How in the FUCK is he wrong?

Because most mangaka/writers have shitty opinions and they're retarded. A logical person wouldn't choose a such shitty profession anyway

A god of death. Like literally a being with the power over death came down and gave him the power to kill people. Most fundamental rights are based on much less proof of a god then that.

Attached: WHO ELSE WOULD HAVE DONE IT.jpg (728x1061, 92K)

The entire ending was literally just people doing their jobs out of a selfish desire not out of any moral duty, it wasn’t just Light

Thing is, Light was evil from the start. When it comes to morals, the end doesn't justify the means. Killing is absolute evil, killing people who kill other people doesn't make you "good".

Crime rates are at a historic low and life expectancy at a historic high in most of the world.

Killing the Joker says otherwise

Well, that's probably because most of the world was a complete shithole until some time ago. If you consider only the most developed nations you'll see that it's not getting much better. Just take a look at US violent crime rates, for example, and you'll see that we're actually worse off than we were in the 60's.

Political division is at it's highest point since the Civil War, life expectancy has been trending downward in the US for the last four years, income inequality continues to worsen, medical expenses continue to balloon forcing dependance on a disfunctional insurance system, fish stocks are within a decade of collapse which will starve ~15% of the planet, and when we run out of helium in twenty years microchip prices with jump 20x and halt widespread use of electronics in its tracks.

>the end doesn't justify the means
You cannot be any more wrong even if you tried.

Manga answer: Light is evil for certain for killing people that simply opposed him regardless of your stance on killing criminals, and just as he says needs to be "destroyed," regardless of the consequences. He uses the concepts of good and evil to defend his god complex. Also something something not really making people moral
Was a possibility if it didn't get written off answer: Just as he says, weak people could have basically replicated his brand of evil and started killing (suspected) criminals to appease him and things could have gone really Twilight Zone
Real answer: He's going off the deep end anyway and could plunge the world into chaos with the Death Note, even if most normal people were pretty much out of his reach, and he's given his detractors enough reason to believe that he's willing to do it. Faith in him sticking to self imposed standards is a joke.

knew you'd reply with brainlet shit like this

I specified "when it comes to morals" for a reason. By the taking the phrase out of context and making a witty reply you're in fact not refuting anything.

You forgot that Climate change is becoming more obviously apparent and irreparable, the job market continues to refuse to improve for the lower middle class leaving people to suffer crippling depression just from trying to live off paycheck to paycheck, with political interests creating a new and arguably worse era of censorship in media so even those releases from your day to day stress are removed.
All while creativity for those medias continue to drop and we're all just dancing to the tunes of corporations that create inferior products that are consumed by the masses regardless.

You Either Die A Hero, Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain

Attached: 4ehdk24n9j831.jpg (543x767, 67K)

I didn't forget, I just picked things more strongly tied to single metrics since the kind of idiot who bases their idea of prosperity on life expectancy of all things will obviously need to be spoon-fed simple issues.

>Faith in him sticking to self imposed standards is a joke
You have to believe user. He was doing it for us.

Attached: 12.jpg (728x1054, 78K)

Alright then let me make this more clear to you:

>when it comes to morals, the end doesn't justify the means
You cannot be any more wrong even if you tried. You are wrong on all level.

It’s hilarious how delusional about himself he is. Or he’s just lying right in their face and knows he’s a piece of shit with god complex.

And why is that so?

GODDAMN

Attached: 1505807000783.jpg (1280x720, 48K)

He's definitely delusional. I think the story works a bit better that way, instead of "is Light good or evil???" we have person with a god complex thinking he can do no wrong, in a room full of people that know he's spouting bullshit, seeing a psycho with a scalpel of mass destruction and a lit fuse.

Morality serves the purpose of promoting human flourishing. Promoting actions that benifit noone as morally correct is pointless, dilutes the meaning of morality, and serves only to stroke your ego by giving yourself an opportunity to play the principled loser.

Why is killing bad?

He's not wrong. It's just written that way to be less controversial. The chances are, if you see a villian who has good motives, they are the views of the writer, but since they don't wanna be slammed as an extremist, they make that view into the bad guy who loses, to make you think, just as you are doing now

>a psycho with a scalpel of mass destruction and a lit fuse.
Don't mix your metaphors.

This, exactly

>yagami light isn't wrong

Attached: nothing ends.jpg (905x1426, 554K)

That due to capitalism, but pure evil still controls all nations.

>Promoting actions that benifit noone as morally correct is pointless, dilutes the meaning of morality
Funny you're saying that considering you're the one redefining the meaning of "morality".
Because life is good and dying is the opposite of living. Therefore, taking someone's life is evil.

>Killing is absolute evil,
So animals are absolute evil?

Animals don't have consciousness of their actions or an understanding of morals. Applying the concept of "good" or "evil" to them is moot.

Life is not inherently good nor is death inherently bad. Your simplistic views are childish beyond words. Life holds value for what it can accomplish, not simply for being. If your life nets negative for those around you, why should you live? You impovish the lives of others. Does this mean nothing to you?

>Life is not inherently good nor is death inherently bad.
I tip my fedora to you good sir

Being alive is the basis for all of your actions. There is not a single thing better than life, it's the absolute good that motivates all human interaction. If you weren't alive you wouldn't even have a set of morals to determine whether it is good or not.
Also, I'd argue that moral relativism is even more childish, as it argues against concepts that have been there from the start such as "killing/dying is bad" for the sole purpose of arguing against them. The circumstances behind a kill don't make it more moral, it just makes it more justifiable.

You need to be 18 or more to post here.

>anonymous board
>you have to write the name of the person

>There is not a single thing better than life
Let's lock you in a soundproof box with an IV drip and see how long it takes you to beg for death, then.
>If you weren't alive you wouldn't even have a set of morals to determine whether it is good or not.
Irrelevant. If I weren't alive, I would have no input on how life should be, and so I'd have no need of morals. Yet I live, and therefore morality is necessary.
>Also, I'd argue that moral relativism is even more childish, as it argues against concepts that have been there from the start such as "killing/dying is bad" for the sole purpose of arguing against them.
You miss the point. Nothing is beyond argument, because a point you can't defend is never justified. If it has good reason to exist, then it will be possible to make a logical argument for its existence. There are good arguments against wanton murder, and so every society has provisions against murder. There are good arguments in favor of killing in specific contexts, and so every society has sanctioned killing in specific contexts. The exact context varies from culture to culture, and to greater or lesser degrees, but not a single one drew a thick, hard line across all killing. It isn't productive, it isn't practical, and it isn't reasonable to do so.

My fundamental issue is your presenting absolutism as though refusal to examine your position via argument somehow solidifies it as correct, when at it does is show you prefer faith to reason.

Not him, but what is there to morals beyond being a set of values/thoughts that "justify" or decree certain actions as good or evil?

he got caught and everything he accomplished came tumbling down

>Let's lock you in a soundproof box with an IV drip and see how long it takes you to beg for death, then.
Not an argument.
>Irrelevant. If I weren't alive, I would have no input on how life should be, and so I'd have no need of morals. Yet I live, and therefore morality is necessary.
Why would you call my argument irrelevant, and then make a counter-argument using the exact same hypothetical I employed?
>The exact context varies from culture to culture, and to greater or lesser degrees, but not a single one drew a thick, hard line across all killing. It isn't productive, it isn't practical, and it isn't reasonable to do so.
That's not my argument. My argument is that killing is immoral. Of course there's more to life than just morals, and thus outside of the context of morality there are arguments to be made in order to justify killing. That doesn't make it any more moral, however.

Is killing a terrorist to prevent him from blowing a hundred of people immoral too?

>The world had sunk to rock bottom. Humanity was as rotten as could be.
This is how he's wrong. There is no rock bottom. No matter how fucked up things are, shit can always get worse.

It's all downhill since the 1930's.

I thought we'd already went over this a couple of posts ago.

But it's beneficial. So, shouldn't we praise the person making the sacrifice of becoming the evil that will fix the world?

>My argument is that killing is immoral
You are wrong according to every social system in history, which is as close to objectively wrong as you can be when discussing a social construct.

Justice is just applied morality. Trying to split "justified" and "morally correct" in two is ridiculous, especially when you're trying to put one over the other while detaching it from actual results.

Death Note is my favorite manga!

>he doesn't think killing your enemies means they win
Take the Trudeau-pill, user.

he isn't wrong in that specific page but whats wrong is how he thought he was the solution

Is it though: edition.cnn.com/2019/06/20/health/suicide-rates-nchs-study/index.html

Happiness is not a core value of humanity because we don't need it to live. The only moral choice is one that propagates the biological machine. Now I would personally have problems if the moral choice fucked me over however I acknowledge my personal feelings are irrelevant and that to act otherwise would be bad. That will in no way stop me from doing so but I full acknowledge the evil of such acts

>the US

who the fuck cares

You continue to draw a line between good/evil and moral/immoral when none exists. What's best for humanity is both good and morally sound. If you ever find a situation where something is considered both moral and evil, or good and immoral, that simply means your notions of morality are wrong and need fixing, because both those examples are an impossible contradiction of terms.

rock bottom would probably be the maximum of what the human psyche can endure before shutting down, such as physical pain until you pass out from it, the state just on the verge of passing out I'd define as rock bottom, and that can probably be applied to psychological pain too

Yeah he was not wrong. Without falling into the trope of the wrathful god that sets everything aflame to rebuild upon the ashes, I feel it was perfectly valid to get rid of those who are undeniably wrongdoers. If you were to apply that to our world, and really have the power to bring down every cartel, every drug lord, every corrupt politician, every single scum out that there that benefits from the impunity granted by one or another system, then that could potentially change the worldview of things and bring about something better.
Then again it could also just replace a bad batch with another ,and evil would just naturally make its way back to the top, as every human has the capacity for good and evil.

You're literally fucking retarded.

Probably the part where instead of actually doing research himself, he just killed anybody who showed up on the evening news in a negative light. Then threatened to kill the newscasters if they stopped naming people.

That's what the jews want you to think

Imagine thinking shit like "crime rates" apply to even a sliver of the population shit like porn addiction, divorce, abortion, drug addiction etc apply to

He is deranged, he can easily come up with an excuse on why x person is a danger to humanity and kill him on the spot

He was right until he started punishing people for petty reasons. He could've cultivated a more peaceful generation for the future by punishing only criminals but he decided to go full retard and started policing every little thing. His influence also only really affected nations that would report on their criminal activity, falls flat when you consider aliases and plastic surgery.

Because he was literally ruling society with fear that they'd be killed if they did anything even vaguely against the law.
I remember one scene where a kid did a minor misdemeanor and begged the police not to put him in a report because 'Kira would kill him'.
He also killed people who even vaguely knew about the Death Note, planned to kill Misa, was going to kill L and the rest of the Kira Investigation Unit for doing their job, did actually kill L, killed his own dad by proxy, and acted like a total sperg the entire time.
The only people who think he was right in his motives AND actions are the kind of people who don't know what reform means or misunderstand Akagi's character unironically and unironically moralfag post.

Attached: 1493823841982.jpg (785x732, 174K)

Unlike /pol/ which is clever and enlightened.

Sure, it's better to be robbed and killed than to watch lewd stuff on your computer.

Are you going to kill the killer's killer before he does so to save him from becoming corrupted too?

Attached: Don't touch my boyfriend.jpg (480x2220, 437K)

Killing is not the same as murder brainlet.

Murder is unlawful killing.

You really need to rethink your life choices when you get this defensive just because someone criticised pornography.

Just a reminder that the point of the story is that power corrupts, and in his case it was a fast descent into egotistical mindsets, and set rules he applies as absolute, from the start he saw himself as a new god of the world.

And remember, he wasn't just going to keep to crimes, he eventually wanted to trim down on the population, once all crime was effectively killed, he'd go for the useless people who contribute nothing much to society, or those who do not uphold some morality, like he wanted to cleanse the world from imperfection. Eventually he could have gone as far as to kill based on if he thinks a person isn't a believer of the system inherently or not.

Attached: Hohee~.png (613x855, 421K)

Murder is killing in hatred and sins, you are not evil or bad for killing an animal for food, defending yourself or killing evil people that deserve it.
The intent is what divides them, of course this is based on the Bible otherwise you can do whatever you want and be morally right since an objective morality doesn’t exist without it e.g. killing kids.

>he eventually wanted to trim down on the population, once all crime was effectively killed, he'd go for the useless people who contribute nothing much to society, or those who do not uphold some morality, like he wanted to cleanse the world from imperfection. Eventually he could have gone as far as to kill based on if he thinks a person isn't a believer of the system inherently or not.
When does Light say something like this? I thought this was Mikami.

Not him but, even that is kinda sketchy, since the bible has plenty of murder for the smallest shit, even applied to children, for small misdeeds.

It is:
economist.com/international/2018/11/24/suicide-is-declining-almost-everywhere

He worked based on the rules set by his "god". Unless he was running his mouth and thinking for himself, which i find strange since he worked under Light's mindset, I assume he was given a briefing on what his future plans are.

If that someone compares pornography to murder and robbery, then he really may have the said addition.

Wrong on statistics, wrong on expectations. Worst of all his last bubble is setting himself for not even wrong. There should be a special place in he'll for people that are not even wrong

Mikami was the only one that did it but Light might have ended up doing it too

Attached: DN Mikami.png (540x346, 182K)

Attached: DN Mikami2.png (500x230, 77K)

Because he could not recognize that all of his critisisms applied to himself as much as anyone else. He took too much pride in his intelligence and forgot that he's human and just as capable of evil as any other human.

>> People are living longer than ever
>> Abundance like never seen before. Humans have been spending resources on luxury since time immemorial, but never before have we been able to spend so much on potato chips, sweetened beverages and cigarettes.
>> Literacy highest ever in all known history
You clearly wouldn't even recognise a good thing when she comes up to you to start a friendly conversation, let alone a golden age

I think I understand what you're saying, but I just want to be sure. By "Killing" you mean killing someone who is not directly threatening yourself or anyone else at that moment right? Because killing someone is justifiable if that person has intention of causing serious harm or death to those around them.

Premeditated killing is what is wrong.

It's wrong in the sense that it wouldn't work irl, it only works because he's a Mary Sue. If real life were like that, the thousands of years that capital punishment was rampant all around would have been a paradise, but we're better off now.

Anyone with a sharp stick has the power to kill people

no1 posted the swimming?

commondreams.org/views/2017/11/06/extreme-poverty-cut-half-only-minds-capitalists

also capitalism being short term profit gained is wholly ll-equipped to deal with climate change, and has convinced many of it's rick and morty high iq fans that global warming is a chinese/jewish conspiracy instead.

capitalism would rather spend money peddling this myth then combat global warming as theres no money in it.

but capitalism is a step up above feudalism. wage-slavery beats non-wage slavery

its what we replace wage-labor with that will determine whether things are truly getting better or worse.

>Because life is good and dying is the opposite of living. Therefore, taking someone's life is evil.
Except you have the extreme evils of the world to deal with. Dictators who use humans as test dummies for guns, or food for their dogs. Drug lords who push fatal drugs to every man woman and child he can because it gets him money. Madmen who slash apart families because it gives him a boner. Tyrants who will burn the world down if it means they own it in the end.
Made worse by the fact the justice system and prison system is busted and they find a way out.

Because he wants to be the sole arbiter of who deserves to live. Every society that exists already has systems in place to punish evil, and none of them are run by high schoolers for good reason.
Should ship him and the Kira fans across the globe to an island to build their own nation where they all agree to accept the judgements of the Court of Light instead of fucking everything up for the rest of the world.