>Protagonist: I don't care about this complicated stuff,

The average villain is just an asshole dressing himself up with fancy rationalizations. The average hero is going to look dumb trying to preach to him, because he's not prepared to do that.

Ideally, a hero shouldn't have to say anything. Just punch the villain in the face like Saitama.

>>153445599
On everything but a bad day he listens to their backstories and motivations. He doesn't give a fuck, but he lets them say it.

File: [HorribleSubs] Shuumatsu n….jpg (64KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1280x720px

>>153445333
>I must stop this war! war is WRONG!!!
>proceeds to kill thousands of people

>>153445709
That's not a paradox.

>>153445599
The whole point of Saitama as a character is that he's a mediocre hero even though he's the most powerful being in existence, specifically because he doesn't have a logical or moral drive to do good.

"Rationalization" is buzzword of the worst sort. If you can't disprove the opponent's justification on a rational basis then you have no right to criticize their position, and "rationalization" is just an excuse retards use to do exactly that.

>>153445709
Something about omelets and eggs

File: 1484525471109.jpg (80KB, 362x447px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 362x447px

>>153445333
>Protagonist: I don't care about this complicated stuff, I just want to go home

>>153446009
>Guts
>Home
Pick one.

>character explains something not complicated in the slightest
>it somehow has to be dumbed down even more with MC replying with something like, "I don't really understand but all we need to do x then y right? YOOOOSH"

>>153446009
>get put in amazing magical world
>receive amazing gifted abilities
>everyone loves you
>surrounded by bitches that all want you
>"I just want to go home and live a normal life"

>>153445868
When the villains use sophism as their main method of conversation, you don't have to give a shit what hot air come out of their windpipe.
Just crush them like the drug addicts they usually are.

>>153445333
>I don't give a shit about the world, I'm going to save my sister, even if she kills everything around her.

File: NUT.png (922KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 1280x720px

>that doesn't mean the ends justify the means!

>>153445638
Yeah, I like that he doesn't moralize and will listen if he cares while still stopping them. It's so stupid. Preaching is dumb. Do you really need to explain why blowing up the world is wrong? And in shonen it's coming from children, which makes it even sillier.

To be fair, it IS for children, but yeah.
>>153445868
There's nothing to argue. If you do villainous/criminal things, you don't deserve a hearing. You deserve punishment.

File: 86389.png (295KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 600x449px

>>153446100
>I don't give a shit about the world, I'm going to save my girlfriend, even if she kills everything around her.

>>153446098
The problem is most of the time there's no conclusive evidence that is even the case, just a general assumption within fiction that anything a villain is doing must produce a bad outcome. Even when their logic is sound some bullshit will usually manifest without warning to loosely gratify the hero's opposition.

Fate franchise is a pretty good example of "moral" characters shutting down any sort of dialogue and getting their way by force, regardless of the possible consequences.

>>153446149
>If you do villainous/criminal things
I love how the moment people are faced with moral relativism they conjure an imaginary "law" when there isn't even an actual applicable legal institution to back their appeal to authority fallacy.

Let's say the the villain, as often is the case, IS the law. What is your answer then?

>>153446100
Pupa?

>>153446434
Nope

>>153445709
how else are you going to stop a war, dipshit? the enemy can't fight if you kill them all.

>>153446537
That's called "winning" the war, not "stopping" it. You're not taking the position that "war is wrong" but the position that "go us, fuck you." An eminently reasonable position, but not the same one.

>>153446537
>what is economic domination
>culture subversion
>coup d'etat with puppets in place

>>153446665
While that's mostly true, technically "winning" means ending the war on favorable terms. "Stopping" could feasibly mean ending the war forcefully, but not actually gaining any benefit by doing so.

I'm not really sure where the semantics of this matters though, it's not like disliking war and wanting to achieve peace through force are mutually exclusive. In fact, that's basically the protagonist of Youjo Senki's main objective.

>All the retards in this thread thinking that moral is objective
How does it feel to have the mentality of a kid?

>>153446537
BY TURNING THE WEAPONS INTO DUST

>Protagonist: I don't care about this complicated stuff, I just know that I have to stop you!
There's a bunch of anime like this, but the best example of this in my opinion is actually a game, Nier. Nier. It actually deconstructs the trope

>>153447133
Is not that nier doesn't care about shadow lord's goal, he denies it, even if he knew about the gestalt project it would be muh yona anyway.

>>153445868
He's so powerful that he doesn't even have to care about opposing opinions. It would be like an emperor caring about what some petty thief is motivated by.

>>153446961
My issue isn't the lack of objectivity, it's the fact that brazen ignorance and irresponsibility is all to often portrayed as an endearing attribute in a protagonist.

For once I'd like to see someone go "I don't care, I need to save/stop X no matter what!" and cause a fucking catastrophe in the process.

>>153446961
I think someone shooting you is amoral

do you agree?

>>153447285
Embers left from the golden era of shonens and kid shows, can't have a protag being smart because of nostalgia and other stupid reasons.

>>153447312

What if he was trying to rape the shooter?

>>153447227
Yet he's less of a hero than Mumen Rider.

With Saitama's mindset he's less of a hero and more of a mercenary. He's very similar to someone like Metal Knight who has very questionable, self-serving motives for helping the association.

>>153445333
It worked for nier.

>>153447355
is rape worse than murder?

>>153447383
Dooming what was left of the human race, killing all the baby shadows and paving the way for the watchers invasion as side effect.

>>153447397

Obviously

Where have you been in the last 10 years?

>>153445333
Its not too bad when used right
Not every hero or story has to be in constant conflict. Whats wrong with a good ol' hot blooded protag? Though I feel they've been done wrong and shittily the last few years

File: 1437860058347.png (54KB, 151x182px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 151x182px

>>153447426
And now robots get to continue his fight.

File: 1482737312879.png (262KB, 539x481px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 539x481px

>>153447208
Nope, Nier is the very definition of a retard MC who doesn't know, nor wants to use his head or be reasonable in any situation. He never tried to learn what shadows are, he never tries to learn what the goal of the shadowlord is, despite various events in the game showing him that shadows are actually sentient beings who think and have feelings. He never stops to ask himself why Popola has so many leads and always puts him on the right track. He's stubborn, tries to solve everything with brute force and thinks that he's justifiable in doing whatever he needs for the sake of his own personal quest.

He's basically every dumb protagonist of every game, anime and movie out there and in the end, his retard way of acting comes to bite his ass and dooms the world, which is what would probably happen if the fate of the world was in the hands of a stubborn brute who can't see anything beyond simplistic ideas.

>>153445333
When the "complicated stuff is"

>people suffer so I will kill all the people to stop suffering!

I don't blame the hero for disregarding it.

>>153446100
that LN with MC is sister is some kind of cthulu abomination?

>>153447495
You make a good point, a shame taro won't bring him back for that karmic justice, would love to see that.

>>153446231
That was the main reason I couldn't take Heaven's Feel seriously

Yay, Shirou learned his own worth and went out of Kiritsugu's shadow! And he's going to sacrifice himself and the whole fucking world because of his fanatical devotion to a single girl who he only suddenly loves because of plot contrivance!

>>153447550
I don't remember Nyaruko being an imouto.

File: yr6nxvi.png (662KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 1920x1080px

>>153445333
>Antagonist: I have some sort of strange view of how things should be because *bad thing* happened therefor I'm allowed to murder people!

>>153447645
stepped out of his shadow, not his spectrum of autism

>>153447312
>I think someone shooting you is amoral
Depends on the circumstances and society. Moral is relative exactly because of this, you can't simply answer ''X is wrong'', ''Y is right'', It's based on things like personal perspective, society consensus, culture, circumstance, time period and so on.
>>153447285
But what I'm saying is exactly that moral isn't objective, which is why the MC thinking of himself as always being on the right side and replying to the villain's arguments with his fists instead of counter arguments AND fists is stupid.

>For once I'd like to see someone go "I don't care, I need to save/stop X no matter what!" and cause a fucking catastrophe in the process.
That's basically Nier . I'm pretty there's anime examples as well, I just can't remember right now.

File: tmp_26069-14855808541551580434008.gif (122KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 600x800px

>>153445333

You just need friends

>>153447703
no the LN with magical academy and the MC has some kind of hero armor(which is a loli) and the villain had some kind of devil armor and the love interest has two guns that acts like a vampire.

>>153447559
>for that karmic justice
What do you mean? The karmic justice is that he and his daughter will die by the Black Scrawl and the whole world will perish because of his actions. The only one who will survive is Emil basically.

Kogami and Makishima is a good exemple of decent villan vs protag

>>153447789
please stop talking about a game I am too poor to play. cause you're making more interested in the game.

>>153445333

>OP: I have an opinion. It could be shit but I NEED to say it.

>>153447772
Taimadou?

>>153447916
yes!

>>153447850
Don't you have money to buy a PS3 or Xbox 360, anon?

>>153447706
Every single Fist of the North Star villain except for Raoh

It reaches its peak when Souther working child slaves to death in a pyramid made on his honor is justified by him being sad about his master's death, and Kenshiro seemingly agrees

>>153447970
nope. not even kidding. im saving up now but I still don't have a job. plus ive never had those home consoles. just the handhelds.

>>153447789
Just wanna him to see the suffering he imposed on the human race for shits and giggles tbqh
>>153447997
Nier ain't that good to play, no shame watching a LP.

>>153447970
I actually have the game and want to play it so damn but but holy shit I do not want to buy one just to play a decade old game.

I'm just going to pray that Automata on PC does well enough to motivate them to port Nier to PC.

File: liberals.png (447KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 640x480px

>>153446100

>>153448028
one that's not loud,annoying, and unnecessarily talkavite to the point they read the on screan dialogue?
are you recommending me any?

>>153448033

Get a 360 and mod it. That way it can be a retro machine too

>>153447227
>He's so powerful that he doesn't even have to care about opposing opinions.
Doesn't sound very heroic to me.

>>153448085
Just type in no commentary, should do the job just fine

>>153448119
oh ok. thanks

>>153446100
Funny that there's also a LN where everything goes to shit because the MC couldn't let go of what was right for his love and she goes crazy because of it.

>>153448073
More like women.

>>153448180
Ok /r9k/.

>>153447997
Well, you definitely should buy a PS3 once you have the chance, not only because of the flawed masterpiece that's Nier, but also because of other really good games, such as Demon's Souls and Catherine. Persona 5 is getting will be in the PS3, so you don't have to worry about that also.
>>153448028
>>153448085
>Let's play
Don't do this unless you have no other choice.

>>153448265
Well he did say he had no job so i went on the more economical route.

>>153448265
arent we on the ps4 pro now? but honestly I would much rather get a gaming computer

>>153448295
I know and it's reasonable enough. It's just that it pains me to see such a unique game like Nier being wasted in a LP.
>>153448327
>Gaming computer
It's much more economical If you don't mind pirating games. However, I much prefer console exclusives. Well, or at least I used to, because there's very few console exclusives these days.

>>153448262
He's not wrong though.

>>153448377
>It's much more economical If you don't mind pirating games
you could do that?
to be honest if I was to get a console it would be for nintendo. the only time I really wanted a ps4 was when jojo came out. nowadays its like meh, it will be on pc anyway. or this is just flavor of the month

>>153448483
>you could do that?
Torrent is a blessing.

>to be honest if I was to get a console it would be for nintendo
Well, you know what's best for you. I don't particularly like Nintendo games and their consoles are the most frequently and easily emulated by the PC anyway. But the PS4 is only truly appealing if you have interest in either P5 or Bloodborne in my opinion.

hopefully most of you are reading maoyuu maou yuusha, right?

>>153448569
I thought you couldn't emulate the Wii u on PC? and they said 4chan was a waste of time.

>>153448627
tried to pick it back up and catch up, almost felt like throwing up , you have to pace yourselves with that series otherwise half the stuff they saying will go over your head. but I im done with anyway , its 3some ending best ending in my book.

>>153448639
http://cemu.info/

It's still in experimental phase and most games don't run at a stable rate, however, It shouldn't take long for It to work in a more functional way since that's generally the case with every Nintendo console. The Wii emulator functions extremely well though, played Xenoblade emulated myself.

File: 1406809146822.jpg (101KB, 500x422px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x422px

>>153448742

>>153448033
>ut but holy shit I do not want to buy one just to play a decade old game.
Maybe this will convince you to change your mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGNa6g7mpNM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1CjxQXXA7o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUn-kezLzeY

>>153446066

Guts in highschool uniform when?

>>153448811
>>153448742
damn Im 2 gigs short of minimum. for now but bless you anon

File: 1466008991911.gif (746KB, 666x514px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 666x514px

>>153445333
>Main Villian: I don't care about this complicated stuff, I just know that I have to DESTROY WORLD!

>>153445709
After all enemies die, there is will be a piece.

File: bc42349f53856939ea5d2.jpg (253KB, 600x851px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 600x851px

>>153448938
You're welcome, anon.

>>153448989
basically the villain of BNHA

>>153447285
>>153447726


shadow of the colossus too, basically an old greek trope from orpheus.

>>153446665
>What is a propaganda?
>War is a bad, so let's just kill all the ''bad guys".
Seems legit.

>>153449068
Isn't SOTC way too ambiguous for us to say? As far as I know, the game never tells you that the being you're releasing is evil or good, it leaves to your interpretation.

>>153449134

I suppose that the trickster god aspect of dormin, along with the warriors banishing and sealing him away, and the sticky end of wanda basically sent me a bad vibe, but you're right, he could be basically benevolent in normal circumstances

>>153448989
Stupid reason to be honest, but fun.

>>153445333
Who are more right here the bad guys or the good guys or money > all?

>>153446930
Enemy must die is the only true answer. World is a cruel place, kill or be a killed.

>>153449249
That thing that makes me really think that he's malevolent or bad for humanity as a whole is the colossi's behavior. None of them, except for arguably the small ones and the last, show any aggressive behavior or try to do direct harm to you, they mostly act in passive and defensive ways, which makes me interpret that the colossi are benevolent beings, whose existence serves to seal the dark spirit.

I wouldn't call the MC of SOTC dumb and clueless though, he seems more like the type who knows the consequence of his actions full well, but still decided to go with it, because it's just that important to him. Also, I don't think his actions have such bad consequences, at least not compared to Nier.

Man, you're reminding of how good SOTC is. The ending is so bittersweet.

>>153449395

yes I agree with your characterisation of the colossi. Most appear to have been crafted/grown out of pieces of masonry, so I assume they're man-made. Wanda probably did know that what he was doing was quite wrong, as he is being pursued by the clan warriors *chiefly* because he stole that holy sword. I don't think he knew what was going on at the end, and was essentially sacrificed by dormin.

makes me think of the old equivalent exchange thing whenin dormin takes a life to give a life.

>>153445333

>when I kill the baddies, they're stern and composed.
>when my friend dies I proceed to kill in revenge.

>>153449690
>It's all about revenge here, the only true answer.
Revenge is justice.

>>153449344
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-gSJW3sHXE
>BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

File: 1482900823532.png (821KB, 1330x1080px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 1330x1080px

>>153446537
>the enemy can't fight if you kill them all.
>War is wrong
>I'll kill everyone in a war to stop war
>But I swear, war is totally wrong and unnecessary. Well, except when it benefits my objectives/goals/beliefs

>>153446961
>moral relativism

Hello, kike. Ruined any civilizations lately? Besides this one?

File: Kiritsugu-fighting.jpg (85KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1280x720px

>>153449770
>Boku wa...

>>153449780
The fact that moral relativism is a destructive mentality doesn't make it any less true. It's far from being the only question in philosophy that can be bad when implemented in society.

>>153446537
/v/ here, this is a plot point in one of the yakuza games. The main characters learns that 2 factions of Yakuza are going to have a big old gang war, and decides that's really bad because gang wars are bad. His brilliant solution? To just fucking punch all the yakuza from one of the gangs until they give up, because if it's just him fighting yakuza then it doesnt count as a gang war.

File: TMG_v05_cover.jpg (2MB, 1640x2313px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1640x2313px

>>153447550
>>153447772
>>153447916
Yep

moral relativism is accepted by almost no contemporary metaethicists, dipfuck. i want edgy kids to get the fuck off my board

File: hyougemono-2-0.jpg (44KB, 627x353px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 627x353px

>>153445333
>Protagonist:
>choose war or beauty
>imperfection is true bliss
>piece of shit rebels

>>153449886
In war there is no moral, but only blood...

>>153445868
>because he doesn't have a logical or moral drive to do good.
That's not true though, did you even read the manga?

>>153449886
Oh really? Let's argue about it then. Arguing against moral relativism is always a lost fight because any argument you make in favor of any moral will be based on your own personal perspective of what morality is, which is formed by both the society you live in, your culture, your own self and your life experiences.

The very proof that moral is relative is that it changes depending on the time period and society.

>>153446009
But he needs to get his revenge first.

>>153449886
>Any opinion that I consider negative is edgy
Please, refrain from discussing philosophy when you have the mind of a retard.

>>153449969
There are pretty self-evident truths on which you can base morality though, no?

>>153450000
>one opinion that I consider negative is edgy
>any opinion that I consider negative is edgy

Please, refrain from discussing anything when you have the mind of a retard.

>>153450021
>Like raising animals on farms for surviving.
No moral in this world sorry. Only Jesus was good guy.

>>153450021
Self-preservation is the only self-evident rule on which we always base our morality, no matter the time period or society. Thing is that even self-preservation can be achieved and enforced in numerous ways.
>>153450061
You would realize that he probably said that because edgy is a overused buzzword that people apply to literally any negative/realistic behavior nowadays if you wasn't stupid. But then again, what can I expect from someone who thinks that morality is absolute

>>153447285
>the world is fucked up
>protags eventually accept it and become part of the system because going full shounen would cause even bigger problems
>villains get away with everything because they basically held he world hostage
>protags end up as broken, depressed people and MC dies to clean up other people's mistakes
There are some stories that kind of make you understand why "I don't care, I need to save/stop X no matter what!" is so popular. The alternative is too depressing.

>>153445333
>I'm really stupid, naive and idealistic, but I'm going to put my life on the line to stop you and save everyone without sacrificing anything, and none of my actions have any lasting negative consequences!
>Now everyone loves me for my empty heroic gestures!
LNfags were a mistake.

How did we come up with with morality anyway? Was it like an unspoken set of social rules in a tribe or something? Like there are things that aren't cool to do, but you're not gonna be killed for it either.

>>153449770
I do think like that in general
Am I edgy?

File: 15380534_464920766965466_6259316595691671657_n.png (189KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 800x450px

>>153449969
>The very proof that moral is relative is that it changes depending on the time period and society.
Wrong, I'll even hold your hand. There are at least 10 discrete objections to this dipshit claim, here are two. This isn't very fun for me but I'm drunk and annoyed enough to bother.

Different societies have different beliefs about science. Does that change the fact that there is a scientific truth? Is scientific truth and scientific progress an illusion because we have different beliefs about physics now than we did 500 years ago when it made sense to believe those things? Moral progress is obviously as real and necessary for greater human flourishing as science by any empirical measure. You should be able to figure out why using contemporary examples.

Morality guides societies to human flourishing in the way that medicine guides bodies to flourishing. Just because it's good for you to do X for your body in situation Y and not situation Z does not mean that it was not objectively good for you to do X in situation Y. Similarly, just because a moral system says that you should do A in situation B and not situation C...I'm sure you get the picture. At most all that is implied is that there is a hierarchy of moral imperatives. These imperatives may be objective.

>>153450000
treating the topic like it's a settled question in favor of moral relativism when the exact opposite is true is edgy and stupid, numbnuts.

>>153450232
Morality is hardcoded into us due to evolutionary pressures. Social animals need to get along to survive, so anti-social behavior gets punished and gradually eliminated by the selection pressure. Of course, being a selfish asshole can be beneficial in some circumstances, which is why these traits never disappear completely.

>>153450232
Self-preservation. Setting specific rules about how people should live in society serves to make our coexistence more harmonic and less problematic. Like, fucking Bob's wife isn't cool because Bob might get angry and might fuck you up, which can make Bob get punished or not, and losing either you or Bob wouldn't be good for our group, because we have more chance of survival by working together.

File: opm.jpg (179KB, 728x1046px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 728x1046px

>>153449941
Did you? He himself says on a regular basis that being a hero is just a hobby for him. Sure her grows as a character (which is the point) on that aspect, but it's a major character flaw for him from the beginning.

The Deep Sea King fight is a perfect example of that. He beat the big baddy in once punch, but if not for the heroic efforts of Mumen and the others the civilians would have all been long dead by the time Saitama could be bothered to show up. He gave up the credit for that because he never deserved it in the first place.

Not to mention shit like pic related.

>>153450299
And this implies he lacks a logical or moral drive how? Just because he isn't spending 24/7 of his time and effort saving others doesn't imply what you've stated to be true.

>>153450232
As far back as modern homo sapiens have existed, you've had near-universal rules on.

Property
Cannibalism
Murder
Blasphemy
etc.

Those sort of things that threatened the health of the people or destabilize the society. Even exceptions to them usually follow that line (cannibalism of slain enemies for example didn't extend into butchering fellow people in a tribe) They all emerged in most stone age societies as social protections more than anything, but that's what morals and certain behavior are on a sociological level. It evolved because it works. That in itself gives concrete worth to morality.

The key thing to remember is that it only applies to the home group. Once you start trying to apply it to others that traditionally have not been considered people in native tribal systems, then it falls apart.

Killing someone in your own tribe is murder
Killing someone from a different tribe in conflict is just war

Another point is it all didn't evolve at once either. Look at chimps for example. They have a few of those but not all because they're not as evolved socially.

File: Senator Southpark.jpg (26KB, 676x858px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 676x858px

>>153445333
>I don't give a shit about anything else, I just want you dead.
STANDING HERE I REALIZE YOU WERE JUST LIKE ME
I wish anime had fights like that.

>>153450276
A fucking toddler can easily see how much bullshit you are spewing. I suggest you start over from elementary school

>>153450337
>character literally outright states they don't have it
>And this implies he lacks a logical or moral drive how?

Protip: If Mumen could be there, there is literally no reason whatsoever why Saitama couldn't have been there faster.

This is your last (you)

>>153450276
I'm not the other anons and I'm not diminishing what you're arguing for, but I don't think comparing science to morality like that is appropriate.

>>153450232
>How did we come up with with morality anyway?
Selfpreserve instinct. If everyone will start to kill each other this would be no good.

>>153450276
>Different societies have different beliefs about science. Does that change the fact that there is a scientific truth?
Retarded argument, what already exists within nature, like elements, physics, music notes and etc is objective, however, anything that originates from the human mind is subjective since it's based around the very subjectivity of our thoughts and ideas. Not getting such a simple and universally accepted idea is why you are unqualified to talk about this.

>Moral progress is obviously as real and necessary for greater human
Again, comparing morality, worth, politics, economics or any human created concept with exact sciences that already exist within nature is beyond stupid.

>Morality guides societies to human flourishing in the way that medicine guides bodies to flourishing.
Again, it isn't the same thing. Let's say that somehow ISIS conquers the west and applies their laws and beliefs to everyone here. They will kill pretty much anyone who disagrees with their beliefs and will subvert people who are in the middle, they will write every book to paint them as the good guys and will burn every one that does not. Over decades or maybe centuries, ISIS will be considered the good guys and the right side of history, because it's always the winning side that decide what's moral and what's not.

However, ISIS conquering the world or not, it would never change the laws of chemistry and physics, because those are things that already exist in nature as hard facts and there's no discussion around it.

>>153450276
I'll agree that some rules are objectively moral if only because any society that didn't obey them would cease to exist. Killing without purpose or restraint is bad, so is lying without purpose and restraint, and so is preventing offspring from surviving with purpose or restraint. However, large chunks of morality are bullshit.

>Moral progress is obviously as real and necessary for greater human flourishing as science by any empirical measure.
There are plenty of examples of moral regression.
http://www.gwern.net/The%20Narrowing%20Circle

>>153449580

Whatever you may say of dormin, he was fair and just, he gave Wander a great warning at the beginning of the game, warned Wander he would pay the greatest price for granting the girl a second chance.

Wander chose to continue anyway, at the very least dormin never lied to wander.

>armchair philosophers discuss morality

I mean I can hear your many chins wobbling angrily

File: 1486841797099.jpg (25KB, 301x267px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 301x267px

>>153450539
But the important thing, is that you managed to feel superior to everyone. Good job.

>>153450539
>armchair philosophers discuss morality
Are there any other philosophers m8?

>>153450539
Do you hate fun or something?

File: Albert-Camus-74_lg.jpg (160KB, 1321x900px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1321x900px

>>153450574
picrel and Descartes

>>153450282
>>153450298
>>153450419
>>153450483
Ah, I see. So you're saying morals, in its most primal form, are basically bland compromises we make to each other to exist as pack creatures?

File: 1447232078670.png (260KB, 1036x600px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1036x600px

>>153445333
>Hero knows he is right
>Villain tries to justify why he is right but deep inside he knows he is actually wrong
>Hero just silently does his thing without trying to argue and ignore villain preaching. Because mere sophistry is pointless.

>>153450530
You are somewhat right, but still wrong in thinking that those things aren't subjective. It's true that's much easier to judge simplistic and one-dimensional cases, like a guy killing hundreds of innocent babies for no apparent reason or whatever, but how can you say for certain that said guy is wrong? Sure, he's wrong in the eyes of our society and he's wrong by our consensus and reality, but if we twist this situation a little, It can be argued that he's right. What if for example, his society has a huge population problem and the human live has not much value there, killing babies would actually be beneficial for said society as a whole in this case or at least, it wouldn't be seen as that wrong, even if it was against the law.

>Arguing about philosophy on a website for Singaporean smoke signals
No one is going to change their mind because of anything you say here, and you know that. The only thing this accomplishes is stroking your own egos.

>>153450681
>bland compromises we make to each other to exist as pack creatures?

No, they're evolved social behaviors necessary for the survival of the species. As critical as they are, bland is not a good descriptor. Compromise doesn't make any sense either because it's a requirement, not a negotiation.

You don't call a squirrel's instinct to bury nuts a bland compromise with the harsh conditions of winter.

>>153445868
Get out of here /co. I know its you.

>>153450739
>No one is going to change their mind because of anything you say here, and you know that.
You could say the same thing about anime, video games, politics, or really anything. But hey, me and everyone reading your post knows that you're just a faggot trying to feel special

>stroking your own egos.
Cute projection, especially because your post is basically the definition this.

>>153450781
>/co/
>discussing rationality
Pick one.

>>153450756
Is it really instinct though? Unlike a squirrel, we can think and argue about it. Some can ignore or even outright reject them,

>>153450739
>People don't discuss philosophy or really any matter because it's engaging for them and stimulate their minds, they do it to stroke their own ego and to win imaginary battles
What a fucking pleb and mediocre mentality.

>>153450818
>A person who regulars /co/ couldn't also be a pseudo-intellectual

The funny thing is, is that they bring up rationality while espousing platitudes like "the drive to do good"

If we're talking rationally then Saitama is an excellent hero because he prevents widespread death by putting down monsters that no other hero could deal with.

File: 1394765815801.jpg (42KB, 300x307px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 300x307px

>>153445333
>Protagonist: Yeah you're saving millions of lives but you did it the MEAN way!

>>153450791
>>153450870
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You disagree with me, but instead of trying to change my mind, you'd rather try to make yourself feel more right.

>>153450867
>>153450756
Self-preservation is a human instinct, one of the most basic ones. However, the way we apply the means for our preservation is both rational and instinctive and it's also subjective/arbitrary, as opposed to the instinct itself, which is objective.

>>153450867
Instinct is genetic memory. Morals are part of cultural memory. All social animals that teach their children do the same thing whether it's apes or elephants.

>Some can ignore or even outright reject them
Breaking the rules only works when most people play by them. The society requires them to function.

>>153450875
/r/ing some archive citations for this claim please.

>>153450539
It's not better or worse than discussing what asuka's armpits would smell like, you no-fun-allowed grumpy-ass baka.

>>153450631
>Albert "I could fuck everyone's wife" Camus
>not armchair

I'm sure he'd appreciate the luxury and comfort.

>>153450867
Thinking and arguing about it is a fairly recent invention, enabled by our particular evolutionary niche (extra developed brains). For most species and even our ancestors it wasn't a matter of discussion - it was a matter of survival like any other behavior and instinct. Rejecting one's instincts has always been possible for an individual and even necessary in some circumstances (for example, following your mating instinct when your sexual rival is clearly much bigger and stronger than you is not a good idea).

File: 1465212159639.png (10KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 640x480px

>Antagonist: I see you're carrying this trivial, insignificant detail on you. Let me proceed to monologue every single personal and secret detail about your past based off this tiny little thing with absolute certainty despite this being the first time we meet.

>>153450946
That /co/tards can be psuedo-intellectuals? Literally any political discussion that actually has people arguing on both sides of the issue. Also, discussion about anything Moore or Morrison have ever written.

>>153450916
>Change your mind
First, who said I argue with others to change their minds? I argue to have engaging and interesting discussions about matters that interest me. Second, I painted your argument as being stupid and wrong by saying that's a fallacy because every 4chan discussion can be considered meaningless, however, you made sure to only complain about this specific topic(philosophy), which shows your bias and lack of understanding about what you're talking about. And by the way, the fact that you didn't accept my argument and thinks that it stems from ego means that the one driving by ego here is you, who failed to see my reasoning and only payed attention to the ''insults'' and how I was mean with you. Third, insulting each other and brutal honest is part of 4chan culture.

In short, you see people as being egocentric because you are egocentric and can only look at your own being and bias in any situation, instead of trying to look at the situation as whole, as proven by both of your posts.

>>153450940
I thought self-preservation is universal, regardless of species.
>>153450943
Now I like to know how genetic memory works. Did something scare you so bad that your kids remember it?

>>153451059
>I thought self-preservation is universal, regardless of species.
It is, but the way we apply self-preservation and the way we look at self-preservation differs greatly from any other species.

>>153446394
>moral relativism
18+, kid. If your villain is the "law", he gets stomped all the same.

>>153451043
Your claim was quite a bit more specific than that. Surely you have evidence and weren't strawmanning like an asshat, right anon?

>>153451010
In that example, rather than rejecting my mating instinct, aren't I just following my stronger instinct of not getting my ass kicked?

>>153451092
That's all well and good, it just means your hero is immoral and a criminal by the previous poster's standards, and is deserving of punishment.

>>153451059
>Did something scare you so bad that your kids remember it?

Something like that. Like everything it's slightly random and gradual when it first starts out and reinforced over many generations. But stuff extremely developed tends to stick around even after it stops being as relevant as long as there's no selection against it. Know how kids are scared of the dark and imagine there's monsters out there? That's leftover from the days when there were monsters out there. You just have to look at the old cave leopard dens in Africa full of children's skulls.

>>153445333
It's almost always more like:

>I don't care about this complicated stuff, I just know that you're the fucking asshole who burned my home, raped my dog, and pissed in my tea.

>>153451092
The irony in this post is hilarious, since kids are generally the ones who see the world in black and white.

>>153451116
God you're insufferable. I called you /co/ because you were espousing the belief that you need a moral imperative to be a good hero. That's the kind of shit that /co/ buys into. Honestly you could also be /tg/. Either way, you definitely cross board on /lit/.

The funny thing is, is that you never even tried to refute the fact that Saitama is a good hero because of his effectiveness. Honestly if you want to actually get into logical discourse then you shouldn't try and cheat like that. Refute the whole post or none of it at all.

But none of that is even the real point. The real point is that you're a jackass who's getting off on trying to "debate" morality and ethics with people who just wanted to discuss genre conventions. Seriously you're a fucking clown.

>>153446537
t. Rogal Dorn

>>153451194
>who just wanted to discuss genre conventions.
Not him but that isn't true, the thread was bound to be about moral relativism ever since the OP made it.

>>153445868
>If you can't disprove the opponent's justification on a rational basis then you have no right to criticize their position

>villain mass murders, rapes, burns cities
>a young hero with standard education shows up
>villain starts quoting philosophers hero has never even heard about and make half an hour convoluted speech
>hero is suppose to walk away and get higher education before he can stop 'worse then hitler' arsehole

>>153451194
>Arguing with someone you know to be an armchair philosopher from /lit/ and /co/
Why would you subject yourself to that?

>>153451248
Nah, pretty sure it's just the normal "greentext shit cliches" thread we have daily.

>>153451273
Nice strawman.

File: 18f3d32cb2a16416e43b86b8d740bc73.png (238KB, 640x448px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 640x448px

>in order to give my sister a better life I must destroy everything and endanger her multiple times

Why is he such a massive fuckup

>>153451248
Not really. It seemed like OP wanted to have one of those threads were we collectively roll our eyes at played out or cliched character dynamics.

>>153451288
>Why would you subject yourself to that?
I like having a punching bag after a long night of work.

>>153451289
That wasn't a strawman at all, it was a practical example of why the person whose philosophy he was quoting was stupid. What is it with retards and their hard on for crying about logical fallacies anytime someone calls them an idiot?

Morality is a meme.

>>153451330
because it took him two seasons to realize he can just say "you must follow my every order forever" to everyone he meets.

>>153446305
>The problem is most of the time there's no conclusive evidence that is even the case, just a general assumption within fiction that anything a villain is doing must produce a bad outcome.

>Fate franchise is a pretty good example of "moral" characters shutting down any sort of dialogue and getting their way by force, regardless of the possible consequences.

Hurr, dialogue with sadistic liches, super sadistic crazy priests, and murderous megalomaniacs who view you as less than dirt on their boots is certaintly bound to produce good outcomes, durr, oh my, why I can't hold all this retardation!

>>153451288
>Nah, pretty sure it's just the normal "greentext shit cliches" thread we have daily.
Which inevitably leads to discussion about moral relativism. The OP is describing the fact that the MC can't counter the villain points and only knows how to use brute force and that obviously begs the question of the protagonist being right or wrong, which leads to moral relativism.

>>153451330
>In order to reform the world and rout the corrupt government, I have to be put in dangerous situations
When did he ever put Nunally in harm's way? It was always someone else pulling her into the fray, not a part of his own plans.

>>153451347
Name an anime were the villains motives and actions are actually of questionable morality. Seriously I'll wait. Even if the villain thinks they're doing good they always do heinously evil shit to make it happen.

So seriously give me one anime where the villain is actually in the right and the hero isn't justified in punching him to death.

File: tmp_26069-1483739131655-234917911.jpg (582KB, 1600x1131px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1600x1131px

Nice thread guys

>>153451335
It is a strawman because you aren't countering his point, you are inventing a new one. The anon was talking about the fact of the protagonist being unable to criticize the point of the villain due to his lack of knowledge, he didn't said the MC should back down though, that's you projecting, he only said that the MC can't claim being right if he has no no knowledge about what the fuck he's talking about. He can still punch the villain in the face or whatever, but he is doing so by pure selfish and emotional reasons and not by a logical and sound reason.

>>153451410
Yes yes, you're much smarter than the rest of us. Thanks for letting us know by shitting up the thread further.

>>153450255
Yes or you are a burger.
Make no difference either way to everyone else to be honest.

>>153451391
Shinsekai Yori, NGE, Madoka, Death Note. And I didn't even need to think or consult anything, If you want a can drop more names.

All these works are morally ambiguous and who you side with will depend on your values, bias, personal perspective and etc.

>>153451449
>selfish and emotional reasons

emotional sure. selfish? how is stopping a murderer selfish?

>>153451347
>moral relativism

"Moral relativism" is an oxymoron, simple as that.

>The OP is describing the fact that the MC can't counter the villain points

Reminder, that total solipsism cannot be assailed by logic or rhetoric. However, solipsists somehow aren't eager to put their hands into fire, even if they may construe a foolproof argument that the fire exist only in their imagination.

Lots of villains who put forth "points" are merely softer, more hypocritical versions of solipsists. In their imaginary worlds, they are the only person worth considering, other people are just props on the stage of life. The only way to dispute anything with someone like Gilgamesh or Adachi is to show that such attitude will burn them. Words will not even register.

>begs the question of the protagonist being right or wrong, which leads to moral relativism.

Questions of someone being right or wrong are impossible under moral relativism.

>>153451510
It's selfish because it stems from his own ego and values of what's right and wrong. He doesn't stop to consider the villain view's point, he only considers what he think it's right, even without knowing what the fuck he's talking about, which is self-centered/selfish.

>>153451129
Most of our instincts tend to conflict with each other. Organisms need to constantly choose their priorities to survive.

>>153447706

Esdeath

>>153451509
>Shinsekai Yori
Squeeler forced two children to breed and then killed them. Since the two children hadn't reached age of majority they were defacto innocent. He killed two innocents that we know of, no telling how many more he killed.

>NGE
Forcefully stripping humanity of its individuality is evil. Its the removal of free will. Unless your arguing that the angels are the good guys. Then lol.

>Madoka
Manipulating innocent children into being fuel to stave off a threat that isn't relevant at all to life on earth is heinous.

>Death Note
Light killed many many people who did no wrong other than trying to stop him from killing people. Light himself mused about moving from killing violent criminals to killing every day jerks early on in the series. He had a god complex and used the Death Note as a tool to carry that out. Pure evil.

Seriously take that shitty fedora off your head.

Ironically Shinsekai Yori doesn't even have the protagonist kill squealer out of malice. Saki understood Squeeler's reasoning, but fought out of tribalism protection and acknowledged that. And in the end she killed him out of mercy at personal cost to herself.

>>153451509
>Shinsekai Yori,

The whole reason the main villain lost was being such a mass-murdering hypocrite that someone sided with his oppressors and volunteered to die just to give him a middle finger.

>NGE

Both groups of main villains want to end the fucking world, and the more important main villain is literally doing so because of >tfw no gf

>Madoka

Either the main villain was actually manipulating the heroine towards her final choice, or it wanted to create a super-witch that will destroy the Universe. There is no third option.

>Death Note.

Light is simply a serial killer who went absolutely bathsit insane because he couldn't bear the guilt of his first murder.

Your examples are invalid.

>>153451058
The reason I only complain about philosophy is because it's off-topic. Yes, it's stupid to argue about which piece of paper you wanna put your wang inside the most, but I signed up for that when I decided to come here. When I came to this board for Cambodian coloring books tonight, I was not looking for neckbeards who have no idea what they're talking about to argue about the nature of morality. Also, everyone fucking knows that typical /a/ bullshit is retarded, but you faggots are acting dead fucking serious about your little philosophy shitfest.

As for the rest of your comment, I call bullshit. If you seriously wanted to have engaging discussions, you wouldn't reply like "kek nice try fag, try not being retarded next time". That kind of shit can't possibly lead to anything except hostile shit-slinging where both sides try to "out-cool" each other while only absorbing the absolute bare minimum of the other person's point in order to make a reply. There is literally nothing mentally stimulating about what you do.

>>153451668
See this thread is extra fucking retarded because the five of us all know this. Literally everyone but the "philosopher" knows that he's a fucking loser. Its just a struggle to get him to see that.

>>153451558
>"Moral relativism" is an oxymoron
i really don't know what you mean with this. All I know is that you didn't refute anything about moral relativism being true.

>Lots of villains who put forth "points" are merely softer, more hypocritical versions of solipsists
Here we go again, you are not the one to decide that. You have no right to say what's right or wrong since again, morality is relative. The only way to say that the villain is wrong is by the consensus of the society, and if you say that consensus is always right you have to accept that opinions that goes against the majority are always wrong.

Thing is though, if you fail to protect your beliefs and points of view using arguments and sound logic, even at a basic level, then you have no right to say that the other person is wrong, simply as that.

>Questions of someone being right or wrong are impossible under moral relativism.
They are impossible to answer for certain, but it's possible to argue about them, which is much more interesting.

>>153451620

She was what she was before any bad things happened. With her it is the case of "Why shouldn't I murder and torture people if that gives me warm and fuzzy feels, and I can get away with it because I'm really strong?"

>>153451565
>it stems from his own ego and values of what's right and wrong
>He doesn't stop to consider the villain view's point

most villains murder and make people suffer. you do not need argument to stop such an act. if villain claims he has reasons for such an action he should have explained it BEFORE doing so. if he belives that hes the only one capable of justice, judgement and anyone else is unable to comprehend hes deep and comlex thought then he is notihng more then an autist. simple as that.

>>153451622
>He killed two innocents that we know of, no telling how many more he killed.
Irrelevant, it's just means to an end. Cantus users enslaved humans and altered them genetically to look like rats so that other Cantus users wouldn't have more empathy for them. Squealer knew he was fighting Gods and had no way of winning unless he did everything in his power to win. Going to a almost impossible battle without making every possible sacrifice to win is the most stupid thing you can do.

>Forcefully stripping humanity of its individuality is evil. Its the removal of free will
Again, naive view. How can you tell that humans wouldn't be happy in instrumentality? Who are you to decide that? It's your vision against people's vision that the world would be a better place with it. And like in most cases when it comes to humanity, it comes to a few deciding for the majority.

>Manipulating innocent children into being fuel to stave off a threat that isn't relevant at all to life on earth is heinous.
As I remember, the threat would soon affect earth and the witches and Mahou shoujos were also useful to Humanity. But I could be wrong as I don't remember that much of the plot.

>Light killed many many people who did no wrong other than trying to stop him from killing people.
See above, means to a end. In the end, he did better than good. He almost stopped crime rate and all wars and at the sake of what? Killing some criminals? The world was objectively a better place with Kira taking care of things, as only criminals died and innocent people were safer. You can argue that his vision of good and evil is naive, which I agree, but you can't argue against his results.

>Ironically Shinsekai Yori doesn't even have the protagonist kill squealer out of malice. Saki understood Squeeler's reasoning,
That's why it's morally ambiguous you retard. Neither Squealer nor Saki or Cantus users were ''wrong''. They just had different motivations and perceptions.

>>153451706
>All I know is that you didn't refute anything about moral relativism being true.

Because there is literally nothing to refute.

>They are impossible to answer for certain, but it's possible to argue about them, which is much more interesting.

It's impossible to argue anything under the confines of moral relativism. When any argument you may put forth can (and will) be shut down with "Morals are relative, and I'm following my own morals, therefore I right, and you may fuck off" there is no discussion to be had. All that is left is the very resort to naked force you don't seem to like. By the way, that's why sawwyer heroes often just don't give a shit about villainous justifications that implicitly or explicitly start with "fuck morality, my point of view is the only valid one!"

>>153450731
Everyone has his own version of justice anyway, so the Hero must be stronger than villain.

>>153451887
he did more good than ill*

>>153445868
>If you can't disprove the opponent's justification on a rational basis

Lots of villains, including most of those Saitama faced had the justification along the lines of "I'm really strong, therefore I can brute-force my whims regardless of whom I hurt". The way to disprove such justification on a rational basis is to punch them in the face harder than they can punch you.

>>153451664
>The whole reason the main villain lost was being such a mass-murdering hypocrite that someone sided with his oppressors and volunteered to die just to give him a middle finger.
It's funny that you said much, but conveyed nothing. Cantus enslaved humans. They altered humans genetically to make them look disgusting. Squealer had two options, either fight against cantus users and give hope to his race again or accept their fate in live as subhumans for the rest of their lives. If he chose the former, he would have to go all out in order to win, as he was fighting basically living Gods, whereas he was a simple rat. If he choose the latter, then his race would be reduced to nothing more than cattle, animals who just serve other race. Both options are shit, but I know what I would do.

>Both groups of main villains want to end the fucking world, and the more important main villain is literally doing so because of
First, they aren't ending the world, nor they are ending human race, they are just changing It. You missed one of the most simple allegories in the ending of NGE, which is rebirth. Second, you say they want to end it all, but you ignore their reasoning, just like a shounen MC. Lastly, the motives are irrelevant, the results are what matter.

>Light is simply a serial killer who went absolutely bathsit insane because he couldn't bear the guilt of his first murder.
Not only that's one of the most retard things I ever heard about Death Note. But it also ignores that he really made crime rate almost non existent and stopped all wars. His results are undeniable and he did more good than bad, this is a fact.

>Your examples are invalid.
Nope, you are just a imbecile who's incapable of thinking about things beyond a superficial level

>>153447102
I'm sorry, but I read that, and I pictured a kid just yelling "PEW PEW! BANG! PKYEEEEEW!"

>>153447495
>He never tried to learn what shadows are, he never tries to learn what the goal of the shadowlord is, despite various events in the game showing him that shadows are actually sentient beings who think and have feelings.

All that means diddly-squat in Nier's context. Why he, or indeed anyone in the right mind, would feel anything but utter hatred for people who created him and everyone he knows solely as sacrifices for the sake of preserving their own existence? Who would even for a second seriously contemplate allowing himself to be taken over and wiped away by alien body snatchers, instead of choosing mutual destruction, if he can?

>>153445868
You can rationalize pretty much anything. Rational choices are picked through your own emotional bias, so an emotional answer such as "i dont like it, fuck off" is about as valid of a counter argument. Rationality isnt some holy shield against all arguments.

>>153451668
>The reason I only complain about philosophy is because it's off-topic.
It's on topic since we were talking about moral relativism in anime. Not to mention that pretty much every discussion on /a/ gets a little off-topic sometimes, which is nice since it gives more dynamism to things.

>I was not looking for neckbeards who have no idea what they're talking about to argue about the nature of morality.
So what's wrong with our reasoning? Care to explain or you just like to put yourself above everyone else, like you did in all posts?

>everyone fucking knows that typical /a/ bullshit is retarded, but you faggots are acting dead fucking serious about your little philosophy shitfest.
People act dead serious about the most trivial things here on /a/, I don't know why we can't be serious about morals. Also, why do you think we're serious and not just typing arguments that we perceive as being reasonable? Maybe it's you projecting again? It's probably that.

>"kek nice try fag, try not being retarded next time
I never did that though. I painted you as a retard using arguments and said something that was on topic with what you said and made sense in the context of your posts. Don't try to use a strawman to make your shitpost look better.

>That kind of shit can't possibly lead to anything except
Because you replied to the offensive part of my post instead of replying to my argument. Meaning that your ego gets easily hurt, again showed by most of your posts. I may insult people in my posts, but I make sound arguments along with said insults. If you can't handle insults that aren't even ad hominem, then you don't belong on 4chan.

>There is literally nothing mentally stimulating about what you do.
The only one who can say whether it is stimulating or not is me, don't you think? Just like I see nothing stimulating in partaking in a discussion that you claim you don't enjoy, but you seem to think. To each their own.

>>153452061
>It's funny that you said much, but conveyed nothing.

Pot, kettle, black.

>Squealer had two options...

Not being a genocidal monster to bring down whom another of his species would be willing to sacrifice his own life, or being such. Squealer chose the latter.

>First, they aren't ending the world

They are.

>nor they are ending human race, they are just changing It.

Necromorphs from Dead Space are totally just changing the human race, dude.

Also, since when changing people without their consent is remotely moral.

>Not only that's one of the most retard things I ever heard about Death Note.
But it also ignores that he really made crime rate almost non existent and stopped all wars. His results are undeniable and he did more good than bad, this is a fact.

Why are you arguing about Death Note if you haven't even read it?

>Nope, you are just a imbecile who's incapable of thinking about things beyond a superficial level

You're just trolling us and copying the standard pseudo-intellectual villain speeches, aren't you?

>>153451902
>It's impossible to argue anything under the confines of moral relativism. When any argument you may put forth can (and will) be shut down with "Morals are relative, and I'm following my own morals, therefore I right, and you may fuck off" there is no discussion to be had
Actually, the reason moral relativsm works is because by dismantling morality you get to argue on a rational basis.
As long as you agree on fundamental values, the actual discussion becomes one of which method is better. If you actually disagree on fundamental values it becomes a clean match of "I seriously don't give a shit" and seeing who's stronger because if you disagree on fundamental values there's no discussion to be had.

>>153451902
>Because there is literally nothing to refute.
Explain further.

>there is no discussion to be had.
Except you are making a dishonest argument. Because generally the villain gives sound arguments to prove his point, the one who says what you quoted are the Shounens. We're arguing in favor of moral relativism to prove that the point of view of the villain should also be considered and heard, we didn't said that the villain will shut any argument with ''muh morals are relatives'', that's you making a strawman again, since you can't argue.

>ll that is left is the very resort to naked force you don't seem to like.
I have nothing against brute force. Thing is that brute force isn't everything. You need to have your points supported by both force and knowledge/arguments.

>>153452391
The thing about moral relativism is that under it, the only time discussion and reason makes sense is if your fundamental values match up.

If the villain's fundamental values, for example, are "for the greater good" and yours are "I will protect my sister who is a sacrifice for the greater good", then there's really no discussion to be had, because your goals are different. Under moral relativism since both sides are equally correct then it becomes a slugging match so the victor gets to actually go through with his plan.
However, if both of you agree on your fundamental values, that's when logic comes into play to think about which course of action is actually better.
Usually the villain's fundamental value doesn't match up with the protagonist's, so the protagonist goes "no fuck you I don't care". If the villain's fundamental value actually does match up, like in Negima for example, then it becomes a question of "so how can we accomplish our goal in a better way" and Negi actually creates a way for it to work without Fate's plan, so Fate basically says fuck it I give.

>>153452334
Stop

putting

all

those

spaces

like

a

retard,

faggot

>>153451449
Yeah like I said, you're an idiot as is everyone else who cries about logical fallacies. Anon provided an example within the framework of your premise where your conclusion was wrong. There's no strawman there.

>>153452334
>Not being a genocidal monster to bring down whom another of his species would be willing to sacrifice his own life, or being such. Squealer chose the latter.
What? Do you even look at the stuff you type man?

This doesn't change anything, being Squealer or any other rat, they would have to go all out against Cantus user to win, ergo they would have to make sacrifices and be ruthless. And by making sacrifices and being ruthless, they would doom their society by failing, but they would have no chance of winning without doing so.

>Also, since when changing people without their consent is remotely moral.
Missing the point. Means to a end. Actions aren't one-dimensional, simplistic things. If for example, you change the life of 200 people without their consent, to save the live of 1000, then you did a good thing. Despite the first action being immoral in its most basic form.

>Why are you arguing about Death Note if you haven't even read it?
Not a argument. Argue against my point and we talk. Also, Light's motivations are irrelevant, like I said what matters in the end are results. We remember and live within of the results that people bring to society, whereas the people who brought said results are forgotten over time, at least in most cases. Anyway, point is that people are forgotten, ideas are not.

>You're just trolling us and copying the standard pseudo-intellectual villain speeches, aren't you?
I'm just telling you the truth. I know it hurts, even more so by the fact that you fail to argue against me. But the fact is that you don't understand the things you watch and read in any level that isn't superficial, as showed by your arguments and one-dimensional visions that you have about the characters and their motivations.

>>153452488
Not even them, but you are the faggot for caring.

>>153452497
I wasn't even the guy who made that post he replied first, I just called him out. And I provided arguments to explain why it was a fallacy in my eyes. If you disagree so, then show where my argument is faulty.

>>153451695
I'm not even the only one arguing in favor of moral relativism and as I observed in this thread, no one was able to refute any of the main arguments in favor of said points.

Also, siding with a ''I'm better than everyone in this thread because I don't engage in this pointless shit, even though I wasted my time posting here to feel superior'' just because you are butthurt about the discussion is pretty pathetic.

>>153450456
No. He's right. Giving up the credit just makes Saitama seem more noble. He was legit pissed at Suiryu's nihilistic rambling and initially saved the Chin kid despite the fact that he wasn't OP yet. Saitama understood Garou more than he understood himself and was more of a hero than the people he railed against.

>>153451193
Kids and teenagers aren't known for their sense of responsibility towards a larger community or strong sense of right and wrong, but the later think that naval gazing on moral relativism makes them deep. "Hey dude what if murder and rape isn't actually a bad thing if the villain's dog gets hit by a car."

>>153450517
Not sure you get the whole human flourishing thing. The point of flourishing is growth, expansion, and even bears the trappings of imperium. It can be quantitized in various ways, reduction of human extinction risk, long term maximization of entropy production is probably the most precise and least subjective descriptor for flourishing (see these for why https://phys.org/news/2013-04-emergence-complex-behaviors-causal-entropic.html https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/). An ISIS takeover would be bad news my either measure, not that the present neo-liberal regime is much better given the rampant dysgenics, foot dragging for new frontiers, and generally pushing risk into the long tail rather than develop anti-fragile systems (which tend to feature decentralized networks at the top level of complexity rather than centralizing into single points of failure).

>>153452779
>Kids and teenagers aren't known for their sense of responsibility towards a larger community or strong sense of right and wrong,
They aren't conscious about it though. The fact you don't see a difference between recognizing moral relativism as something existent and being a selfish prick says much about your understanding about the matter.

>>153452779
The thing is moral relativism isn't just flat "so nothing is wrong", it's like nihilism in that it tells you that nothing is objectively wrong but this doesn't mean you act however the fuck you want but instead means you need to understand, create, and uphold your own moral code and that objective morality or the lack thereof is neither an attack [nor a defense], so if someone pushes your shit in for being morally wrong you have nothing to say precisely because you follow moral relativism.
Teenagers miss the second part, because they're still childlike in that they still believe that the world should do the "right" thing instead of what people make happen because they think it's right.

>>153452835
Teenagers recognize the first half of moral relativism where "nothing is objectively right or wrong". They fail to recognize the second half where "but that doesn't actually matter and you're still responsible for your actions". They don't get the part where the lack of moral guides makes you completely responsible for your own actions, and doesn't mean other people can't object to your actions on their own moral standards.

>>153452835
Teenagers are conscious of moral relativism. It's the first thing they get into along with atheism when rebelling against the values their parents instilled. But an adult jury is unlikely to care about any of that when sentencing a serial killer. Their value system is largely set in stone.

>>153452927
You do realize a law system doesn't have anything to do with morality right? It slowly changes in response to the morality of the populus but law itself is simply a set of rules, your morality has nothing to do with it.

>>153452956
Sure. But a jury's response and level of sympathy towards a defendant isn't just tied to the law but to their sense of right or wrong. The older and more conservative a person is the more likely they are to just dismiss a murderer or rapist as evil.

>>153452927
There are plenty of kids atheist from the get go

>>153452187
>hy he, or indeed anyone in the right mind, would feel anything but utter hatred for people who created him and everyone he knows solely as sacrifices for the sake of preserving their own existence
So the better option is to put a end to all human race, replicants and gestalt included? Nier never tried to learn anything about shadows, he didn't even rationalized what you are saying, he simply killed everything in sight to fulfill his desire.

The fact you even side with him means you missed the point of the game, as Nier is supposed to be the average dumb, clueless, aggressive and homicidal MC of every game, who kills everything in sight and thinks he's justifiable or moral in doing so. And unlike most MCs who do that, he failed miserable in all his objectives and made things much worse than they were, like it would be the case If someone like Nier was actually in charge of deciding the fate of the world.

>>153453065
And there are plenty of adolescent Internet Atheists who obsess about it because they've just discovered the concept.

>>153453108
There's plenty of adolescent internet everythings and they'll almost all retarded.

>>153449857
>Strategic_Genius.png

>>153452956
Look into the theory behind natural law and I don't mean silly made up crap about rights. It's why sane justice systems don't punish you for self defense. Got to respect nature's laws, not doing so is like ordering the tide not to rise.

>>153452874
> It's the first thing they get into along with atheism when rebelling against the values their parents instilled.
That's not being conscious about moral relativism, that's just being contrarian and rebel.

>But an adult jury is unlikely to care about any of that when sentencing a serial killer. Their value system is largely set in stone.
That's mostly because the morals and values of an adult are more set in stone, whereas a teenager is in constant change. That doesn't disprove anything about moral relativism though, as older people will have different kinds of moral values and will disagree with each other.

Also, atheism isn't just a sign of someone being contrarian, it's mostly a byproduct of our society slowly becoming more and more nihilistic and embracing moral relativism, which is bad as a whole, as it causes confusion and lack of passion within people.

>>153445709
Ahahaha you silly anon, monsters aren't people, especially demi-humans.
Killing them is like stepping on a fly why are you getting this upset ?

>>153449857
Should've just punch all of them. No one will be fighting if all the fighters are down.

>>153453143
Ordering the tide not to rise is both impossible and pointless. It is neither impossible nor pointless to not enforce "natural rights", since the entire point they're codified is that a lot of regimes didn't respect them but didn't collapse anyway. Self defense isn't something that's punished but the point at which self defense turns into assault with a good excuse isn't clear.
Fundamentally Law doesn't exist as a "Justice system". The Law exists as a stability system. It was originally created as a clear and universally known (within a society) set of rules that laid out possible problems and acceptable solutions, and cared little about an abstract sense of justice as long as the problem was taken care of and society wasn't disturbed too heavily.
The concept of some abstract justice that needs to be fulfilled is extremely recent.
Fundamentally law isn't about justice. It's about, well, law. Order. Reliability. You know what will happen if you kill someone or steal something, and you know that if something is stolen what you'll get as compensation. It's a replacement for the village elder to remove human agency.

>>153453183
You quoted the wrong person.

>it's mostly a byproduct of our society slowly becoming more and more nihilistic and embracing moral relativism
No, it's because the original point of strongly organized religion is slowly fading. The original point is to provide societal order and quench fear / confusion. It's an easy to understand premade code that is made to comfort and explain. If someone doesn't need comforting and doesn't need explainations then religion naturally fades although it could easily stay as a cultural or spiritual phenomenon.

>as it causes confusion
It's 'bad as a whole' from a top-down point of view. Nationalism and other forms of idealism work well to replace it.

>and lack of passion
Not sure about this one. Religion is exceptional in driving men but not everyone is affected by it.

>>153453143
Then when you combine natural law with game theory, remove bullshit liberal principles and any other preconceived notions, then you start talking about winning strategies, aka best praxis aka morality. It gets really complex and interesting as you incorporate group strategies, the idea of using a single strategy for everybody is a loser. Layers upon layers of cooperation and defection, you'll see the world with new eyes. It's like chess, impossible to pin down the perfect strategy, but fairly easy to rank strategies as new ones are introduced.

>>153453325
>impossible to pin down the perfect strategy
>uses a game that can be strongly proven to explain this point
How about no?

>>153453281
>It's a replacement for the village elder to remove human agency.
That's not quite true, that's what moderns have turned it into, which is a horrible mistake since law requires good judgement (removing agency removes human bias and instead introduces unknown biases since the system becomes a crude weak AI and hence stupid, which is only the case if humans are in fact removed from the system, which they aren't). Law evolved as a means of enforcing the leader's will while the leader was out hunting/conquering for the group.

>>153453281
>No, it's because the original point of strongly organized religion is slowly fading.
And that happens because of the rise in moral relativism and nihilism, which in my opinion is mostly caused by globalization and communication/information being accessible at such a easy and fast rate. Why else do you think religion is losing its power? Because more than ever we live in a era where skepticism and doubt are more predominant than certainty, as that is what too much information at such a fast rate does to most people.

>>153453430
You solved chess? You have the perfect strategy that can never lose? Are you fucking retarded?

>>153453501
What is progism if not an organized religion. Sure there's skepticism but being the state religion they're still able to enforce their dogmas.

>>153453501
>And that happens because of the rise in moral relativism and nihilism


>>153453492
>That's not quite true
What? The original laws were a replacement for the village elder's arbitrations. They were functionally a set of rules that said, say, "If you steal a pig you give back two or else give back the pig and work as a servant for three months" instead of whatever the village elder wanted. They provided order and provided system, so you knew what you were getting into and so that human agency couldn't unduly lighten or worsen the punishement and so that people could expect a "just" punishment (in other words, the one everyone has already agreed upon).
The evidence that it was about order instead of justice? In the Babylonian code, a wife could recieve punishment up to and including execution for cheating. Special case though - the husband who got cheated on is the one who decides the punishment and could waive it entirely if he wanted. This is where the human side comes in - as long as everyone's okay with the result and society gets order restored to it it's fine, an abstract justice isn't as relevant.

>>153453555
It's proven to BE solveable though, so it's a very shitty example for you to say "impossible to pin down the perfect strategy".

>>153453501
>Why else do you think religion is losing its power?
Because people have grown generally wealthier, more secure, and more educated. I'm not saying religion is 'ignorant' but being educated gives you more options. Wealth is important because the rise of wealth implies the percieved ability to take your life into your own hands. People don't want to rely on someone if they can help it, it's even considered a factor in the sudden rise of organized religions along with job specialization because suddenly you weren't the one producing the food you were eating, you had to depend on the farmer next door to provide for you.

>>153453654
Religion is not just a way of thinking.

>>153453690
>Because people have grown generally wealthier, more secure, and more educated.

Monks were the most educated and financially secure people of their time.

>>153453787
And just look at the number of monks who got convicted of shit like getting head during confession, embezzlement, and so on. Fuck, a "nunnery" was slang for a whorehouse in England. Not to say there weren't actually devout monks, there surely were, but then again even today there are highly devout people.
Moreover, the monks owe their status, wealth, and security to the organization which OBTENSIBLY was based in faith. No faith, no advancement or so the advertisement went. Being too brazen could easily lead to getting kicked out.

>>153453281
>>153453690
Today's society is filled to the brim with Nietzsche's mentality and moral relativism. As someone who's very hedonistic and nihilistic, I say that applying moral relativism to society is cancerous, because most people can't deal with it. You will most likely weaken nationalism, people's motivations and also the morality and union of your country. Religion is good because it gives a purpose to people's lives and makes them feel part of something greater than themselves, which is something that this generation severely lacks, or at least they think they do, a purpose. I'm not even religious, but I believe in its good when it comes to the well being of society.

>Because people have grown generally wealthier, more secure, and more educated
Those are lesser factors compared to fast information and communication between people all around the world, believe me. But even those factors can easily give rise to the things I said. As when people don't have to think about basic things anymore, their thoughts will wander around other, arguably less important questions and with so much information provided at such a fast and accessible way, they will get confused by so many answers and subjectivity being implanted in their minds, which is likely to make them grow into skeptical, relativistic people, without any really strong belief.

I agree with you that there are replacements to religion though, our society just didn't manage to find and apply them efficiently yet.

I would make a better post explaining my point. But I'm just tired as fuck, since I have been arguing in this thread ever since the first posts. This will probably be my last post, I need some sleep

>>153453690
There's a difference between replacement and supplement. Not disagreeing with the general purpose which is order.

Progism is more than just a way of thinking, it's has it's own rituals, it's priests (professors), it's own culture and traditions. Supernatural belief in the equality of man. They believe the end of history will come when a one world government arrives to unite all races under the banner of their faith. Disguising itself as secular was an ingenious evolutionary adaptation that enabled it to become the state religion.

>>153454188
>Progism is more than just a way of thinking, it's has it's own rituals,
Like?

>it's priests (professors),
That's not how the priesthood works. Professors are not above criticism and can be absolutely destroyed in debate by literal nobodies, and their existence revolves around releasing research that other people debate and either accept or reject. They're closer to theologians than priests, and theologians aren't the same as priests or even similar.

>it's own culture and traditions.
Religion has neither culture nor tradition but adds to culture and tradition as a form of thought and just because it exists for long enough. This is common to ALL forms of thought.

>Supernatural belief in the equality of man.
Not really, no - you're confusing a belief in science and experimentation / strict logical derivation with liberalism.

>They believe the end of history will come
At the end of eternity, when entropy finally hits a level plane and shit of interest stops happening entirely as per the laws of thermodynamics.

>when a one world government arrives
Or distinctly fails to, since it's by no means agreed upon whether or not it's even possible to achieve while preserving culture to any reasonable degree, or even possible to achieve while destroying culture.

>to unite all races under the banner of their faith.
Ways of thinking generally attempt to spread themselves. This is distinct to methods of thought, and not related to religion. Many religions didn't give two shits about spreading themselves, but nearly all forms of thought did. It just so happens that later religions tended to include ways of thought.

>Disguising itself as secular was an ingenious evolutionary adaptation that enabled it to become the state religion.
Epic stuff mate.

>>153445333

Do you really want to know what a villain has it mind? It's just self-pitying bullshit anyway.

Like, do you REALLY believe anything, say, ISIS says? It's all nonsense to anyone who isn't insane.

>>153454390
The difference is that you know it's utter bullshit and nonsensical drivel because you listened to it or at least listened to someone who did. Otherwise you're just shitting on them because they're counter to your interests and that's perfectly fine.

>>153454444

In the end, does it really make a difference? You're still going to kill the guy, regardless. It's actually safer to kill him as quickly and as efficiently as possible, like getting an injection. Don't think about it, just do it.

>>153454493
>does it really make a difference
It depends, honestly.
Generally it doesn't fucking matter if his actions result in something entirely unacceptable to you, something that isn't up for debate, something that isn't a means but an end in and of itself. If someone is aiming to murder oneechan then fuck whatever the hell his justification is, I don't particularly care, because there are things that simply aren't up for haggling.
Other times it might be up for debate. If someone's course of action makes him King then unless you have something against kings in general or want to protect the current king, it's reasonable to listen to what exactly this guy has in mind, why he wants to become king, and so on.

>>153454306
I'm talking about progism, not science, supernatual belief in equality and human progess aka modern = best.

You can't discuss human evolution from the neck up because heresy. You can't discuss theories of global warming caused by anything but human production of CO2 because heresy. You can't discuss genetic differences between human populations because heresy. You can't promote illiberal theories of government because heresy. You can't discuss general intelligence (but can obsess over GRE scores) because heresy. You can't discuss the buildup of mutational loading in humans because heresy.
Professors who push critical theory are way off from the empirical science reservation. In fact the entirety of the social sciences having been having issues with the whole repeatability thing. What's published has more to do with conforming with their dogma rather than disproving sacred ideas.

Protests, marches, activism, promoting awareness, struggle sessions, 5 minute hates. These are less political activities than they are rituals for forming a group identity. The 1960s was the fourth great awakening. Go read how dawkins got pwned.

>>153454768
>Protests, marches, activism, promoting awareness, struggle sessions, 5 minute hates. These are less political activities than they are rituals for forming a group identity. The 1960s was the fourth great awakening. Go read how dawkins got pwned.
So basically utter bullshit that has nothing to do with anything, because the newest things continiously change and liberalism has nothing to do with science and isn't even close to global in nature, and is not accepted by mainstream academia (reminder that "neck up" evolution is accepted among mainstream academia and simply tactfully not brought up most of the time, that non-anthropological global warming was investigated in depth but found to be not sufficient to explain current trends, that genetic differences among human populations get papers published at a rather rapid pace, and so on).

>repeatability
That's why nobody in academia actually thinks the social sciences are a so-called hard science and depending on definitions even a science at all. They remain a field of study through different means.

>1960s etc.
Sorry, I'm not interested in reading something unrelated to the topic at hand and irrelevant to the progress of the academia at large. Shit like Black Athena remain completely unaccepted by the academia and no matter what happens the numbers are there so the most you can really do is tactfully ignore differences when presenting to the general population.