I am recently on a debate. A debate which concerns death note. A side says Light’s actions are justice. Whilst I say it’s just plain murder. Here’s why…
Light didn’t also allow the “Minor” Criminals as what your defense says.
Light wanted to be god. That’s the bottomline. A psychotic freak,, If he didn’t want to become god, he could’ve just explained everything. He should’ve done a calm approach first. If he didn’t want to become god, he COULD NOT have murdered the FBI. Sheesh. FBI is doing their duty whilst Light is a mere citizen who is murdering people without any authority. Why would a mere citizen who has no position or whatsoever !@#$ anyone just like that? Killing is Killing. No matter what angle, it’s still wrong.
You also talked about Balance of Nature. What do you know about Balance of Nature? Balance of Nature means the existence of both good and evil. Without the other, the other one wouldn’t also exist.
Light went to the extent of using his own father just to achieve his goal of becoming god. His actions were already clear. He JUST WANTED to become god. Nothing else. He wants the world to fall under his hands and he could control every movement.
Raito is not justice. How can he be justice? He doesn’t know the real meaning of justice. Lawliet may have admitted he doesn’t know the meaning of justice. But Raito still thinks he knows what justice really means which is of course, A lie.
The people were already IN FEAR of Kira. They were so scared that they decided to support him for they had no other chance. If compared to the criminals. When encountering criminals, we have self defense. If Kira targets someone. We CANNOT do anything about it because he is in secrecy and we don’t even know him yet. If Raito rules the world, people will be living in FEAR more than what they felt when there were criminals.
To the people who say it’s justice:: You people don’t know what justice means. Ever heard of Utilitarianism?
1. Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices which maximize welfare.
2. Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all that ‘bad person’ can mean is ‘person who’s likely to cause bad things (like suffering) ’. So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment which changes someone such that he or she is less likely to cause bad things.
3. Security. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm.
Ever considered those?
There’ll be some more details. I’ll post the others if I have the time.