Quite a severe lack of intellectual rigour is going on there. If nothing happens to bad people then they’ll keep being bad people. The difference between the bad people and the good people is that the bad people do bad things because they like it. Good people do bad things to stop bad people from being bad people doing bad things.
If you let the bad people do bad things because you’re a good person and as a good person you don’t do bad things then the bad things may as well be done by the good people. It’s all the same.
Light went after people in the prison system or suspected of being criminals, without ever doubting the justness of the system in any way. He is useful idiot, delusional agent of the system or megalomaniacal bootlicker. Choose your pick.
Ryuk was pretty hands off throughout the whole thing. He kind of just sat there and basked in the spectacle. Hell, there were points where he was shocked a human was even capable of going as far as Light did.
Maybe I missed that (I watched it twice), but to me it appeared very much so that he had (except after the intricate swaps, which erased his memory) full agency, and was the one pushing the limits/boundaries of the mechanic.
Of course one can make the point that power corrupts etc., and the Shinigamis are attached to that power. In a way, they embody power and could be seen as the corrupting force, but that is as far as I would take that. At least Riuk was emotionally detached/had no real stake in it. I don’t recall him ever endorsing or driving him to persue his mission. Maybe his subdued admiration of Lights “shenanigans” can be seen as adding fuel to the his (ego) fire, but that also is a defect Light has had before, not instilled by Riuk.
I just always took his “admiration” as a subtle nod to the darker forces at play. Like he isnt directly telling him to do it but he is definitely feeding off of it in a sense and lightly encourages it. Its not blatant. I always took the apples to be that kind of metaphor
Ok, but you do realize you can punish someone without killing, right? It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Bad people can be prevented from doing more bad things without any blood being shed.
You can try but look what happened when we didn’t finish off the slavers and the Nazis. They linger on until an orange shitstain comes along and empowers them.
I don’t think good and bad are that subjective. You can get into the weeds but it can be pretty well boiled down to “treat others the way you want them to treat you” is good and “treat others in a way you wouldn’t want them to treat you” is bad. We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
“One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” is a concise way that the goodness or badness of an actions or outcomes is filtered through the subjective lens of the whoever happens to be considering the topic.
On an individual level, “don’t be a dick” is a pretty useful guideline , but even that is subject to what each person thinks constitutes dickish behaviour.
We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
Even that is subjective, think about what is socially acceptable in Finland?, how about Russia?, Morocco? France?
Do they all have the same idea of socially acceptable behaviours?
How about now vs 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years in the future?.
Sure, there are some that are fairly common, but i wouldn’t consider those to be of a sufficient percentage of the whole that i could disregard behvaioural subjectivity, but that’s just my opinion.
That whole idea is poorly thought out. In the split second of danger presented in the situation where a good guy with a gun could stop something, no one has any idea what is happening or why or to who and the decision must be made in seconds. No wonder good guy with gun doesn’t just start blasting. If their goal is to not hurt good people, blasting away is a good way to hurt Innocents.
Not to mention, people don’t like getting shot themselves.
What is good or bad?
Whats bad on one side is good on the other. Both sides are good with the other side bad, from their point of view. With no objective good or bad, neither is, and morality means nothing so you can do anything with a clear conscience.
Sorry but that’s irrelevant. Who personally views themselves as good and bad isn’t relevant to how I apply your logic from my perspective.
The danger comes in thinking that everything you do is good simply because you do it.
You shouldn’t hurt people if you don’t have to but that’s not the same as saying that violence should be avoided at all costs and that it’s never useful, or even ultimately the lesser evil.
I have a problem with these absolutists the tried to suggest that the situation should never be taken into account and that violence is always bad. It’s intellectually dishonest and it’s naive.
Quite a severe lack of intellectual rigour is going on there. If nothing happens to bad people then they’ll keep being bad people. The difference between the bad people and the good people is that the bad people do bad things because they like it. Good people do bad things to stop bad people from being bad people doing bad things.
If you let the bad people do bad things because you’re a good person and as a good person you don’t do bad things then the bad things may as well be done by the good people. It’s all the same.
Light went after people in the prison system or suspected of being criminals, without ever doubting the justness of the system in any way. He is useful idiot, delusional agent of the system or megalomaniacal bootlicker. Choose your pick.
I mean, wasnt he being led by a literal trickster demon…?
Ryuk was pretty hands off throughout the whole thing. He kind of just sat there and basked in the spectacle. Hell, there were points where he was shocked a human was even capable of going as far as Light did.
The “trickster demon” who in episode 1 hears Light’s plan and responds, “If you do that, you’ll be the only bad guy left?”
Ryuk didn’t make him do shit, he was just in it for the apples.
Maybe I missed that (I watched it twice), but to me it appeared very much so that he had (except after the intricate swaps, which erased his memory) full agency, and was the one pushing the limits/boundaries of the mechanic.
Of course one can make the point that power corrupts etc., and the Shinigamis are attached to that power. In a way, they embody power and could be seen as the corrupting force, but that is as far as I would take that. At least Riuk was emotionally detached/had no real stake in it. I don’t recall him ever endorsing or driving him to persue his mission. Maybe his subdued admiration of Lights “shenanigans” can be seen as adding fuel to the his (ego) fire, but that also is a defect Light has had before, not instilled by Riuk.
I just always took his “admiration” as a subtle nod to the darker forces at play. Like he isnt directly telling him to do it but he is definitely feeding off of it in a sense and lightly encourages it. Its not blatant. I always took the apples to be that kind of metaphor
Ok, but you do realize you can punish someone without killing, right? It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Bad people can be prevented from doing more bad things without any blood being shed.
You can try but look what happened when we didn’t finish off the slavers and the Nazis. They linger on until an orange shitstain comes along and empowers them.
The problem with most things that use good and bad as a foundation is that they never account for perspective.
Good and bad are made up and subjective.
If you don’t account for that in your positions then you’re setting yourself up for fundamentalism.
Absolutely I am merely responding with the same level of intellectualism as the original comment.
If we can’t even get as far as sometimes violence is necessary and absolutism is a useless philosophy, then there’s no point getting into nuance.
I don’t think good and bad are that subjective. You can get into the weeds but it can be pretty well boiled down to “treat others the way you want them to treat you” is good and “treat others in a way you wouldn’t want them to treat you” is bad. We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
“One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” is a concise way that the goodness or badness of an actions or outcomes is filtered through the subjective lens of the whoever happens to be considering the topic.
On an individual level, “don’t be a dick” is a pretty useful guideline , but even that is subject to what each person thinks constitutes dickish behaviour.
Even that is subjective, think about what is socially acceptable in Finland?, how about Russia?, Morocco? France?
Do they all have the same idea of socially acceptable behaviours?
How about now vs 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years in the future?.
Sure, there are some that are fairly common, but i wouldn’t consider those to be of a sufficient percentage of the whole that i could disregard behvaioural subjectivity, but that’s just my opinion.
That’s why America has so many “good guys with guns”.
That whole idea is poorly thought out. In the split second of danger presented in the situation where a good guy with a gun could stop something, no one has any idea what is happening or why or to who and the decision must be made in seconds. No wonder good guy with gun doesn’t just start blasting. If their goal is to not hurt good people, blasting away is a good way to hurt Innocents.
Not to mention, people don’t like getting shot themselves.
What is good or bad? Whats bad on one side is good on the other. Both sides are good with the other side bad, from their point of view. With no objective good or bad, neither is, and morality means nothing so you can do anything with a clear conscience.
Where do pedophilia and rape fall in your intellectually lazy, moral relativism argument? What about freeing enslaved people?
Saying there is no objective good or bad only shows your lack of moral convictions.
Are you going to apply this logic to the activities which took place on Epstein Island?
Sorry but that’s irrelevant. Who personally views themselves as good and bad isn’t relevant to how I apply your logic from my perspective.
The danger comes in thinking that everything you do is good simply because you do it.
You shouldn’t hurt people if you don’t have to but that’s not the same as saying that violence should be avoided at all costs and that it’s never useful, or even ultimately the lesser evil.
I have a problem with these absolutists the tried to suggest that the situation should never be taken into account and that violence is always bad. It’s intellectually dishonest and it’s naive.