ANIMALS OF APRIL Elimination Game

i know both and both were useful for the benefit of the greater good.

chuck was assigned to a more powerful contender.

vote : Kyubey

DemonEyesJoe wrote:ok, so...someone explain to me how when characters sacrifice people, small amounts of people, for the greater good of the world, or the universe, or anything larger than the sacrifice made. why are they labeled the "bad guy".

Oh, I'm all for sacrificing (others) for the greater good, and if you knew how literal I'm being with this you'd probably be quite disturbed... But Kyubey simply gets on me nerves, dunno why, it just does. Still at some point later on I may very well end up voting for it. And btw that quote from it is probably my favorite in the whole show.

Mafiacow wrote:
Kyubey [7]
Wampa
Shogun
Kusanagi
Joe
Supernatural Knight
Nono
Mafiacow

Chuck [1]
Deathfire

This made me decide who to vote for.

Kyubey [11]
Wampa
Shogun
Kusanagi
Joe
Supernatural Knight
Nono
Mafiacow
Blue
Maddy
Noobs
Bato

Chuck [3]
Deathfire
Oak
Tiger

And can you guys please count your votes in the standings instead of just saying a name?

chuck never really done much just got the crap beat out of him even in his own episode chuck of the future he got the slaughtered

Kyubey [12]
Wampa
Shogun
Kusanagi
Joe
Supernatural Knight
Nono
Mafiacow
Blue
Maddy
Noobs
Bato
Uallandme

Chuck [3]
Deathfire
Oak
Tiger

Don't really like Kyubey but chuck is..... weird. Never says anything and is really just a worthless punching bag until the last episode where everything goes to hell.

Kyubey [13]
Wampa
Shogun
Kusanagi
Joe
Supernatural Knight
Nono
Mafiacow
Blue
Maddy
Noobs
Bato
Uallandme
Metazoxan

Chuck [3]
Deathfire
Oak
Tiger

DemonEyesJoe wrote:ok, so...someone explain to me how when characters sacrifice people, small amounts of people, for the greater good of the world, or the universe, or anything larger than the sacrifice made. why are they labeled the "bad guy".

for example, kubey, girls fought and died in order to overcome entropy to save the universe (i know, that make no sence IRL, but for the sake of the show...)

and light, he killed criminals to ensure the world was a better place for all. ill never understand how these people get labeld as "bad" even though what they were doing, realistically, made PERFECT SENCE

speaking of people making sacrifices for the greater good...

DO NOT READ if you haven't seen Madoka.
It's because of the fact that most people reflexively use a deontological system (aka a Kantian system) as their base moral system. Basically the first rule of deontology is act so that you treat people as ends not means. Kyuubey used girls as basically batteries, and made it so that suffering, corruption, and death are his very power source. Granted the universe might have simply required that and Madoka's universe changed that law. But even still, sacrificing people for the common good is very rarely viewed as morally righteous unless a) the person acts under complete knowledge of what they do (thus Madoka almost being a Jesus like figure in canon) and b) if the actor has some cost as well. Kyuubey has neither working for him, basically appearing as a creature who tricks people into helping the universe by making their very existence pure suffering while he sits on high wondering why humanity hates him so. Light has a similar problem. He doesn't believe the system of justice works (one that is a system that sees people as ends) and instead chooses who dies, as a vigilante would with a gun. Even less than a vigilante with a gun, because he sits on high without even being there, literally taking peoples lives because the media reports that they are under arrest or under suspicion.
Archer on the other hand knows what he is doing, chooses to do it and sacrifices HIMSELF. A deontological system not only likes but loves these characters as the very maximum of heroic action, for they a)chose to give up their life for a cause greater than themselves b) can be universalized easily c) have no math involved because the act of personal sacrifice is very rarely actively meaningless.
For those who use other systems like Utilitarianism, Kyuubey can be argued as a creature who acts for the good of the universe who sacrifices the few for the many. Maybe Nietzschean maxims can be used as well. I don't feel like older systems would be very compatible though...

Shogun13 wrote:

DemonEyesJoe wrote:ok, so...someone explain to me how when characters sacrifice people, small amounts of people, for the greater good of the world, or the universe, or anything larger than the sacrifice made. why are they labeled the "bad guy".

for example, kubey, girls fought and died in order to overcome entropy to save the universe (i know, that make no sence IRL, but for the sake of the show...)

and light, he killed criminals to ensure the world was a better place for all. ill never understand how these people get labeld as "bad" even though what they were doing, realistically, made PERFECT SENCE

speaking of people making sacrifices for the greater good...

DO NOT READ if you haven't seen Madoka.
It's because of the fact that most people reflexively use a deontological system (aka a Kantian system) as their base moral system. Basically the first rule of deontology is act so that you treat people as ends not means. Kyuubey used girls as basically batteries, and made it so that suffering, corruption, and death are his very power source. Granted the universe might have simply required that and Madoka's universe changed that law. But even still, sacrificing people for the common good is very rarely viewed as morally righteous unless a) the person acts under complete knowledge of what they do (thus Madoka almost being a Jesus like figure in canon) and b) if the actor has some cost as well. Kyuubey has neither working for him, basically appearing as a creature who tricks people into helping the universe by making their very existence pure suffering while he sits on high wondering why humanity hates him so. Light has a similar problem. He doesn't believe the system of justice works (one that is a system that sees people as ends) and instead chooses who dies, as a vigilante would with a gun. Even less than a vigilante with a gun, because he sits on high without even being there, literally taking peoples lives because the media reports that they are under arrest or under suspicion.
Archer on the other hand knows what he is doing, chooses to do it and sacrifices HIMSELF. A deontological system not only likes but loves these characters as the very maximum of heroic action, for they a)chose to give up their life for a cause greater than themselves b) can be universalized easily c) have no math involved because the act of personal sacrifice is very rarely actively meaningless.
For those who use other systems like Utilitarianism, Kyuubey can be argued as a creature who acts for the good of the universe who sacrifices the few for the many. Maybe Nietzschean maxims can be used as well. I don't feel like older systems would be very compatible though...

Good old shogun. The reason I don't like Kyubey is because like you said he just sits on high while he sacrifices others for the greater good. he doesn't try to spare them from suffering he makes it as bad as possible and then just sits there and collects the benefits. He doesn't try to make any kind of sacrifice of his own and that is where any claim of being a "Good guy" goes out the window for me. If he can't put himself on the line he has no right to manipulate others into sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

Same for light he was willing to kill anyone, even cops and innocent people, because he saw it as a means to help make the world a better place. But he loses the right to justify his actions when he proves that he can't put his own life on the line and dies rather pathetically at the end. Plus light was just crazy.

^ well kyubey justified himself by comparing their line of work like of those meat slaughter houses.

Don't know both, felt sad for the losing one.

Kyubey [13]
Wampa
Shogun
Kusanagi
Joe
Supernatural Knight
Nono
Mafiacow
Blue
Maddy
Noobs
Bato
Uallandme
Metazoxan

Chuck [4]
Deathfire
Oak
Tiger
Ovyda

Noobs wrote:^ well kyubey justified himself by comparing their line of work like of those meat slaughter houses.

Right, and that's why he's so monstrous from a deontological perspective. He treats people like meat who have no input to their own fate. To us, that's horrid because it's self-initiated and involves subterfuge.

Ovyda wrote:Don't know both, felt sad for the losing one.

Such a good reason to vote for someone

Kyubey [14]
Wampa
Shogun
Kusanagi
Joe
Supernatural Knight
Nono
Mafiacow
Blue
Maddy
Noobs
Bato
Uallandme
Metazoxan
Spor

Chuck [4]
Deathfire
Oak
Tiger
Ovyda

Further discussion of Kyubey (because it's fun):

Spoiler:

Sporadic wrote:

Ovyda wrote:Don't know both, felt sad for the losing one.

Such a good reason to vote for someone

Kyubey [14]
Wampa
Shogun
Kusanagi
Joe
Supernatural Knight
Nono
Mafiacow
Blue
Maddy
Noobs
Bato
Uallandme
Metazoxan
Spor

Chuck [4]
Deathfire
Oak
Tiger
Ovyda

Tbh, there's other reason, but just NL members would understand

Oh, haha gotcha.

Roy Blue wrote:Further discussion of Kyubey (because it's fun):

Spoiler:

I wonder if the writer put that much thought into all that.

Sporadic wrote:Oh, haha gotcha.

And you voted against him

Metazoxan wrote:

Roy Blue wrote:Further discussion of Kyubey (because it's fun):

Spoiler:

I wonder if the writer put that much thought into all that.

It's Gen Urobachi. If anyone will, it's him. Well him and Esuna Sakae.

Spoiler:

Shogun13 wrote:
Archer on the other hand knows what he is doing, chooses to do it and sacrifices HIMSELF. A deontological system not only likes but loves these characters as the very maximum of heroic action, for they a)chose to give up their life for a cause greater than themselves b) can be universalized easily c) have no math involved because the act of personal sacrifice is very rarely actively meaningless.
For those who use other systems like Utilitarianism, Kyuubey can be argued as a creature who acts for the good of the universe who sacrifices the few for the many. Maybe Nietzschean maxims can be used as well. I don't feel like older systems would be very compatible though...

Backpedaling here as there are some innaccuracies here.
DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT VISUAL NOVEL/ANIME SPOILERS FOR FATE/STAY NIGHT ADAPTATIONS.
In Fate Route, yes, Archer does sacrifice himself, but despite his bravado, he does not do it to become a martyr. That is the opposite of what Archer's entire goal was. He "sacrificed" himself because he has already accepted the fact there would be no way he or Rin could win the Holy Grail, because even if he managed to beat Ilya and Berserker, he already knew he couldn't beat Saber and Shirou; since he is Shirou, he knows the results of the tournament, and he knew he could not beat himself since he already knew the events that transpired. It is F/SN canon that Fate Route Shirou does indeed become Archer later in life.
In Unlimited Blade Works, Archer reveals his complete distaste towards the label "Martyr" and that he doesn't want to be known as a hero, like Shirou is so fixated on becoming. Especially in the Fate Route. So Archer's "sacrifice" was not a heroic move. It was his move out of desperation and self-defeatism.

Deathfire123 wrote:

Shogun13 wrote:
Archer on the other hand knows what he is doing, chooses to do it and sacrifices HIMSELF. A deontological system not only likes but loves these characters as the very maximum of heroic action, for they a)chose to give up their life for a cause greater than themselves b) can be universalized easily c) have no math involved because the act of personal sacrifice is very rarely actively meaningless.
For those who use other systems like Utilitarianism, Kyuubey can be argued as a creature who acts for the good of the universe who sacrifices the few for the many. Maybe Nietzschean maxims can be used as well. I don't feel like older systems would be very compatible though...

Backpedaling here as there are some innaccuracies here.
DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT VISUAL NOVEL/ANIME SPOILERS FOR FATE/STAY NIGHT ADAPTATIONS.
In Fate Route, yes, Archer does sacrifice himself, but despite his bravado, he does not do it to become a martyr. That is the opposite of what Archer's entire goal was. He "sacrificed" himself because he has already accepted the fact there would be no way he or Rin could win the Holy Grail, because even if he managed to beat Ilya and Berserker, he already knew he couldn't beat Saber and Shirou; since he is Shirou, he knows the results of the tournament, and he knew he could not beat himself since he already knew the events that transpired. It is F/SN canon that Fate Route Shirou does indeed become Archer later in life.
In Unlimited Blade Works, Archer reveals his complete distaste towards the label "Martyr" and that he doesn't want to be known as a hero, like Shirou is so fixated on becoming. Especially in the Fate Route. So Archer's "sacrifice" was not a heroic move. It was his move out of desperation and self-defeatism.

Right. I never said his intention was to be a martyr. He went into a fight that he knew he couldn't win in order to give them a chance to run (I think). It doesn't matter if he doesn't think that he's worth a brass farthing if in the end he uses his life toward a goal in deontology. I'm only talking about the anime, where he gives them the ability to run if I remember right, but then something doesn't work.
He's not an ideal case by any means, but from deontology as long as he sacrifices himself before his enemy and doesn't just step in front of a bus or stab himself with his own sword, he is heroic.

Bato wrote:

Sporadic wrote:Oh, haha gotcha.

And you voted against him

So did you

i vote Kyubey

Ovyda wrote:

Bato wrote:

Sporadic wrote:Oh, haha gotcha.

And you voted against him

So did you

But i was convinced by a cool picture

This one doesn't need my vote....
Until next time Thread!

Nazo Koumori - Rosario
vs.
Shamisen - Haruhi