What has Berserk done to shape the way you perceive reality?

[freegood]

By "thing-a-fy" do you guys mean dehumanize?

I bet humanity will never get this, but once we accept ourselves beyond the good and evil label, only then can we be united. The ease of separating ourselves into different groups, castes, and classes is what continues the madness. But we are all human and no label can change that fact.

There has not been a single conflict in human history that didn't have one side saying they where on the 'good' side or a reason that justifies it. Why is that?

When it comes to Berserk, Miura nails this through and through.

The victors/survivors write the history, not the most good.

I recommend the anime Legend of Galactic Heroes if you haven't seen it. You can see shades of pre-eclipse Griffith in the main protagonist.

I would consider the storytelling and human insights of Galactic Heroes far superior than Berserk, though it might be too slow and outdated for some.

[psi29a]

By "thing-a-fy" do you guys mean dehumanize?

I bet humanity will never get this, but once we accept ourselves beyond the good and evil label, only then can we be united. The ease of separating ourselves into different groups, castes, and classes is what continues the madness. But we are all human and no label can change that fact.

There is a more specific word, but I can't type/say the word right now till after my friend's doctoral is finished and published. It is her work, so I have to be careful when talking about it.

Dehumanization is part of it because we are human, but there is more to it than that. Think of it in a larger and more generalized to include non-humans as well. These traits that we have, like empathy, conscious, laughter, etc are not exclusively human characteristics.

There has not been a single conflict in human history that didn't have one side saying they where on the 'good' side or a reason that justifies it. Why is that?

When it comes to Berserk, Miura nails this through and through.

The victors/survivors write the history, not the most good.

I recommend the anime Legend of Galactic Heroes if you haven't seen it. You can see shades of pre-eclipse Griffith in the main protagonist.

I would consider the storytelling and human insights of Galactic Heroes far superior than Berserk, though it might be too slow and outdated for some.

You are absolutely right, I recommend LoGH as well, I'm currently on Ep 62. One of the main protagonists in the story acts and looks almost exactly like Griffith. I say protagonists, because depending on what 'side' you are on, you will view the other person as an antagonist.

1988 - 1997: The anime is fan-subbed by Central Anime. Torrents can be found here.

The story is staged in the distant future within our own Milky Way Galaxy, approximately in the 35th century. Unlike most other science fiction stories, there are no alien civilizations. A portion of the galaxy is filled with terraformed worlds inhabited by interstellar traveling human beings. For 150 years two mighty space powers have intermittently warred with each other: the Galactic Empire and the Free Planets Alliance.

Within the Galactic Empire, based on 19th century Prussia, an ambitious military genius, Reinhard von Müsel, is rising to power. He is driven by the desire to free his sister Annerose, who was taken by the Kaiser as a concubine. Later, he wants not only to end the corrupt Goldenbaum dynasty but also to defeat the Free Planets Alliance and to unify the whole galaxy under his rule.

In the Free Planets Alliance is another genius, Yang Wen-li. He originally aspired to become a historian, and joined the military only because he needed money for tuition. He was rapidly promoted to an admiral because of his demonstrated excellence in military strategy. He becomes the archrival of Reinhard, though they highly respect one another.

As a historian, Yang often narrates the rich "future history" of his world and comments on it. One of his famous quotes is: "There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good."

Besides the two main heroes, the story is full of vivid characters and intricate politics. All types of characters, from high nobility, admirals and politicians, to common soldiers and farmers, are interweaved into the story. There is a third neutral power nominally attached to the Galactic Empire called the Phezzan Dominion, a planet-state (city-state on a galactic scale) which trades with both warring powers. There is also a Terraism cult, which claims that humans should go back to Earth, gaining popularity throughout the galaxy. The story frequently switches away from the main heroes to the Unknown Soldier fighting for his life on the battlefield.

Not just make believe historians think this either. Killfile can think of no war in human history where one said 'We are on the side of evil, hehehehe'. Each side thinks it's side is the good side. Think of most depraved people in history, even the Nazi's which is our stand in for 'Evil', the Nazi ideology is that the world was in peril from the 'Jewish Conspiracy'. The genocide itself was in their view absolutely necessary for the 'Good' of humanity and the preservation of German and Western Civilization and everything that was 'Good' and 'Right' in the world. This is significant in that the highest honor a German soldier could earn is the Iron Cross, a very religious symbol.

Note: Godwin's law can't be invoked here, I'm _not_ calling anyone a Nazi.

[Ziggamafu]

This is your second warning.

Re-quoting yourself adds nothing to the conversation and will be treated as spam. The reason for this is simple, we have already read it. The statement in of itself qualifies on a belief, a leap of faith if you will of what is 'objective principles'. As it stands, that position is _very_ hard to defend rationally, considerably so given the proof you asked for that I stated above.

Now if you would like to expand on this, or add a new tact or genuinely like to add more to the overall topic then please do so.

First forum I've used that banns re-quoting stuff. Sorry. Honestly, this site is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar to precious to me to risk losing membership or whatever over a stupid debate thread. I've been getting Berserk from here for years.

The reason I re-quoted that was because I didn't feel like I was interpreted correctly. It seems people read me as being one who believes in objective moral determinations of people / actions. I do not. I believe in objective principles upon which actions are based. Because situations are always relative and motives are always subjective, we may never label a person as "evil"...not even an action with 100% certainty, although we usually waive such a requirement when dealing with emotionally charged topics like the Holocaust or whatever.

I didn't even know I got a first warning. Don't think I'll post anymore. Been nice, but I don't think any thread is worth loosing a reliable source for Berserk.

::falls prostrate and offers body as stool::

[freegood]

There is a more specific word, but I can't type/say the word right now till after my friend's doctoral is finished and published. It is her work, so I have to be careful when talking about it.

Dehumanization is part of it because we are human, but there is more to it than that. Think of it in a larger and more generalized to include non-humans as well. These traits that we have, like empathy, conscious, laughter, etc are not exclusively human characteristics.

I think I get it. I hope your friend's thesis catches attention because we'll see "thing-if-fication" more and more as society grows and fixates upon numbers.

You are absolutely right, I recommend LoGH as well, I'm currently on Ep 62. One of the main protagonists in the story acts and looks almost exactly like Griffith. I say protagonists, because depending on what 'side' you are on, you will view the other person as an antagonist.

Honest mistake. I highly admire both main protagonists for different reasons.

Not just make believe historians think this either. Killfile can think of no war in human history where one said 'We are on the side of evil, hehehehe'. Each side thinks it's side is the good side. Think of most depraved people in history, even the Nazi's which is our stand in for 'Evil', the Nazi ideology is that the world was in peril from the 'Jewish Conspiracy'. The genocide itself was in their view absolutely necessary for the 'Good' of humanity and the preservation of German and Western Civilization and everything that was 'Good' and 'Right' in the world. This is significant in that the highest honor a German soldier could earn is the Iron Cross, a very religious symbol.

Note: Godwin's law can't be invoked here, I'm _not_ calling anyone a Nazi.

The author of the novel the series was based upon was a History major at Harvard. He used it well... You'll love one of Yang's later quotes in the series. Not spoiling anything, he gives the reason why the pen is mightier than the sword. Despite the lack of an absolute good or evil, the power of history allows the common man to judge his ancestors and their past deeds.

I just can't get enough of that series even after I've watched the poorly subbed version.

Berserk gives me another fix.

[psi29a]

This is your second warning.

Re-quoting yourself adds nothing to the conversation and will be treated as spam. The reason for this is simple, we have already read it. The statement in of itself qualifies on a belief, a leap of faith if you will of what is 'objective principles'. As it stands, that position is _very_ hard to defend rationally, considerably so given the proof you asked for that I stated above.

Now if you would like to expand on this, or add a new tact or genuinely like to add more to the overall topic then please do so.

First forum I've used that banns re-quoting stuff. Sorry. Honestly, this site is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar to precious to me to risk losing membership or whatever over a stupid debate thread. I've been getting Berserk from here for years.

The reason I re-quoted that was because I didn't feel like I was interpreted correctly. It seems people read me as being one who believes in objective moral determinations of people / actions. I do not. I believe in objective principles upon which actions are based. Because situations are always relative and motives are always subjective, we may never label a person as "evil"...not even an action with 100% certainty, although we usually waive such a requirement when dealing with emotionally charged topics like the Holocaust or whatever.

I didn't even know I got a first warning. Don't think I'll post anymore. Been nice, but I don't think any thread is worth loosing a reliable source for Berserk.

::falls prostrate and offers body as stool::

We are not asking for that *points to last sentence above*, we want to encourage intellectual honest debate. I hope you can see where re-quoting yourself, without any additional material is... well, redundant?

The first warning was subtle, and even eldo posted a picture to that effect.

If you feel that someone has missed something important that you have posted before, feel free to bring it up again and be sure to add additional information that helps clarify your points.

Personally, I would like for you to clarify the objectivity part because that is apparently the focus here. How do we clearly state what is and is not good and evil.

I'm glad you stated what you did, you have our respect. It's cool man.

[Istvan]

Can we define evil?

Can you rightly say that anyone does evil for the sake of evil?

Where is this line and how can we maintain that line in the sand for all cases?

If we can maintain the line, I say we have made the case evil does exist in the world and we should be able enact justice without regret or remorse because their act was evil and we feel justified that our side of the line in the sand is the good side.

However, if the line blurs and we have give way to extenuating circumstances, then it goes back to being subjective.

I would say that yes, we can define evil, although it is not easy to do so (and might be a fitting work for an entire book). One of the problems I think I have with your objections is that you want me to provide a simple definition, and with such a broad concept, dealing with humans, a simple definition isn't really possible. Oh, one could give a superficial definition, that would more or less define it, but not one that would truly capture the full nature or withstand serious criticism. To take an example from science, it'd be like asking for a simple definition of quantum mechanics. You can give one, but it won't truly capture the essence of what quantum mechanics is, or be sufficient to engage in a debate on quantum mechanics. The subject is simply too complex for simple explanation. That's why, instead of defining it (which would take way to much time and space for this thread) I've been trying to give point examples of evil, simply to show that there is such a thing. The fact that circumstances have to be taken into account in no way makes it subjective, any more then having to look at the specific mass of an object you're calculating the gravity of makes relativity "subjective". Granted, moral problems are even more complex then relativity, and there are grey areas, that does not mean that there is no evil. Taking circumstances into account is defining the problem, and then you can ask if, given the actual circumstances, the action was or was not evil. Trying to ask if a given action (killing for example) is evil, without giving the circumstances, is like asking how fast one must accelerate to reach escape velocity, without defining the mass of the thing to be escaped from. It can't be done. That's why, in the example I gave (try to find a society where it is not evil for an individual to murder, in cold blood and right mind, another member of that society of equal rank who has done nothing to warrent such a death) I tried to define the circumstances quite precisely, so an accurate determination could be made.

Does anyone do evil for the sake of evil? Yes. We label them "insane", because the majority of people don't believe such action to be rational. They're part of the reason I earlier objected to trying to apply a concept of morality to 100% of people. But they do exist.

If thou shalt not kill, then why do we arm our militarizes and send them to kill people?

We rationalize to ourselves that our military is there to protect life and liberty, so it is 'just' to send our military to kill them before they kill us.

The 'objective' good would be to die knowing that we never did anything evil, like taking a life.

Because if you take their life, that would be evil.

First, you're taking thou shalt not kill out of context. If one looks at the full set of laws, it more accurately forbids murder, with murder being defined fairly precisely, and was the first (to the best of my knowledge) legal code that differentiated between murder and what we'd call manslaughter. It also, I believe, allowed the possibility of accidental and justified killings, which were not crimes. For certain the military wasn't prescribed, as much of the old testament involves battles. If you look at a military, they are not simply defending themselves. Rather, their job is to defend the civilians, who would be harmed by the enemy. That's why the army occasionally (though not often) must send people on suicide missions, because the life of the soldiers is not the highest priority, and nowhere in the Bible, to the best of my knowledge, is the defending of others forbidden. Even if we do look at a case of simply killing in self-defense, while a Christian view would say that the good, virtuous action is to not do so, to rather allow oneself to be killed, I don't believe that defending yourself is actually labeled "evil". There is a profound difference between an action that is simply not good, and one that is evil, which I think you may be overlooking.

[psi29a]

Does anyone do evil for the sake of evil? Yes. We label them "insane", because the majority of people don't believe such action to be rational. They're part of the reason I earlier objected to trying to apply a concept of morality to 100% of people. But they do exist.

I find this important but that is exactly what being objective means, in that you have to make sure that your conclusion holds true 100% of the time in all cases. That is the definition, as it is hard to be objective when even .0001 % doesn't fit the standard. I'm not making this stuff up, that is just how it is.

source

objective (adj) - belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events; "concrete benefits"; "a concrete example"; "there is no objective evidence of anything of the kind"

objective (noun) - Something that actually exists.

Using a 'concrete example', means that it has to hold true so as to be the basis of anything you build on top of it.

However, to say that evil is objective is to also say that 'evil is something that actually exists'.

My argument is that the former is necessary for the later to be true.

If thou shalt not kill, then why do we arm our militarizes and send them to kill people?

We rationalize to ourselves that our military is there to protect life and liberty, so it is 'just' to send our military to kill them before they kill us.

The 'objective' good would be to die knowing that we never did anything evil, like taking a life.

Because if you take their life, that would be evil.

First, you're taking thou shalt not kill out of context. If one looks at the full set of laws, it more accurately forbids murder, with murder being defined fairly precisely, and was the first (to the best of my knowledge) legal code that differentiated between murder and what we'd call manslaughter. It also, I believe, allowed the possibility of accidental and justified killings, which were not crimes. For certain the military wasn't prescribed, as much of the old testament involves battles. If you look at a military, they are not simply defending themselves. Rather, their job is to defend the civilians, who would be harmed by the enemy. That's why the army occasionally (though not often) must send people on suicide missions, because the life of the soldiers is not the highest priority, and nowhere in the Bible, to the best of my knowledge, is the defending of others forbidden. Even if we do look at a case of simply killing in self-defense, while a Christian view would say that the good, virtuous action is to not do so, to rather allow oneself to be killed, I don't believe that defending yourself is actually labeled "evil". There is a profound difference between an action that is simply not good, and one that is evil, which I think you may be overlooking.

Ah, but you still don't clearly answer if any 'non-crazy' people have said they do evil purely because it is evil. It would seem that you made crazy people out to be evil. Even then, the crazy people don't even claim to be doing evil either. They are just, well... crazy.

As per your description above about the military, it would seem that you are trying to justify their actions. That is cool, I agree that a standing army is there to protect civilians and that is for the well being of a nation. My question is how you can rationalize taking of a life, no matter in what fashion, as not being evil?

Clearly we are on two sides of that, and that suggests that we have opposing views of what is good and evil. This also implies good and evil are subjective with you saying that it is justified and not evil and I saying that killing is never justified and is 'evil'.

Where do we draw the line between killing of grass, insects, kitties, and babies like I said above? For evil to be objective, it must hold true for all things.

The other solution to the problem is to state that killing is not an evil act, but for that to be true must apply it everything as well, i.e. Murder. (I don't agree with this.)

[lordhep]

something i always liked about anime is that there is often no clear cut "good guy" and "bad guy". take even something like magic knights rayerth as an example; you were under the impression that zagato was this evil man who stole princess emurade but find out that they were actually in love and he just wanted her to be free and all that. he wasnt evil. selfish maybe because she was the pillar for that world, but still, he wasnt evil. giving both sides (because in a good story there are both sides) really makes for a more interesting story i think.


it moves me when something that seems out of reality can bring such honest feelings to rise. berserk has made me think about my ambitions, how much i am willing to give up, how hard i am willing to work, and so many other things that really influence my day to day actions. berserk has its own reality that as crazy as it is, doesnt seem too far from ours. there is something amazing about berserk that really inspires me to work for things and be strong. its so difficult to try and explain....

This is why I really like Griffith (flame me for my spelling if I got it wrong I'm drunk).

I think griffith took the right path up until the whole raping Caska thing. After all everyone in the band of the hawk joined with the knowledge that they were risking their lives for Griffith's dream. I think everyone in the Hawk was there because they believed in Griffith and second because they thought the Hawk would be the vessel for their own dreams. Losing their lives was a bet they willingly took. I think the fact that everyone dedicated their lives towards Griffith's dream probably played a role in the decision to submit and make them a sacrifice.

When I go out on my motorcyle I accept that death might be the cost of leaving my house that day. I think that Griffith may have thought that the Hawk knew going in that their lives might be the cost of helping him achieve his dream. The bridge of corpses was the truth and Griffith was only hiding from that fact. I don't think that even Guts faults him for that event. I think Caska is what drives Guts's thirst for revenge.

In the current chapters I often wonder if Griffith is good or bad, a part of me thinks that his dream is more powerful than the Gods Hand.

I like the idea of evil trying to use his ambition only to become a tool of it. I hope this is the case, but I"m just going to have to wait and read.....

This brings me back to why I quoted your post. I agree, Berserk has made me more aggressive when it comes to my life. I find myself making my goals as big as possible without concern with regards to failure. I figure that unless my dream is HUGE then it's meaningless. After all is a fish proud it can swim? Is a bird proud it can fly? (I think those analogies came from Macross 0 can't remember). If I just accept what I can accomplish naturally I can't be proud of it. The characters in Berserks have inspired me to go beyond what I thought I could accomplish. And I won't be happy unless the world is amazed.

I should know better than to go rambling on a keyboard when I'm drunk, don't flame me too much

[Ziggamafu]

::cautiously pokes head out from carefully chosen hiding place::

However, to say that evil is objective is to also say that 'evil is something that actually exists'.

Does objectivity only apply to tangible things? There are intangible objective truths, such as: vegetables are more nutritious than French-fries. What about assertions like: darkness is the absence of light. Does that statement, which is objectively true, necessitate the existence of darkness as a thing? On the contrary, the word "darkness" is what we use to signify the absence of a thing, light. Can evil be the same as darkness, not a "thing" itself, but the absence of something? When I think about morality, the only way I seem to be able to make sense of it is to believe in positive objective principles. If we use positive principles as the basis of our objectivity, then the relative situations and subjective motives are much more significant (as common sense should tell us).

For instance, instead of "thou shalt not kill", might the principle behind that idea be "respect life"? If so, someone might easily kill living things in order to respect life as one understands (either sane, "I killed a man with a bomb so he wouldn't kill all his hostages" or insane, "I killed all the hostages because it made their last moments of life more beautiful".) Using positive principles in the ordering of our moral laws makes objective morality much easier to understand...as I see it, anyway.

[raoh]

If we use positive principles as the basis of our objectivity, then the relative situations and subjective motives are much more significant (as common sense should tell us).

a good example of this happened to me the other week actually, my sisters friends kid was over (hes 3 or 4 or something) and came in the room shouting something about his toy. i asked him to come over and show it to me and after my mum said "that was nice". this then made me feel very guilty since the only reason i asked him was because he was yelling and swinging on the creaky door while i was trying to watch futurama

[Ziggamafu]

Where do we draw the line between killing of grass, insects, kitties, and babies like I said above? For evil to be objective, it must hold true for all things.

A principle may hold true for all things and yet be upheld in conflicted ways, per my post above. I don't think anyone argues that relative situations and subjective motives are inconsequential to the morality of actions or people. And why must the focus be on evil? If I'm right, "evil" is not a thing in itself, but rather the absence of good. If I'm wrong, what would it matter to switch from using "evil" in our reasoning to "good"?

[psi29a]

::cautiously pokes head out from carefully chosen hiding place::

hehehe...

However, to say that evil is objective is to also say that 'evil is something that actually exists'.

Does objectivity only apply to tangible things? There are intangible objective truths, such as: vegetables are more nutritious than French-fries. What about assertions like: darkness is the absence of light. Does that statement, which is objectively true, necessitate the existence of darkness as a thing?

This actually makes me smile. There are plunty of things like this, so let me know if I get it right per your observation.

Darkness is the absence of Light, Light is electromagnetic radiation, but not darkness, it is the lack of EM radiation.

So, there is an absolute Darkness, which is 0 lumen but there is no upper limit to Light.

Cold is the absence of Heat, Heat is thermal radiation (vibrations of molecules), but not Cold, it is the lack of thermal energy.

So, there is an absolute Cold, which is 0 kelvin, but there is no upper limit to Heat.

To apply this to to Good and Evil would be (as I understand your argument):

Evil is the absence of Good, Good is <not defined>, but not Evil, it is the lack of <not defined>.

So, there is an absolute Evil, which is 0 <not defined>, but there is no upper limit to Good.

So for this to hold true, we need to define Good.

Very clever way to side-stepping Evil and it also validates my assertion:
"No one does Evil, for the sake of Evil."

It also validates another saying:
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ - Edmund Burke

I like where this is going, good job.

If we use positive principles as the basis of our objectivity, then the relative situations and subjective motives are much more significant (as common sense should tell us).

For instance, instead of "thou shalt not kill", might the principle behind that idea be "respect life"? If so, someone might easily kill living things in order to respect life as one understands (either sane, "I killed a man with a bomb so he wouldn't kill all his hostages" or insane, "I killed all the hostages because it made their last moments of life more beautiful".) Using positive principles in the ordering of our moral laws makes objective morality much easier to understand...as I see it, anyway.

The above still smakes of a duality though, as not everyone will agree with your assertion of what is good, or in this case 'positive' principles. We can revisit this after we hammer out the situation above.

Where do we draw the line between killing of grass, insects, kitties, and babies like I said above? For evil to be objective, it must hold true for all things.

A principle may hold true for all things and yet be upheld in conflicted ways, per my post above. I don't think anyone argues that relative situations and subjective motives are inconsequential to the morality of actions or people. And why must the focus be on evil? If I'm right, "evil" is not a thing in itself, but rather the absence of good. If I'm wrong, what would it matter to switch from using "evil" in our reasoning to "good"?

I think you are on the right track, but the significant hurdle is to find out if we can apply objectivity to non-tangible things. Right now, Heat and Light are real, measurable, and as such quantifiable. Can we do so with 'Good'?

Can we measure and quantify Good? Is that even a requirement for objectivity?

[Istvan]

And why must the focus be on evil? If I'm right, "evil" is not a thing in itself, but rather the absence of good.

I would have to absolutely disagree, evil is not the absence of good, but rather the opposite of good. Is looking at your watch good? No. Is it therefore evil? Also no. It is value neutral. Although one could construct a scenerio where looking at your watch is either good or evil, it would be a stretch, and generally it is neither of these. Many actions are not good, nor are they evil, they're neutral. Our very language reflects the fact that evil is not simply the absence of good. Ammoral is without morality (an absence), whereas immoral is against morality. If we look at a science annalogy, it's like the difference between cold (which is the absence of heat) and anti-matter (which is the opposite of matter), two totally different things.

I find this important but that is exactly what being objective means, in that you have to make sure that your conclusion holds true 100% of the time in all cases. That is the definition, as it is hard to be objective when even .0001 % doesn't fit the standard. I'm not making this stuff up, that is just how it is.

source
dictionary wrote:
objective (adj) - belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events; "concrete benefits"; "a concrete example"; "there is no objective evidence of anything of the kind"

objective (noun) - Something that actually exists.


Using a 'concrete example', means that it has to hold true so as to be the basis of anything you build on top of it.

However, to say that evil is objective is to also say that 'evil is something that actually exists'.

My argument is that the former is necessary for the later to be true.

For something to be objective it must hold true for any situation, but not for any observer, because we recognize that some observers may be insane. That's all that I'm trying to point out, that the perspective of the insane can be ignored when determining if good and evil are objective or not.

Ah, but you still don't clearly answer if any 'non-crazy' people have said they do evil purely because it is evil. It would seem that you made crazy people out to be evil. Even then, the crazy people don't even claim to be doing evil either. They are just, well... crazy.

Some crazy people do claim to be doing evil simply for the sake of doing evil, and that's why we label them insane, because such behavior seems irrational to us. More concretely, name any evil act (for example, replace "doing evil" with "torturing innocent infants") and there will be people who engage in that act purely for the sake of it, or because it's enjoyable.

As per your description above about the military, it would seem that you are trying to justify their actions. That is cool, I agree that a standing army is there to protect civilians and that is for the well being of a nation. My question is how you can rationalize taking of a life, no matter in what fashion, as not being evil?

Clearly we are on two sides of that, and that suggests that we have opposing views of what is good and evil. This also implies good and evil are subjective with you saying that it is justified and not evil and I saying that killing is never justified and is 'evil'.

I'm making two big arguments, that I feel you're missing. First, some aspects of morality are subjective, and I admit this. However, some aspects (the "core" aspects) of morality are universal to all societies and cultures, and so may be labeled objective. From this I claim that evil does, in fact, exist and is not just a matter of perspective. Second, to determine if an action is good or evil requires defining the precise situation you are looking at, since that's what defines the actual problem. I explained both of these arguments in much greater detail in previous posts. From them, and using them, I try to show one of what I feel to be objective moral truths, universal to all cultures, that one cannot find a society where it is not evil for an individual to murder, in cold blood and right mind, another member of that society of equal rank who has done nothing to warrent such a death. I feel like I'm turning into a broken record on that point...

Where do we draw the line between killing of grass, insects, kitties, and babies like I said above? For evil to be objective, it must hold true for all things.

The other solution to the problem is to state that killing is not an evil act, but for that to be true must apply it everything as well, i.e. Murder. (I don't agree with this.)

Absolutely untrue, becuase you are trying to make something that is very complex (the nature of good and evil) into something that's absurdly simple. The fact that it can't be boiled down to one easy phrase like "killing is wrong" or "killing is not wrong" doesn't mean that evil doesn't exist, it means that you're trying to take something very complex (the nature of good and evil), turn it into something very simple, and when you can't declaring that good and evil must not really exist beyond subjective values. It's a false to facts analysis.

[KolaJ]

* thinks: WOW, the topic of my dreams.*

Hello, Berserk did shape the way I perceive reality. It was one of the most influential things to do so in my PC life. It helped me understand the meaning of good and evil. Or at least that's what I thought until I read this topic. To be correct it helped me build my own theory.

Right now I am too shocked from reading this topic. It took me a lot of time, 8+ hours I think. Every 3-5 posts I stopped and walked around the room for half an hour: thinking over and over everything, thinking up examples, checking them to my own perception of good.

I am really amazed that how experienced some people are on this topic, specially psi29a! I am still 20 and never had a good discussion about this with anyone.

One of the things that was not clear to me is what 'evil' do you mean it each case. It would be nice to clarify if it is the absolute evil (like absolute cold = 0 kelvin) or just evil (like cold). Saying evil does not exist is like saying it's never cold. But absolute evil like absolute cold exist only theoreticly. I wonder did they ever manage to reproduce 0 kelvin on earth? Will it be easier to reproduce absolute evil? Don't know but it will take a lot of effort

[raoh]

More concretely, name any evil act (for example, replace "doing evil" with "torturing innocent infants") and there will be people who engage in that act purely for the sake of it, or because it's enjoyable.

they are doing it for their own reasons with their own views. what if they were always told & believed that donating to charity was the most evil thing someone could do, and did it only for that reason? if they found it enjoyable, they obviously dont see the horror in it that other people do see, or do it to cause that horror (meaning they are crazy)

murder, in cold blood and right mind, another member of that society of equal rank who has done nothing to warrent such a death.

can this actually happen though without any psychological problems?

I wonder did they ever manage to reproduce 0 kelvin on earth?

its as impossible as a perpetual motion machine, to potential energy in the particles keeping them apart (at absolute zero, all the atoms would just be lying on the floor)

[freegood]

To apply this to to Good and Evil would be (as I understand your argument):

Evil is the absence of Good, Good is <not defined>, but not Evil, it is the lack of <not defined>.

So, there is an absolute Evil, which is 0 <not defined>, but there is no upper limit to Good.

So for this to hold true, we need to define Good.

Very clever way to side-stepping Evil and it also validates my assertion:
"No one does Evil, for the sake of Evil."

It also validates another saying:
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ - Edmund Burke

I like where this is going, good job.

I'm not replying to your response directly, but I found an interesting starter.

Measuring morality would be much like measuring intelligence. These are both subjective factors from which the test taker decides which qualities will be measured.

For example, I might be great at spatial puzzles (rubix cubes) but fail greatly at linguistics. Or I could recite the entire play of Macbeth but be unable to use derivatives. Maybe I could master karate in 10 days just from watching and doing, but fail to chalk up an interesting conversation with the opposite sex. The toolsets of humanity could be likened to a bell curve, but it's not the kind you see on paper. It's rich and 3 dimensional.

Applying it to a moral standpoint is the same thing. Just like intelligence, where we reward the qualities that humanity prefers or needs, morality can be seen as one of the tools that does the rewarding for society, though it's usually seen in the context of punishing through law enforcement and spiritual karma.

From this viewpoint, the flaw of 2 dimensional morality is exposed. There are absolutes in punishment, such as 20 years in jail for murder, 15 for drug trafficking, or an eternity for untold sins. Yet the crimes doesn't necessarily betray the moral character of a person.

That's why Burke's line has been time tested. It's deceptively simple and elegant. Every person thinks of himself as good. A selfish person is doing good for himself. Fudge that principle a little and you have the foundation of capitalism. Capitalism, with our limitations, might arguably be the system of best fit that promotes the greater prosperity. A lust for money might be evil, but it's purpose for stability is in plain sight. So back to Burke, if an evil man is a selfish man, such as the disregard for life, limited resources, or human decency, then it would take other 'selfish' men to correct stop him and do good. It's just that the selfish do gooders have other selfish priorities that society doesn't think is as bad.

A murderer could've been a philanthropist with his money and time. A dictator could've oppressed the masses but treat the people around him with great dignity and respect. A corporate raider might not have committed any jail worthy crimes yet ruin tens of thousands of families by dissolving his victim companies and destroying the value of their stocks and pension plans. So who is more evil? Does one big action negate a lifetime of smaller opposite reactions? Who decides the degree of largeness in an act, the person or society? Obviously both, but which one matters more....

These philosophical questions will always stick around, and we willingly relegate the burden of solving them to the machine of the legal system. Obviously, that's not an easy act. If we don't treat crimes with absolute certainty and punishment, then the obvious crimes would go unpunished. I'm not advocating freeing a murderer because he's a kind and gentle man at home. What I'm saying is that it's easier to designate that murderer as evil in order to remove ourselves of our human association with him.

Inevitably, this allows short term memory in the social consciousness that paves the way for future Tim McVeighs and future Hitlers.

[Ziggamafu]

So for this to hold true, we need to define Good...not everyone will agree with your assertion of what is good, or in this case 'positive' principles.

Absolute Good:
[Life, Liberty, Truth, Beauty, and Love]

The so-called "Positive Principle":
Seek & Cherish [Life, Liberty, Truth, Beauty, and Love] - AS SUCH IS UNDERSTOOD BY YOU - in whatever way you are able, however you deem best, to whatever extent you are able, wherever, whenever, and in whomever such has been personally noticed.

The Absolute Moral Law:
In honoring this pursuit, you will never violate your own conscience.

Notice that Good as defined above is in fact defined the same on an individual basis throughout all times, peoples, and places. No one who felt personally enslaved ever thought personal liberty was bad, etc. The beauty of this is that although Good is absolute, it is also interpreted and acted upon on a person by person basis. Moreover, each person has subjective motives and experiences relative situations.
Nevertheless, though two people have totally opposite opinions of what is beautiful (indeed, even if someone specifically thinks "[the idea of] ugliness" is beautiful), the fact remains that they both find beauty Good. You can see how absolute values (Good) can have wildly differing interpretations and be honored / pursued in wildly different ways; that is where opinion and subjectivism come in. Yet the values themselves remain the same.

You may also guess why I placed brackets around the Good. Theistically or atheistically, "Good" is "God": the highest and supreme ideal. Notice that every religion has a so-called "core teaching" that seems to express the Positive Principle, based on the Absolute Good, in line with the Moral Law. Love God and love your neighbor for that reason. Govern ruthlessly to preserve order. Karma. Etc. The same applies to Atheists, they just don't think Good is conscious. We all seek Good, follow the Principle, and obey the Law in our own way; individualized and subjective, yes, but only in regards to opinion and interpretation of these absolutes. They are forever beyond our reach and that is why they are forever sought.

Good is that immaterial light which we will always try vainly to embrace. No matter. The attempt is all that is necessary for fantasy, hope, and joy to exist while we yet live. And isn't that what makes life worth living?

[Istvan]

Quote:
murder, in cold blood and right mind, another member of that society of equal rank who has done nothing to warrent such a death.

can this actually happen though without any psychological problems?

Yes. It could happen for a variety of reasons, such as maybe he has something you want, so you kill him to get it. And so on. It's not really that hard to imagine an individual murdering someone who's never done anything to deserve it, and in fact it happens all the time. We call this evil, and I believe all societies throughout time have.

That's why Burke's line has been time tested. It's deceptively simple and elegant. Every person thinks of himself as good.

Not actually true. There are some people who think of themselves as evil, and revel in that fact. As perhaps the most blatent of examples, consider hard core Satanists, the true believers. They fully acknowledge that they are evil.

A selfish person is doing good for himself. Fudge that principle a little and you have the foundation of capitalism. Capitalism, with our limitations, might arguably be the system of best fit that promotes the greater prosperity. A lust for money might be evil, but it's purpose for stability is in plain sight. So back to Burke, if an evil man is a selfish man, such as the disregard for life, limited resources, or human decency, then it would take other 'selfish' men to correct stop him and do good. It's just that the selfish do gooders have other selfish priorities that society doesn't think is as bad.

I think your taking this a bit too far. Although it's true that capitilism can help those who have a "lust for money", but I think it would be more accurate to describe it as a system that serves anyone with a dream, or ambition, rather then simple greed. The concepts are not actually the same, and many who do well in capitilism are not, in fact, in any way 'selfish'. Not unless your attempting to stretch that word farther then I think it will go.

A murderer could've been a philanthropist with his money and time. A dictator could've oppressed the masses but treat the people around him with great dignity and respect. A corporate raider might not have committed any jail worthy crimes yet ruin tens of thousands of families by dissolving his victim companies and destroying the value of their stocks and pension plans. So who is more evil? Does one big action negate a lifetime of smaller opposite reactions?

This is why it's usually more accurate to describe actions and deeds rather then individuals as evil. Truly and absolutely evil individuals are fairly rare, but evil actions are common. This is simply because (as any psychologist will tell you) people are very complex, so one-dimensional descriptions usually fail to accurately represent them.

[raoh]

Yes. It could happen for a variety of reasons, such as maybe he has something you want, so you kill him to get it. And so on. It's not really that hard to imagine an individual murdering someone who's never done anything to deserve it, and in fact it happens all the time. We call this evil, and I believe all societies throughout time have.

my point there is that the people that kill other people arent obviously sane or they wouldn't do it. if a guy goes up to someone he has never met before in the street and kills him, they have been pushed towards it for whatever reasons, chemical imbalances in their brains, previous trauma, etc. they werent born evil. think of the societies that used ritual human sacrifices (in some cases the sacrifcee's were willing), were the people born into that culture evil?


killing something to gain something is what life is actually evolved from and still carries instincts from. would a lion that eats the cubs of its new mate's old partner would be evil? if you think no - because it doesn't know any better, it just acts upon its drives; then how can you say that the people who are willing to go through with killing someone pointlessly are any different?

[Libaax]

I like so many things in Berserk two things i can come up with now is:


The idea of evil and that its human nature that feeds it is something thats really great. When you see that and think about what humans are doing to each other around the world you see why Miura made the idea of evil the way he did.



Also Berserk has inspired me, specially Guts being told so many times he is a bug compared to the ones that call themselves God aka Apostles and he is still tries to take them down not matter the cost.


I must say this is a great thread and its shocking its by a newbie. I remember so many newbies and so many bad first threads

[MrFelony]

at first i thought this was the stupid things about berserk thread and i was wondering why you were posting that libaax

[Libaax]

Hehe i thought the same thing when i saw the thread name

[Istvan]

my point there is that the people that kill other people arent obviously sane or they wouldn't do it. if a guy goes up to someone he has never met before in the street and kills him, they have been pushed towards it for whatever reasons, chemical imbalances in their brains, previous trauma, etc. they werent born evil. think of the societies that used ritual human sacrifices (in some cases the sacrifcee's were willing), were the people born into that culture evil?


killing something to gain something is what life is actually evolved from and still carries instincts from. would a lion that eats the cubs of its new mate's old partner would be evil? if you think no - because it doesn't know any better, it just acts upon its drives; then how can you say that the people who are willing to go through with killing someone pointlessly are any different?

Ok, first of all you seem to be contradicting yourself here. In the first paragraph, you say that killing someone you've never met is an act of insanity, either a chemical imbalance, previous trauma, or society pushed them to it. In the second paragraph you say that killing for gain is part of nature, it's still part of us, and how can one call such killing any more evil then a lion killing. Claiming in the same post that killing for gain is an insanity or conditioned behavior, and that killing for gain is a natural part of us and so not evil, seems an incredible stretch. But whatever, I'll answer your two arguments seperately.

First, the insane argument. To claim that anyone who kills another out of greed must be insane (from chemical imbalance, or because that's the way society shaped him) is to deny all human accountability. Ultimately, we are the ones who decide how to live our lives, and to blaim our misdeeds on "society" is the cowards path. Maybe you have a point in a society that practices human sacrifice or the like, but you certainly don't in one where the individual kills out of greed, since the society itself knows this to be evil. Perhaps the individuals who raised the person saw nothing wrong with it, but this does not excuse the murderer, because they could have looked around at others in the society, and seen that it is wrong, or other options. Very rarely, the killer might be someone who truly isn't responsible, genuinly mad, or brainwashed, or whatever, but in those situations the law doesn't punish, but rather seeks to get the person psychiatric help precisely because they aren't responsible. Most of us, however (including the murderers) are responsible for our deeds, and so no the criminal in my scenerio does not have to be insane, and in most actual cases isn't insane.

Your second argument that it's part of our nature is also flawed. Yes, lions do kill the young of other lions, and no that is not evil. However, the key point is that lions don't know any better. To use that as an argument is to say that we are no better (intellectually or morally) then lions are. This is an absurdity. As proof, look to the fact that, as I mentioned, every single society views such an action as evil. We are not limited by our instincts. In fact, even to claim such an act as "natural" is suspect, because of the intelligent species, humans are the only ones who commit murder. Whales, dolphins and the various primates (monkeys, gorillas, chimps, etc.) don't murder each other, so to call such actions "natural" is nothing more then an excuse by those who wish to avoid owning up to their actions. It is in no way a justification, nor does it make the action any less evil.

[raoh]

Ok, first of all you seem to be contradicting yourself here. In the first paragraph, you say that killing someone you've never met is an act of insanity, either a chemical imbalance, previous trauma, or society pushed them to it. In the second paragraph you say that killing for gain is part of nature, it's still part of us, and how can one call such killing any more evil then a lion killing. Claiming in the same post that killing for gain is an insanity or conditioned behavior, and that killing for gain is a natural part of us and so not evil, seems an incredible stretch. But whatever, I'll answer your two arguments seperately.

the first paragraph was about random pointless killings where someone just kills a guy they have never seen before for the sake of it, the second was about for gain "etc." was there to stop me writing out the many many possible reasons behind killing that can have all sorts of combinations - instictive behaviour included

anyway this has turned into a "free will is fake vs free will is real" argument, so i dont think we will get anywhere further here than mankind has since forever, change the topic IMO

[incubus]

Man, with threads like this I wish I could write better English, but what the hell, ill give it a try.

Good and evil are subjective from the moment they were made up by the human been. We are animals, and that’s a fact, no matter how intelligent we are, we moves trough our instincts. And for instinct there is not good or evil, instead, is more like good/bad for me or my interest. This is present in every person since born, but has been hide it or disguised by the influence of the society. In fact, there will be no society if it wasn’t hiding.
For me, berserk is(besides other things) a call for that instinct, no that we wear it and use it like a sword back to the prehistoric, but more like we realize that its there, and its our engine.

There goes my two cents, Hope this is good enough to be here and sorry for my English, I would like to talk more about good and evil (and Nietzsche ) but I lack of vocabulary and sucks at grammar.

Saludos.

PS: Love the translations and the forum, thanks for the work from spain.