reasoning, i have to put some premises and hypotesis, so that i won't get misunderstood:
We are born, we don't know why, we don't know what we really are, and why we actually think. However, while we deal with these existence problems, we understand that we actually enjoy what's called happiness, and while we think about what/why/how we are, we seek happiness, eventually forgetting the main question. This is a thing one subconsciously does, and heavily influences our actions. Eventually the men come up with the concept of good and evil, and a good amount of people agrees with that concept, but what about those who don't? Are their opinions somehow inferior for who knows what reason? Then, are their opinions superior? Neither of those: they have the same weight. But then, who is right and who is wrong? Noone, simply because noone is in the posistion to state such thing. If it existed, only a superior being, often labeled as God, could say what is right and what is wrong, but so far noone showed up.
But then, what is good and what is evil? As stated before, we aren't in the position to say what is right and what not, therefore neither good nor evil exists: good and evil are only nouns that identify a set of behaviors, actions, traits, etc that are easy to use in the common language (With good you identify: altruism, charity, loyalty, sincerity or a set of actions considered good, such as helping others, not envying others, not stealing nor killing nor torturing etc. With evil you identify: egoism, greediness, lust, avarice or a set of actions considered bad/wrong, such as envying others, stealing, killing and so on. I just named the first that came in my mind, the lists could go on forever). My point is that with good and evil we can only identify a set of actions and behaviors or traits, but this doesn't imply whether those actions/behaviors/traits are right or wrong (where by "right" i mean something "that should be")
Now, as stated before, we seek happiness, but if i put it this way, you surely won't get the message, so i'll make an example:
Before being born i don't think, i'm not doing anything, i simply am not(or maybe i am, but i'm not conscious of it). When i'm born i wonder what is it, why i am here, who i am, but since i can't answers those questions for the moment, i start moving onwards and see what this world is about: i come to understand that i enjoy "happiness" (Put between "" because the concept of happiness is different from person to person, even tho there are some COMMON TRAITS), and since i'm here, i do my best to achieve it. I eventually grow up, get used to the society's stereotypes, get used to society's fashion, go to school, university, get a job, make a family and die happy. That is what people would define a "normal" life and a good goal of life(Even tho, in this case aswell, the concept of normal only identifies a set of behaviors and actions that are shared by a good percentage of people, but this doesn't mean that this is the right or wrong way of living a life). So, since i'm not able to answer the questions about myself at the moment, i put happiness as my main goal, and eventually forget about them.
I don't want to be misunderstood when i say "we seek happiness", because it may sound selfish; the thing is, it is selfish. You say that you would sacrifice everything for someone's happiness, therefore trying to tell me that it isn't true you seek your own happiness? The truth is that that person's happiness is your happiness, and what you are doing is according to your own goals of being happy. It surely sounds harsh put this way, but this is because everyone sees the word "selfish" under a very bad light, and tries in any way to deny it. I'm sure many of you won't agree with this, but i can easily understand why. I myself put a huge effort to admit it, and it wasn't easy, but after some reasoning i came to that conclusion. There is a person i would sacrifice everything for, but i understood that that person's happiness makes me happy, and eventually doing so would directly or indirectly lead to my happiness anyways. Once again, i put it in a quite harsh way, but there is no offense intended. Just trying to move a step towards the comprehension of ourselves, so i'm asking you to be a bit more open minded than usual.
Now, if it was this simple, and people didn't interfere with others' happiness, everything would be fine: people wouldn't steal/kill/rape etc in the first place, therefore not disturbing others' happiness, we wouldn't have the need of police, of laws, of a kind of government, or the need of locking our own house's door. Such thing exists only in our fantasy, and is commonly labeled as utopia.
Since that kind of happiness is very far from reality, the only thing we can do is to minimize this problem, by applying come corrections, that come in the ways of laws, by making a corpus that is able of administrate a society (democracy, monarchy, ....), by creating a corpus called police to prevent or stop the "bad" people (Once again, i'm using the term "bad" or "evil" just for ease of speech, identifying, with it, a set of actions and characteristics) that will eventually get arrested for their "evil" deeds etc etc.
However, i think all these things are wrong (i don't want to get misunderstood, so i'll explain myself): laws obviously go against a man's freedom, but it's the least "evil", since it prevents many other potential "bad" things. Democracy or any kind of government itself is wrong, for many reasons that i won't list here (i do not want to start some politic flamewar), but it's considered (by some) the least "evil", since it prevents many "bad" things; arresting someone is wrong, because you are in no position of destroying someone's freedom, but it is the least "evil" since, by doing so, you prevent a lot more of evil.
All these things are corrections; i would define them as an approximation of "good" (this time, by good i mean anything that allows the maximum amount of happiness for everyone, considering all the "bad" things there are at this world; this doesn't imply that everyone is getting the same amount of happiness, or that everyone is going to be happy, but just that this set of measures and corrections is intended to provide the maximum obtainable "good". Yes, we could do better than this, and that is why i said an "approximation" of good.). If this isn't enough clear, i'll make another example that should be easier to comprehend:
- Let's say i wanted to exactly determine the distance between earth and the moon, from where i am at the moment, to the center of the moon: by doing some calculation i come up with a result: is that result correct? Hell no, but since it is impossible to exactly make ANY determination without making some error, i'm happy with a good approximation of that distance.
After these premises, i'll get to the point:
- Light of Death Note wanted to clean the world from evil, by killing any criminal with the note. Countless debates went on for long, with the main subject being "Is light right or wrong? Is he some mad dude with a god complex or a good person? Is he morally right or wrong?" and everyone just kept answering "right" or "wrong", justifying their points.
However, i felt all the way like they weren't putting much effort in deeply thinking about it. What is the real answer? Is Light wrong or right? Both:
What Light is doing is (morally) "wrong", because he's in no position to judge, and hasn't any right to put an end to someone's freedom or life just because he thinks it's the right thing; on the other side, what he's doing could be considered a good approximation of good, since he's minimizing the overall evil, taking the burden of becoming himself evil. This is how i tend to see it. I'm not saying that Light is right (I am against any kind of penalty involving death, and stated before that we are in no position of judging others), but that he's the least evil, let's even say the best compromise, since he's favoring the COMMON TRAITS of our happiness (Meaning that he's making everyone happy, no matter what concept of happiness we have). Let's say he's eliminating what could constitute an obstacle to our happiness, even tho what he's doing is wrong. Once again, don't get me wrong: i'm not saying that what Light is doing is right.
Now, i wanted to hear again your opinions about this subject, hoping this time you'll think a bit more about it.
IMPORTANT:
My intention isn't that of causing a flamewar, neither of igniting your spirits; i would like you to reflect some more before replying, and to try to comprehend my points. I'm aware that not everyone will agree to this, but that's the reason why i made this topic: i wanted to share my thoughts with you and learn your points of views on the matter, eventually confrontating our points and ideas. As i tried to say many times, i didn't make this topic with the intention of offending anyone, so if something about what i said bothers you, let me know about it, because it may just be a misunderstanding(since the matter is quite delicate and things easily equivocable): i am very willing to further explain my views, in the case i hadn't been enough clear. I hope we can build up a constructive conversation without deviating in some raging battle.