Post by kaanra on Jun 17, 2019 22:33:03 GMT
I have been watching the anime Dororo lately, and episode 23 was super interesting. Theres some dialogue between characters talking about the climax of this character arc essentially. Well, for background, the lord of an area sacrificed his child to demons to bring prosperity to the land. The land was in ruin, had natural disasters and famines, and seemed out of control of the humans ( or so it was made to seem). The lord sacrificed his kids parts to 12 demons, but it survived all except like the muscle and parts of the skeleton (some fictional shit here). By killing demons, the boy regained parts of his body over time. However, the more he gained, the more unstable the kingdom became. Sure theres a lot of political theory stuff that can be said about managing a state or whatever, but thats not the focal point of the show. The show as I was examining it was very much deontological, consequentialist, and even some virtue ethics at episode 23.
Consequentialism : Sacrifice of 1 for the good of the many, and even more than the good. It was shown that they lived in horrible times, now they live in amazing times. Many people said this was the route to go.
Deontology : killing demons (things, not rational beings) was fine, and would restore some agency to the person that they had lost (this I am not entirely sure on, but I cant find anything to say killing "things" to regain parts of your agency would be unethical). The only ethical thing here is that, is it ethical in a deontological sense to regain your agency, if it was to not cause death directly ?
Virtue ethics (maybe confucianism too, ive seen some tweets about the similarities ): this priest talks about how theres two paths that you can take that make you not human. To protect your things and secure your livelihood, one can either become a demon by killing others or go the path of the Buddha and not use any violence at all. Surely in a modern sense you may not need to kill, but its still the extreme end. The priest says that neither of these are human paths, since one is godly and one is demon. Another character says something along the lines "maybe thats what it is to be human, to find the balance in between the two extremes".
Either way, very interesting show of some philosophical fiction that I am not sure really meant to be since its not very outright with it, but if anyone has watched and would like to examine it, feel free to comment as well.
Consequentialism : Sacrifice of 1 for the good of the many, and even more than the good. It was shown that they lived in horrible times, now they live in amazing times. Many people said this was the route to go.
Deontology : killing demons (things, not rational beings) was fine, and would restore some agency to the person that they had lost (this I am not entirely sure on, but I cant find anything to say killing "things" to regain parts of your agency would be unethical). The only ethical thing here is that, is it ethical in a deontological sense to regain your agency, if it was to not cause death directly ?
Virtue ethics (maybe confucianism too, ive seen some tweets about the similarities ): this priest talks about how theres two paths that you can take that make you not human. To protect your things and secure your livelihood, one can either become a demon by killing others or go the path of the Buddha and not use any violence at all. Surely in a modern sense you may not need to kill, but its still the extreme end. The priest says that neither of these are human paths, since one is godly and one is demon. Another character says something along the lines "maybe thats what it is to be human, to find the balance in between the two extremes".
Either way, very interesting show of some philosophical fiction that I am not sure really meant to be since its not very outright with it, but if anyone has watched and would like to examine it, feel free to comment as well.