Fate/Apocrypha Vol. 2 + 3 (no spoilers)

[Arashi_Leonhart]

In this setting there is no difference in value between the life of an evil person and the life of a good person. Killing Shinji Matou for gleefully risking lives is no different than killing Sakura Matou for innocently and accidentally risking lives.

And again, I'll reiterate: when all parties are equally informed as to what they're risking--meaning their lives--then arguments about the worth of what they're risking death for is pointless. Fiore putting her life on the line in a kill or be killed situation for the sake of her legs is just as valid as somebody who risks their life for the sake of saving a thousand innocent lives. The risk is the same for both. In the closed circuit of the ethical situation they have formed, what they all want is equally valid as well. You could say that Kairi is equal parts scumbag for his willingness to kill a disabled woman who just wants to walk again as you could say that Fiore is a scumbag for her willingness to kill a guy doing his job and earning his keep.

[Rokudaime]

In this setting there is no difference in value between the life of an evil person and the life of a good person. Killing Shinji Matou for gleefully risking lives is no different than killing Sakura Matou for innocently and accidentally risking lives.

What? Um...No? Are you saying the moral values and unwritten rules of society in the FA universe is different from that of the real world (as in, what most people would consider to be right/tolerable. That Magi decide to throw things like that to the wind because of who they are do not make those choices morally acceptable)? Because in the real world, the value of the life of a good person is higher than the value of the life of an evil person, and as per your example, killing Shinji (because he's a fucking asshole) would be less bad than killing Sakura (though both would be bad, unless it's self-defence, or to prevent him from killing others). Unless of course you're talking about towards the end of HF, where for most people (who do not know or care about her), killing Sakura would mean saving themselves and also helping the greater good, which would be more of an understandable choice, because, you know...They're just human...

And again, I'll reiterate: when all parties are equally informed as to what they're risking--meaning their lives--then arguments about the worth of what they're risking death for is pointless. Fiore putting her life on the line in a kill or be killed situation for the sake of her legs is just as valid as somebody who risks their life for the sake of saving a thousand innocent lives. The risk is the same for both. In the closed circuit of the ethical situation they have formed, what they all want is equally valid as well. You could say that Kairi is equal parts scumbag for his willingness to kill a disabled woman who just wants to walk again as you could say that Fiore is a scumbag for her willingness to kill a guy doing his job and earning his keep.

This I can agree with. Though I'd change "ethical situation" to "unethical situation" in your explanation.

[Stasis]

You know, though it is not clearly shown in the writing, it is more or less obvious that if there had to be a heroes-pair, it would be Saber/Kairi.
They win by default since :
-the Yggdmilennia are lead by one damn of a nazi, and are the ennemies of Waver. And Waver is always a good guy, as everyone knows*wink*wink*
-the red camp is fully represented by Semiramis and Shirou, who are...er...evil scums?

So in this fight, considering the fact that the author supposedly wants to show that Fiore isn't really doing what she would like to do...Technically speaking...I think Kairi has a better argument. Technically speaking.

[Zenieth]

...what?

[Christemo]

Y
They win by default since :
-the Yggdmilennia are lead by one damn of a nazi, and are the ennemies of Waver. And Waver is always a good guy, as everyone knows*wink*wink*
-the red camp is fully represented by Semiramis and Shirou, who are...er...evil scums?

So in this fight, considering the fact that the author supposedly wants to show that Fiore isn't really doing what she would like to do...Technically speaking...I think Kairi has a better argument. Technically speaking.

1. Darnic isn't a Nazi. He used the Nazis to rob Fuyuki of the Grail, but unless you can show me quotes of him calling for a new Third Reich, he's not a Nazi. Also Waver isn't really a good guy, he's pretty self-serving really, just not heinously immoral either.
2. Shirou's plans are not exactly those of "evil scum", as you will come to see.

Kairi is literally just doing what he's doing on a payroll. That's not really a moral high ground.

[Mcjon01]

2. Shirou's plans are not exactly those of "evil scum", as you will come to see.

I don't know, man, there's still a whole new volume coming where it can turn out that his plan is going to turn everybody into tang and he just doesn't care. I wouldn't comment until it's all over.

[Megas]

The moral of the story is that everyone but Jeanne, Sieg, and maybe Astolfo are probably terrible in one way or another

[Christemo]

because, you know...They're just human...

But all humans are created equally, no? So what exactly gives people the right to judge who is worth less alive than others. How can you put Sakura's right to live over Shinji's because Shinji is an asshat when he only instigates non-permanent injury of a half-empty school while Sakura is indirectly responsible for the murder of hundreds of people and nearly got the entire world's population killed.

Basically, you should stop applying real-world morals to fictional situations that can't accurately be represented by logic.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know, man, there's still a whole new volume coming where it can turn out that his plan is going to turn everybody into tang and he just doesn't care. I wouldn't comment until it's all over.

Tang is delicious, so he's clearly moral.

- - - Updated - - -

The moral of the story is that everyone but Jeanne, Sieg, and maybe Astolfo are probably terrible in one way or another

I'd argue Karna if not for the fact that he'd genocide an innocent country if he was asked to.

[Rokudaime]

How can you put Sakura's right to live over Shinji's because Shinji is an asshat when he only instigates non-permanent injury of a half-empty school while Sakura is indirectly responsible for the murder of hundreds of people and nearly got the entire world's population killed.

Easy. Because of the "indirect" part. I would put someone who accidentally killed a 1000 innocent people by unintentionally triggering a massive explosion above someone who deliberately killed 1 innocent person just to steal their money from them, any time of the day. The motivations and thoughts behind an action is more important than the action itself. Also, note the "Unless of course you're talking about towards the end of HF, where for most people (who do not know or care about her), killing Sakura would mean saving themselves and also helping the greater good, which would be more of an understandable choice, because, you know...They're just human..." part of what I said.

But all humans are created equally, no? So what exactly gives people the right to judge who is worth less alive than others.

They may be born equal, but as time moves on, and they make good or bad choices, their value can change either for good or bad (not that it has too). Sorry, but I'm not a believer of the "everyone is equal" claim. A serial murderer/rapist sure as hell isn't worth as much in my eyes as the nice neighbour who has never hurt anybody.

[Siriel]

Because in the real world, the value of the life of a good person is higher than the value of the life of an evil person

No.

[Rokudaime]

No.

Yes. I say it is. You don't feel that way, and don't agree, and I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who would agree with either one us, so I'll just say we agree to disagree. It comes down to a difference in outlook/beliefs/values.

[Siriel]

Dude I don't care if you think people you see as evil should die. That just has nothing to do with the value of life.

[You]

"Her behavior was rather splendid, and not even a fragment of her desire to kill him here remained."
These descriptions sure don’t describe her as a fearless psycho, but it is for me the pace of someone who can make an impressive and surreal distinction between well…you could call it “personal and professional life”. It seems to me too much of a habit of her. Someone who can keep such composure is definitely someone special.

Read HA. Medea talks about this with Sakura and it sounds like something that should be applauded.

[Christemo]

Yes. I say it is. You don't feel that way, and don't agree, and I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who would agree with either one us, so I'll just say we agree to disagree. It comes down to a difference in outlook/beliefs/values.

The sentence "All humans are born equal" was not reffering to "oh but that guy stabbed an old lady when he got older so hes now a worthless waste of genes", it was reffering to the fact that all human life is equal. Make of that what you will.

And regardless of that, the life of a good person is not automatically worth more than that of a "bad" person. Can you truly say the moral saint who doesn't do anything in his life is worth more than a corrupt politician who, say, takes money for certain things he shouldn't, but keeps the country running?

That's another discussion for another time. The point was simply that you're logic is asinine.

[SINIB]

you're

Your

[Rokudaime]

Dude I don't care if you think people you see as evil should die. That just has nothing to do with the value of life.

Says you. I disagree. I think you're being very naive if you think there is a universal, objective, true definition of what the value of life is that everyone agrees on. There isn't. It's very much a subjective thing. The value of life is what people think it is, and what people think on that subject varies.

The sentence "All humans are born equal" was not reffering to "oh but that guy stabbed an old lady when he got older so hes now a worthless waste of genes", it was reffering to the fact that all human life is equal. Make of that what you will.

I understood you, and I'm saying I don't believe/feel that the actions people take in life have no effect on their value, and that all human life is equal from the moment they are born, and up until they die, no matter what. I am of the oppinion that they start equal, but once that guy stabs the old lady (unless there was a justified reason for it), his value drops. This is the way I see it, and if you are of the belief that all people will always have the same value their whole life, no matter what they do, well...that's your choice. We don't feel the same way then.

And regardless of that, the life of a good person is not automatically worth more than that of a "bad" person. Can you truly say the moral saint who doesn't do anything in his life is worth more than a corrupt politician who, say, takes money for certain things he shouldn't, but keeps the country running?

In my oppinion, the life of a good person is automatically worth more than that of a "bad" person, and yes, I can say that. Like I said, I am of the oppinion that the intentions behind the actions outweigh the actions themselves, regardless of the result. If you feel that the actions themselves are more important, then that's a difference in ethical philosophy between you and me then.

As for my logic being asinine, well, I'm sorry you don't respect my outlook on things. I'm not bitter enough from that comment to throw an insult back though, and I actually do not have a problem with the way your outlook works, I just don't agree with you.

[Christemo]

Your

If the only thing you can contribute to an argument is being a grammar nazi, maybe you shouldn't participate.

- - - Updated - - -

In my oppinion, the life of a good person is automatically worth more than that of a "bad" person, and yes, I can say that. Like I said, I am of the oppinion that the intentions behind the actions outweigh the actions themselves, regardless of the result. If you feel that the actions themselves are more important, then that's a difference in ethical philosophy between you and me then.

Intentions are completely worthless if they are not passed onto others or acted upon, I know as much from experience. I'd rather have an asshole rule a country competently than a living messiah incompetently.

[Arashi_Leonhart]

Says you. I disagree. I think you're being very naive if you think there is a universal, objective, true definition of what the value of life is that everyone agrees on. There isn't. It's very much a subjective thing. The value of life is what people think it is, and what people think on that subject varies.

No. You're mixing value and meaning. You say that all life begins equal but changes as time goes on. That's not equality. A murder is still as valuable as an innocent. Now apply the morals of a situation and you have meaning. What does it mean to a person, society, or events in a timeline when they take the life of a murderer versus what it means to take the life of an innocent. At base, you are carrying out the same exact definition: taking a life. Your argument about subjective value is only relevant to the meaning side, not the value side.

The mentioned dilemma of evil-doing Shinji versus innocent Sakura: for theoretical Shirou to kill either one is of equal value. You literally lose a life either way. For him to kill one over the other has different meaning to him.

This is why I'm pointing out the closed circuit. All things are intrinsically stripped down to equality when everybody enters into the implicit agreement that "for a wish I am risking my life." Fiore risking her life for her legs is no more or less valuable than Rin Tohsaka risking her life to prove she's a fine magus than Kairi risking his life for his job and the potential to make a wish versus Shirou Emiya risking his life to stop others from killing each other, ect ect ect. The intrinsic value given to each wish is still = one life.

[SINIB]

If the only thing you can contribute to an argument is being a grammar nazi, maybe you shouldn't participate.

I wasn't participating, I was just being a grammar nazi. I'm not in the mood to discuss this kind of shit today.

[aldeayeah]

Tang is delicious