>"I can't kill this maniac that tried to rape my best friend, destroy my reason for living and kill me because i'd be just like him"
Why do people allow this?
Because there is a reason why we institutionalized and ritualized vengeance in our society.
It is extremely dangerous for the community as a whole when people start taking the law into their own hands and right perceived wrong-doings without the oversight of any kind of judge.
I thought Brat's best friend was Himawari not Akari.
If you murder a murderer somebody trying to murder, you take a life at the expense of saving a life, and the total life lost is the same. Assuming you are a better person morally, humanity has achieved a net gain.
The life being assured safe is the protagonist's own. Especially in chinese cartoons, the villain is often somebody who'd benefit pretty much everyone by being dead. No reason not to kill him, and very good reason to do so on multiple accounts.
Are you really trying to frame the Antag angling for your head on a platter as a "perceived" wrong doing? What's the difference if I or the judge perceive it as such anyway? By the way, any sane country would congratulate you on a job well done defending yourself and send you on your way free of trouble for putting said villain underground in defense.
>Are you really trying to frame the Antag angling for your head on a platter as a "perceived" wrong doing?
I'm not doubting you necessarily (though I don't know you, I'll just accept the scenario that "you" are the hero in shining armor).
But I'm doubting you neighbor. He seems a bit crazy. If we allow people to do this, then how are we going to stop him from doing it too?
>"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
>any sane country would congratulate you on a job well done defending yourself
No, that's for killing DURING the fight. If you do it after the fact it's murder.
Interestingly this isn't just an anime cliche, the west does it too
Though not anime, this is one of the best examples of it
>MC here, is several blocks away looking at her boyfriend and main villain negotiating on an outdoor porch
>extremely risky plan with her boyfriend being bait and will most likely die
>she's supposed to take the shot when she has a clean look at the main villain
>perfect chance to when he's just standing there talking
>she comes close to pulling the trigger but ultimately hesitates
>as a result has to watch through her scope her boyfriend get killed
>main villain goes on to do even worse things
If she had killed him right there and then like as planned, her boyfriend would still be "alive" and she would have stopped the villain and saved the lives of many others too. But she didn't, because. Because.
True, but you're trying to bring societal law into animu clashes where everybody's moral stance is either black or white and in which societal laws usually don't even apply to begin with. That being said I see no moral objection to putting a bullet through the head of somebody who pointed a gun at you even after he's on the ground, the simple fact he started it first means you're not as bad.
And that being said, let's get back to the actual main point, that killing him makes you just as bad as him. Why does it? The motivation is different, and assuming you are doing it with even a fraction of concern for your own well-being, or your friends' well-being, or as revenge for a wrongdoing he commited, you would not be like him at all, who presumably did it just because. Revenge is selfish but not evil.
>But she didn't, because.
I'll just go with rigor mortis.
There's no quantifiable difference between killing someone for a universal gain or to prevent a universal loss. Society benefits either way, but this benefit is not a valid justification for the actual act of killing.
>attempted murder of many many people
>fought MC with intent to kill hin
Killing him just makes sense. Sure you can let him live, but it's better to tie up dangerous loose ends.
>you're trying to bring societal law into animu clashes
Let me rephrase that so it makes sense.
I am bringing society (the basis of law and morality - without society, there is neither) into a moral conflict in anime.
>laws usually don't even apply to begin with.
Let's say morality, not law. Because we aren't discussing law. (the law is clear on the subject, we don't need to discuss it)
>That being said I see no moral objection to putting a bullet through the head of somebody who pointed a gun at you even after he's on the ground,
Because you are doing what you don't want others to do. In a society you can't live out your vengeance fantasies, or else you end up with endless family-feuds that end up with dozens of people dead for no good reason.
So you are taking a special exception, because you think either this is a special villain or you are a special person to decide who lives or dies, or it's a special situation or whatever. But who are you to decide that?
That's why I was quoting Kant. You are abandoning the golden rule, that is part of just about every good ideology.
>hero kills hundreds of villain's henchmen to get to villain
>if i kill you, i'll be no better than you
It's probably just bad writing in this case (since if she's sniping, given the show, it means that she must have gotten the abilities/personality of a sniper and I doubt a sniper'd hesitate in this situation), but someone hesitating to shoot someone isn't exactly a stupid or unusual action.
>killing him makes you just as bad as him.
It makes you a murderer.
>The motivation is different,
The motivation is vengeance.
What was his motivation, that it is so different from yours? Not vengeance?
He would probably get the death sentence anyway if you got him to a proper court of law. So what you are doing is not even necessary. It's just to make things easier for you.
Murder out of convenience.
>who presumably did it just because.
This is the depth that you are willing to look into his motivation before deciding that he deserves death and you are not like him at all for killing him?
You are already just like him.
Yes there is.
> Villain goes about his days stocking store shelves and binging on netflix
> No real loss or gain
> Villain gasses half of gotham city, killing millions
> Blatant net loss
Ta da. It's pretty simple kiddo.
Only if 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt certain of the crime and criminal.
There's no justifiable way of handing a death sentence to someone based on an eye witness or other uncertain proof.
>Kill tons of fodder
>Let mini-bosses live only if they promise to redeem themselves
>Let main boss live because if you kill him you'd be no better, even if he admits he's gonna try this shit all over again
Honestly, I don't know. Electric Chairs and shit are too much, but if lethal injections are actually a painless way to go and an execution has to happen, I guess that's an okay way to do it. But as to whether I think killing people is a proper sentence for a crime, not really. Instead, give the people life in prison and leave execution as an option that's on the table for if they ever wish to take it. Some people would rather just live their life in prison (save for the occasional butt rape it's somewhat peaceful) and if a prisoner has a chance to get out on parole or believes they were wrongly convicted they'll obviously not take the execution. But if someone wants to die and is in a sound state of mind, let them die.
There are two problems with fictional depictions of violence:
1. Commonly only 10-20% of an army die in a battle.
So while there is a lot of blood on the heroes' hands, they probably didn't massacre everybody.
2. Named characters tend to not just die. If they don't die in the attack, then that means they are either killed afterwards, or they don't die at all. But with killing people afterwards you run into ethical problems.
That's why the leaders live, and their pawns all die. However the problem could easily be solved by showing them getting death sentences later.
>letting criminals choose their punishment
Well no, they're already serving life in prison. But if they want to kill themselves they could easily make a shiv and go to town. So why not let them die in a humane way instead of getting blood on the concrete carpet? Not to mention, if you want to think about this like a fag, it'd mean not having to pay for their food and other supplies that would otherwise have to be spent for the remainder of their sentence.
Think about it this way: execution is seen as a greater punishment than having them spend the rest of their life in prison. What objection do you have with a criminal choosing to receive the more severe punishment?
>it'd mean not having to pay for their food and other supplies that would otherwise have to be spent for the remainder of their sentence.
Wait, I thought death row was even more expensive than normal prisoners?
Because even though most people will see it as a more severe punishment, if the criminal is willing to take death over life in prison then he obviously thinks that death is a lesser punishment, so he'll be getting off easier from his point of view.
I don't have any numbers in mind, but that probably has to do with all the paperwork and them getting a last meal, wouldn't it? Plus, I suppose the injections aren't free either. Wouldn't there be less paperwork if it was a decision they made rather than one decided by the court, since they wouldn't have to do so much back-and-forth with whether they really deserve it? I dunno, I'm not a law major or whatever.
I suppose. But isn't that already the case? If someone like >>138263559 mentioned gets arrested, you KNOW they're going to prefer a death sentence over prison time. Most people aren't going to be taking the execution because it's an execution. A majority of the people taking it will be the same people that are receiving death sentences now. So what I'm proposing, in practice, is almost exactly the same as things are now. It's just more ethically sound in my opinion (plus most other 1st World Countries don't even have executions anymore right?)
>Wouldn't there be less paperwork if it was a decision they made
You would need witnesses that it was actually their free decision.
You would need a psychiatrist's evaluation of the prisoner's psyche.
You would need a judge's permission to assisted suicide.
You would need the state's permission to execute the prisoner.
I'm sure you would need more than that.
>A majority of the people taking it will be the same people that are receiving death sentences now
But people receiving death sentences now wouldn't have a choice, only people receiving life sentences for crimes that also have the death penalty would have that option. I don't see how that's the same as now.
I just don't like the idea of executions in general. The States are slowly getting rid of the death penalty and something like this would be counter-productive.
There are a lot of people that are still in favor of death penalties so some kind of in-between system would be a sort of compromise until it's just gotten rid of entirely. At least, in theory. In practice it'd be a fuck-ton of work to implement and, you're right, probably not worth the effort if the country is heading towards getting rid of it anyway. I'm just sort of thinking out loud (in text) here.