Death Note

[poochyena]

For anyone who has not read the manga or watched the anime, Death Note is about a highschool kid named Light that finds a book called the death note. With this book, he can write down anyones name in it, and they will then die 40 seconds later of a heart attack. So what he does is starts killing all the criminals in the world, anyone from people robbing a store to murders, trying to make a perfect world were there is no evil.

So my question is, would this be morally right? is he doing good for the world? or is he just a mass murder?

Tell me your thoughts, would you be for or against him if this really started to happen, and why?

[aoeu]

I doubt she could hold onto that book for long with such a broadcast strategy. Ignoring that, it seems wasteful to kill the criminals when you could force them to do things for you under the threat of death. It takes time to get the first few people to obey you, but things quickly speed up after that.

[Hedonic Treader]

If I had such a book, I'd keep it a secret to everybody and use it, in a slow but steady rhythm, to get rid of the total set of dictators on this planet.

[capefeather]

Uh, don't you kind of see for yourself the consequences of the Death Note thing? It's not just the fact that someone will stop you, but also the delusion that you have a perfect, consistent moral view of the world.

[LaserGuy]

The person with the book is clearly a serial killer, and is doing something far worse than the people that they are executing are. There's a reason that we don't allow vigilante justice.

Also, the strategy is probably rather ineffective. How many serious crimes does the average person witness in their lifetime? Not that many, I'd venture. Even if you went into areas with extremely high crime rates and went out looking for it, you'd still probably not find all that many where you could conclusively identify who was committing the crime--and then be able to figure out what the name of the perpetrator was. If Light isn't witnessing them first-hand, how does he know that he's killing the right person? I'm not convinced that a single person would be able to make a sufficiently large impact for people to realise the trend and change their behaviour--except perhaps in a very, very isolated area, and am certainly not convinced that he'd be able to eliminate that rather substantial risk for false positives.

[aoeu]

There's a reason that we don't allow vigilante justice.

There's plenty of already convicted people, free or in prison.

[LaserGuy]

There's a reason that we don't allow vigilante justice.

There's plenty of already convicted people, free or in prison.

And it is justifiable to murder them because...?

This may cut down on the number of false positives, true, but it's still vigilante justice.

[Роберт]

What if multiple people have the same name? Just writing "Jim Smith" for example, would kill thousands!

...does this book kill animals or only people?

[Deva]

What if multiple people have the same name? Just writing "Jim Smith" for example, would kill thousands!

...does this book kill animals or only people?

Requires a name and a face (in mind) to function. Never tried it on animals.

[Роберт]

Requires a name and a face (in mind) to function.

That sounds like a reasonable safeguard. Would question how that's possible, except the original premise is so far-fetched if accept it have to accept pretty much anything. So can assume if Light writes Mr. Takashi while thinking of an identical twin, the book would kill the one targeted only.

Okay, back to the idea of simple murder/killing that is fairly easy and untraceable.

[Xeio]

Uh, don't you kind of see for yourself the consequences of the Death Note thing? It's not just the fact that someone will stop you, but also the delusion that you have a perfect, consistent moral view of the world.

I'm reasonably sure that was not actually an affect of the note. Light was to say the least, mad with power. Especially given that other people who came into contact with the death notebook did not behave the same way. Of course, you could add it to the risks of existence of such a device.

I'm not really sure where I stand on the scenario itself though. The practical implementation of such a system by any individual would mean a lot of innocent people would more than likely get hurt/killed (not even directly as a result of the note itself), which really is reason enough to be dissuaded from its use.

[LaserGuy]

Requires a name and a face (in mind) to function.

That sounds like a reasonable safeguard. Would question how that's possible, except the original premise is so far-fetched if accept it have to accept pretty much anything. So can assume if Light writes Mr. Takashi while thinking of an identical twin, the book would kill the one targeted only.

We can take the magic out of this fairly easily and still have a plausible scenario to work with. Suppose we create a society where every crime (or every crime that is sufficiently severe--eg. all felonies) carries an automatic death sentence. What do you believe the effect on crime rates would be? Would this lead to a perfect society? Would this be a place where you would want to live?

[DaBigCheez]

Requires a name and a face (in mind) to function.

That sounds like a reasonable safeguard. Would question how that's possible, except the original premise is so far-fetched if accept it have to accept pretty much anything. So can assume if Light writes Mr. Takashi while thinking of an identical twin, the book would kill the one targeted only.

We can take the magic out of this fairly easily and still have a plausible scenario to work with. Suppose we create a society where every crime (or every crime that is sufficiently severe--eg. all felonies) carries an automatic death sentence. What do you believe the effect on crime rates would be? Would this lead to a perfect society? Would this be a place where you would want to live?

Or, to make it a more direct corollary - if the above system exists, and one person is "trusted", such that any person they accuse of a crime automatically is found guilty?

[distractedSofty]

We can take the magic out of this fairly easily and still have a plausible scenario to work with. Suppose we create a society where every crime (or every crime that is sufficiently severe--eg. all felonies) carries an automatic death sentence. What do you believe the effect on crime rates would be? Would this lead to a perfect society? Would this be a place where you would want to live?

You could argue that many states already have that. Many of them (for example, the United States) set the bar pretty high: "sufficiently severe" generally means "multiple homicide, at least". Real world experience shows that the Death penalty is a pretty ineffective deterrent of homicide, so a broadly applied death penalty certainly wouldn't lead to a perfect society.

It might have some effect on smaller crimes, but that's mainly because it's way out of proportion.

[Izawwlgood]

Broadcast that shit.
Because, one will act morally when one fears for one's life, right?

[SlyReaper]

Uh, don't you kind of see for yourself the consequences of the Death Note thing? It's not just the fact that someone will stop you, but also the delusion that you have a perfect, consistent moral view of the world.

I'm reasonably sure that was not actually an affect of the note. Light was to say the least, mad with power. Especially given that other people who came into contact with the death notebook did not behave the same way. Of course, you could add it to the risks of existence of such a device.

I'm not really sure where I stand on the scenario itself though. The practical implementation of such a system by any individual would mean a lot of innocent people would more than likely get hurt/killed (not even directly as a result of the note itself), which really is reason enough to be dissuaded from its use.

The people who used the Death Note all went bonkers though. It was never clear if it was as simple as going mad with power, or there was some further property of the notebook itself that caused it. If you remember, even Light himself only started on the worst criminals who were unambiguously guilty, but eventually moved on to killing non-criminals who looked like they might catch on to what he was up to.

Back on topic though, I think I'm comfortable declaring that a single individual having the power of life and death over other humans with no accountability is a Bad Thing™.

[Xeio]

The people who used the Death Note all went bonkers though. It was never clear if it was as simple as going mad with power, or there was some further property of the notebook itself that caused it. If you remember, even Light himself only started on the worst criminals who were unambiguously guilty, but eventually moved on to killing non-criminals who looked like they might catch on to what he was up to.

He didn't really "move on" so much as immediately after declaring himself god (epsiode 1) he met a challenger. Also, the executive, nor Misa wen't bonkers (though, Misa was obsessive for other reasons). Not to mention that L and M and other investigators that came into contact with one of the death notes didn't go insane. Only Light's disposition seemed to change dramatically as a direct result of the death note (though, it seems that he may have been a bit... egotistical even before that).

[yurell]

SPOILERS AHEAD:

Light could have been a tragic hero if he hadn't said he intended to become a god in the first bloody episode. Any moral arguments that could be made for his actions are rather undermined by his selfish intentions.

[Glass Fractal]

We can take the magic out of this fairly easily and still have a plausible scenario to work with. Suppose we create a society where every crime (or every crime that is sufficiently severe--eg. all felonies) carries an automatic death sentence. What do you believe the effect on crime rates would be? Would this lead to a perfect society? Would this be a place where you would want to live?

But that removes the key to the whole Kira plot, which was that Kira killed like a god (literally). This give the perception of incorruptibility, which actually seems to be true except for Light being crazy to start with, and total inescapably. Strictly speaking because of Light's own limitations he follows a Variable Ratio schedule of reinforcement. Death are random among the guilty, breaking the laws becomes a sort of Russian Roulette. You also can't revolt against a god, you have to accept judgment.

[Thesh]

The ends justify the means. If I kill a couple thousand gang members, causing a significant drop in crime and reducing the homicide rate such that the total number of homicides (including the ones I committed) over the next year are lower than they would have been, then overall I believe it to be morally right.

[yurell]

The ends justify the means. If I kill a couple thousand gang members, causing a significant drop in crime and reducing the homicide rate such that the total number of homicides (including the ones I committed) over the next year are lower than they would have been, then overall I believe it to be morally right.

But did you do it to establish your own reign of terror a la Kira? Don't forget, Light was willing to kill innocent people who got in his way too, and intended to become a god from the get-go. If he were doing it just for the justice, then maybe it could be justified (and Light be a tragic hero and probably a sympathise-able character) and you could use the 'ends justify the means'.
It's just his ends weren't necessarily in line with everyone's best interests, especially since he was murdering innocents (not to mention not everyone in prison is guilty).

[PeteP]

The ends justify the means. If I kill a couple thousand gang members, causing a significant drop in crime and reducing the homicide rate such that the total number of homicides (including the ones I committed) over the next year are lower than they would have been, then overall I believe it to be morally right.

I just wanted to point out how ridiculous unlikely that scenario is. For that scenario to be true the gang members would have to have caused slightly more than 1 death per person in the next year. The number of homicides per year in the USA is around 16k so your few thousands would have to be responsible for a huge part of all homicides. Good luck picking the right few thousands out of the few hundred thousand gang members.
You might have better chances if you used the death note to pressure the government into changing some laws, the homicide rate in the USA is quite high compared to some other countries so there is ample room for improvements

About the topic: I will only look at murder (because if we don't say it's okay to kill them for murder it's unlikely that we will say "it's okay to kill them for theft"). If you kill them to prevent future homicides I find it unlikely that a single person is good enough at predicting future murders to keep up a rate of more than 1 murder prevented per person killed, well maybe if the death note is used very sparingly. Though it will be almost impossible to determine whether you are actually successful or not.
If you aren't going the "ends justify the means" route and kill murderer because you think murderers deserve death, well sooner or later one of them will turn out to be innocent, let's see if you apply your rules to yourself.
Since I don't support the death penalty in an actual justice system, I wouldn't support it a the whims of a single person.

[Greyarcher]

The ends justify the means. If I kill a couple thousand gang members, causing a significant drop in crime and reducing the homicide rate such that the total number of homicides (including the ones I committed) over the next year are lower than they would have been, then overall I believe it to be morally right.

I just wanted to point out how ridiculous unlikely that scenario is. For that scenario to be true the gang members would have to have caused slightly more than 1 death per person in the next year. The number of homicides per year in the USA is around 16k so your few thousands would have to be responsible for a huge part of all homicides. Good luck picking the right few thousands out of the few hundred thousand gang members.
You might have better chances if you used the death note to pressure the government into changing some laws, the homicide rate in the USA is quite high compared to some other countries so there is ample room for improvements

Yes, there's always the practicality problem with getting the right people. The story skipped over that problem and simply pushed the premise that Light somehow managed to be extremely effective and created a very high deterrence level. For violent crime and war, IIRC. Looking only at those two effects, Light seemed to be a remarkably positive force.

Of course, there was the rather worrisome point that Light planned to very slowly and gradually shift to lesser crimes and vices. He was, in a rather literal sense, planning on becoming a god--if by that we mean an all-seeing judger who punishes moral infractions. Except his punishments come visibly and clearly on Earth instead of only being threatened in an unseen afterlife.

...it's an interesting question. If believers thought it was their God's actions, I can't help but think many would support it whole-heartedly. And from a merely consequentialist viewpoint, if it were done accurately and incorruptibly, I can't help but suspect it might ultimately be a very positive force for humanity. But actually being able to pull off those two adverbs is a major sticking point.

[aoeu]

The ends justify the means. If I kill a couple thousand gang members, causing a significant drop in crime and reducing the homicide rate such that the total number of homicides (including the ones I committed) over the next year are lower than they would have been, then overall I believe it to be morally right.

I just wanted to point out how ridiculous unlikely that scenario is. For that scenario to be true the gang members would have to have caused slightly more than 1 death per person in the next year.

You would be stopping far more crimes than just those which would have been committed by the people actually killed. Organized crime disappears if there's no one left in the organisation.

[Lucrece]

Not to mention that homicide isn't the only outcome with strong moral reasons for being deterred. Assault and rape can kill a victim's spirit. Life-long trauma and harm (mutilation, being paralyzed or suffering brain damage as a result of assault) are just as terrible outcomes to a crime. Suicide from relentless harassment is more subtle murder.

We just happen to have disproportionate sentences between murder and assault. So repeat assault offenders ultimately get a chance to kill someone despite a clear display of violent disposition lethal to those around them. It could be argued that less murder charges would be processed if violent behavior was more seriously addressed at its beginnings rather than letting them fester.

[PeteP]

Of course, there was the rather worrisome point that Light planned to very slowly and gradually shift to lesser crimes and vices. He was, in a rather literal sense, planning on becoming a god--if by that we mean an all-seeing judger who punishes moral infractions. Except his punishments come visibly and clearly on Earth instead of only being threatened in an unseen afterlife.

...it's an interesting question. If believers thought it was their God's actions, I can't help but think many would support it whole-heartedly. And from a merely consequentialist viewpoint, if it were done accurately and incorruptibly, I can't help but suspect it might ultimately be a very positive force for humanity. But actually being able to pull off those two adverbs is a major sticking point.

I could imagine that if a god kills of people well he surely has his reasons and I think people would treat death by gods hand as akin to dying to a natural catastrophe it's nothing you can rage at.
And strong believers might celebrate that their god takes care of all these criminals.
In fact i could imagine that once someone came up with that idea the big religions might try to claim this godly punishments for their god. After all you rarely get the chance to say "here did you see that our god is truly powerful" (if it's an christ he might add an explanation why that doesn't clash with omnibenevolence).

But what I find more interesting is what would happen if people realized that another humans was doing it without knowing who was responsible. I think it's possible to figure out after all people don't die when they commit some crime, they die when others get to know about it, which hints to a person with limited knowledge. And with enough time they might even figure out that people with fake names don't get killed.

How would society change if everyone knew that there was someone out there who could kill them from afar?
And if they knew that a name was necessary would it change to a system with a public name and a true name known only to a few people? (Btw did the death note manga say anything about name changes and if stage names work?)

The ends justify the means. If I kill a couple thousand gang members, causing a significant drop in crime and reducing the homicide rate such that the total number of homicides (including the ones I committed) over the next year are lower than they would have been, then overall I believe it to be morally right.

I just wanted to point out how ridiculous unlikely that scenario is. For that scenario to be true the gang members would have to have caused slightly more than 1 death per person in the next year.

You would be stopping far more crimes than just those which would have been committed by the people actually killed. Organized crime disappears if there's no one left in the organisation.

So what are the current conversion rates between other crimes and murder? I ignored other crimes because I don't know how many cases of extortion/theft/assault/rape/jaywalking/littering/fraud/etc. one has to prevent to justify one murder if one goes the "end justifies the means" route. Though I guess I could rephrase it in "slightly more than one murder equivalent which would have been committed by the person itself or where indirectly prevented by affecting the rest of the organization."
But for destroying the organizations, well possible but since I was talking about gangs: Are there big public registries of gang members with photos and name? Because you need to kill quite a few to make a dent in their numbers. If you have access to police files it might be possible to target the leaders and everyone who could replace them, and maybe they will break apart.
But yeah if killing said person reduced the crimes others committed you should calculate that in.
(Though for me it's a moot point anyway since I never really cared about that type of moral arithmetics.)

[iChef]

Something like that is too powerful for one person to hold. We can all sit here and say we would use it to become superheros of justice and only kill the worst scum of the Earth, but that wouldn't really happen. First there is too great a chance to kill the wrong suspect. Second, I admit I would be using it to make the line move faster in the grocery store, sneak into concerts and rob armored cars, probably all by week 2 or 3.

[poochyena]

(Btw did the death note manga say anything about name changes and if stage names work?)

i'm not to sure about if someone changes there name, but you have to write down there real name/you can't write down a fake name that they call themselves(its why light couldn't kill L)


Also, Light mentions that that over time, he would have started killing people simply because they were lazy and didn't contribute much. So he doesn't necessarily kill people because there bad, but because they do not contribute to society.

crime rates would go down not simply because your killing off all the bad people, but because of the fear that your being watched by a god like person that could kill you at any moment. Today, you have a fairly decent chance of committing a crime and getting away, but with kira, there is a very very very small chance that you will be able to get away, so less people will chance it(+its a greater risk, jail > death).

Something like that is too powerful for one person to hold. We can all sit here and say we would use it to become superheros of justice and only kill the worst scum of the Earth, but that wouldn't really happen. First there is too great a chance to kill the wrong suspect. Second, I admit I would be using it to make the line move faster in the grocery store, sneak into concerts and rob armored cars, probably all by week 2 or 3.

rofl, yea, i really don't think a line is going to go faster if someone suddenly dies in line.
If you read Death Note, you would understand how thats not a good idea, it would make it obvious who is doing the killings and with security cameras, they'll see you killing someone by writing a name in a book, and then acting completely normal about it.

[Thesh]

So what are the current conversion rates between other crimes and murder?

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I mean, even with murder, it can depend on your victim:

Elderyly man with no friends or family: 5-10
5 year old kid: 70-100
Single mother of 5: could be up to 300-500
Rape: 1-60 depending
Assault: could be as low as 1/100 or as high as 50-60 depending on the severity and age of the victim.
Robbery: typically less than 1, although it could be 2 or 3 in some circumstances.
Arson: a house could be as high as 5, a brush fire that takes out many houses could possibly reach into the hundreds.
Petty theft: rarely more than 1/500
burglary: in some circumstances, it can reach a 1 or maybe even a 2.

[LaserGuy]

So what are the current conversion rates between other crimes and murder?

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I mean, even with murder, it can depend on your victim:

Elderyly man with no friends or family: 5-10
5 year old kid: 70-100
Single mother of 5: could be up to 300-500
Rape: 1-60 depending
Assault: could be as low as 1/100 or as high as 50-60 depending on the severity and age of the victim.
Robbery: typically less than 1, although it could be 2 or 3 in some circumstances.
Arson: a house could be as high as 5, a brush fire that takes out many houses could possibly reach into the hundreds.
Petty theft: rarely more than 1/500
burglary: in some circumstances, it can reach a 1 or maybe even a 2.

I'm trying to see that I'm reading this correctly, but you are saying that, in your mind, one rape could be equal to sixty murders and is always equal to at least one? And one assault could be the same? And destruction of an animate object is worth five people's lives? Or are you trying to say something else here?

[Роберт]

So what are the current conversion rates between other crimes and murder?

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I mean, even with murder, it can depend on your victim:

Elderyly man with no friends or family: 5-10
5 year old kid: 70-100
Single mother of 5: could be up to 300-500
Rape: 1-60 depending
Assault: could be as low as 1/100 or as high as 50-60 depending on the severity and age of the victim.
Robbery: typically less than 1, although it could be 2 or 3 in some circumstances.
Arson: a house could be as high as 5, a brush fire that takes out many houses could possibly reach into the hundreds.
Petty theft: rarely more than 1/500
burglary: in some circumstances, it can reach a 1 or maybe even a 2.

I'm trying to see that I'm reading this correctly, but you are saying that, in your mind, one rape could be equal to sixty murders and is always equal to at least one? And one assault could be the same? And destruction of an animate object is worth five people's lives? Or are you trying to say something else here?

Even the least bad murder on the list (friendless elderly) was 5 morality points. So you're reading it wrong.

[Gelsamel]

I'm surprised no one has brought up what really happened in the story, because Light's justification for his actions is easily the most convincing (though not necessarily convincing).

There is a lot of misconceptions about what was going on in the first episode.

When Light originally used the Death Note he was -completely freaked out-. And after confirming that it actually does kill people he went through a moral crisis. But the solution he came to wasn't just that he wanted to be a god.

The solution Light came to was that the reason that due process and laws against vigilanteism and tyranny etc. exist isn't because those things are inherently bad... but rather that without those things ANYONE can exert their will over ANYONE else. Much like what Thomas Paine said "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Remember when he talks about what the "Right" answer is? It is very clear he understands why vigilanteism is considered immoral in our culture.

But again, as he explicitly explains in the first episode: Something about the world has changed. This is now a completely different situation. In this situation the world itself has changed to introduce an actor who has the ability to completely enforce a perfect moral standard. Unfortunately, it wasn't as easy as simply having the death note... it specifically had to be Light due to his intelligence, his grades, his father... but most importantly... his willingness to sacrifice ones own morals and steep oneself in sin and become a "God" that sets a universal standard.

In the first episode, Light proclaiming he will become a god isn't him being "insane" or "power hungry", as clearly established earlier in the episode... Light proclaiming he will become a god is Light acting the part of a 'God' who sets a universal moral standard. He needs to use the Death Note with INFINITE conviction. Use it like a god would use their power to strike down the wicked, because if he didn't... if he ever waivered in his conviction and thought "maybe I shouldn't be doing this" then every name he wrote in the book would have been meaningless... because at that point he'd simply become another murderer rather than a divine force executing a universal moral standard.

So I think the more interesting question is this:

If you are literally the ONLY being capable of universal righteous judgement. Then do you have a moral obligation to establish a universal moral standard?

Light thought so.

[curtis95112]

If you are capable of righteous judgement, I would suppose you would righteously judge if you have the obligation or not.

[fearless]

If you subscribe to the utilitarian argument (consequentialism) then yes, it is justified. It's been a while since I saw Death Note but if I recall correctly, Light went after /convicted/ criminals - people that were already tried and found guilty in a court of law (So slightly different to vigilantism imo). He was simply carrying out the punishment, as opposed to handing out moral sentences. As long as the holder of the book doesn't let the power take control then it's fine. It's like anyone who's in a position of power. They can exercise it diligently or they can abuse it. Abuse is wrong obviously and it happens more often than not, but it doesn't invalidate the need for having someone in that position of power. As a side note: I have no problem with capital punishment, and I don't see the point in wasting resources to keep prisoners on death role for decades.

[Nautilus]

So I think the more interesting question is this:

If you are literally the ONLY being capable of universal righteous judgement. Then do you have a moral obligation to establish a universal moral standard?

Light thought so.

This raises the inevitable question of whether there is a universal moral standard.

Light clearly thought he was the only one capable of implementing such a perfect standard; he clearly wasn't.

Spoiler:

I gave up on that show when three of the main characters were locked in prison for months, one of them in completely immobilizing restraints. High octane nightmare fuel, that.

[KnightExemplar]

If you subscribe to the utilitarian argument (consequentialism) then yes, it is justified. It's been a while since I saw Death Note but if I recall correctly, Light went after /convicted/ criminals - people that were already tried and found guilty in a court of law (So slightly different to vigilantism imo). He was simply carrying out the punishment, as opposed to handing out moral sentences.

Within the first 10 episodes, Light kills some 20+ FBI agents at the same time. It wasn't enough to just kill the one tracking him, he had to kill them all. The point here is very very quickly... Light goes from pure utilitarian to "Lets kill anyone who opposes me in the slightest". He's also very brutal in the way he kills some people.

Spoiler:

Like when he killed the Ray Penbar's Wife, he wrote down "Suicide to hide the body", since her husband was the one tracking Light.

There are SO MANY unconvicted people he kills. The above example is just a drop in the bucket. The point of Light's character is to highlight the slide from utilitarianism to bloodthirsty murderer. By the end of the series, he's killing even innocent people regularly to make his plans go forward.

Spoiler:

Like when he kills his college girlfriend (who by that point turned into a Newspaper Reporter). Hell, she was HELPING Light at the time when he wrote her name into the Death Note. He just wanted her dead so that she wouldn't have a chance at telling anyone her side of the story.

The first major turning point was when L threatens him in episode 2. L "goes on television" and calls Light out. And then Light writes his name in the Death Note. This is Light's first innocent blood. It just gets worse from there.

Requires a name and a face (in mind) to function.

That sounds like a reasonable safeguard. Would question how that's possible, except the original premise is so far-fetched if accept it have to accept pretty much anything. So can assume if Light writes Mr. Takashi while thinking of an identical twin, the book would kill the one targeted only.

Okay, back to the idea of simple murder/killing that is fairly easy and untraceable.

A funny spoiler if you don't mind.

Spoiler:

The super-cop "L" actually says that his name is some celebrity. Every time Light attempts to write the name "L" told him, he keeps thinking of the Celebrity. Basically, the super-copy uses this exact reasoning you have as a defense against the killer. And as an FWI, "L" is the super-cop who starts tracking the murders. He's never told his real name to anyone, and very few people have actually seen his face. So he's quite the perfect guy to go after Light.

[Gelsamel]

But if the Utilitarian goal is the perfect moral standard (as opposed to reducing harm) then it's very clear that Light's execution of people preventing that goal is utilitarian.

After all if Utopia is in arms reach, isn't preventing that utopia, even if passively and 'innocently' a 'crime'? It is in Light's eyes.

I'm not saying he didn't lose sight of what he was doing pretty quickly... I'm just saying it's a lot more complex than what people are saying. Light was never just holding to harm reduction utilitarianism... he was all about creating a universal moral standard. So of course people in the way would have to be removed.

[fearless]

Within the first 10 episodes, Light kills some 20+ FBI agents at the same time. It wasn't enough to just kill the one tracking him, he had to kill them all. The point here is very very quickly... Light goes from pure utilitarian to "Lets kill anyone who opposes me in the slightest". He's also very brutal in the way he kills some people.

There are SO MANY unconvicted people he kills. The above example is just a drop in the bucket. The point of Light's character is to highlight the slide from utilitarianism to bloodthirsty murderer. By the end of the series, he's killing even innocent people regularly to make his plans go forward.

That's an example of the power/authority being abused (which is wrong obviously) - and perhaps abuse /is/ a naturally unavoidable consequence. But let's assume that the person with the book is as just and equitable as they come and he would never think of abusing his power, then is it still wrong? How about instead of giving one person the sole discretion to do whatever he likes, we hand the power to 2, or 3 (as an additional safeguard) and all 3 must sign off on the kill?

But if the Utilitarian goal is the perfect moral standard (as opposed to reducing harm) then it's very clear that Light's execution of people preventing that goal is utilitarian.

After all if Utopia is in arms reach, isn't preventing that utopia, even if passively and 'innocently' a 'crime'? It is in Light's eyes.

I suppose if I was completely apathetic and rational, I would think so too. If all lives were equal, then sacrificing 20 to save 100 would be justifiable. but we're not very rational and are sometimes too empathetic. the death of 20 innocents (right now) carries a heavier emotional burden than the rescue of 100 innocents (in the distant future) so we instinctively reject the sacrifice

I'm not saying he didn't lose sight of what he was doing pretty quickly... I'm just saying it's a lot more complex than what people are saying. Light was never just holding to harm reduction utilitarianism... he was all about creating a universal moral standard. So of course people in the way would have to be removed.

If his universal moral standard involves killing innocents then it's not so universal?

[tomtom2357]

That's an example of the power/authority being abused (which is wrong obviously) - and perhaps abuse /is/ a naturally unavoidable consequence. But let's assume that the person with the book is as just and equitable as they come and he would never think of abusing his power, then is it still wrong? How about instead of giving one person the sole discretion to do whatever he likes, we hand the power to 2, or 3 (as an additional safeguard) and all 3 must sign off on the kill?

How about this, if the person written in the death note was not guilty, then the note backfires, and kills the person who wrote the name, that would insure that the people who wrote the name were absolutely sure that the person was guilty, and would halt the corruption in using the book.

[TranquilFury]

The part that was most wrong, was that he pursued power as an end, rather than as a means to an end.