Light Yagami is one of the more popular male characters in the anime/manga world right now (especially when paired with L in some yaoi doujin) but I wonder people should be rooting for an anti-hero that quite frankly acts like a bastard. I think that anyone who is familiar with Death Note is well aware about Light’s arrogance so I would like to write a little bit about his actions in relation to ethical theory.
I’ll start by highlighting an important part of Death Note’s premise in that there is a combination of objectivity and subjectivity. The notebook itself follows strict rules in carrying out deaths such as the person needing to be visualized by the Note user for the death to occur and the option of specifying the cause of death and details relating to it. It doesn’t care who is being targeted because it views each person as equal to the next one - a person is a person is a person. The person who writes the names and details into the notebook, however, will always be influenced in some way by their feelings, whether they be anger, fear, frustration, or greed. (Shinigami are assumed to impartial mainly because they don’t particularly care about human affairs and simply use the Death Notes for entertainment.)
Light may feel justified in killing off criminals and think he is doing society a service but he might reconsider some of his actions if he were to take an ethical theories course. Let’s say Light believes in act utilitarianism and follows a certain set of rules in making moral decisions. One of the rules he uses when making decisions might be “killing a person is allowed in defending oneself from certain or anticipated harm caused by said attacker”. That might work when the police are shooting at you but what if his father, who happens to work for the police department, is one of his pursuers? Would the son attack his father to save himself and, conversely, would the detective shoot his son?
Another conflict might arise if Light adopts the rule “criminals should be punished appropriately for their crimes”. Many times, if a murder victim has a prominent status in society and/or his or her death garners a lot of media attention, the defendant is likely to get much more public scrutiny and, if convicted, pushed for the death penalty (or life without parole) than the murder of an everyday person. More than three life sentences seem like overkill (no pun intended) since given current average lifespans, they will just rot in prison with no opportunity to contribute positively to society if they truly reform and wish to be released.
I have mainly been arguing that the bad points about Light’s actions but there are good parts to them as well. For example, the state of California is in the middle of an overcrowded prison crisis and recently shipped a number of inmates to other states. The overflow formed due to caused by longer sentences for minor crimes and over 700 persons on death row. I know that this is a heartless idea but quickening the execution process WOULD free up space in penitentiaries. Even if executing prisoners from a distance is wrong, it’s still more justified than offing someone who simply annoys or irritates you but has not materially wronged you. Perhaps a good rule to hold is “the Death Note should not be used in passion”.
I could likely discuss other ethical theories relating to Death Note but I think this is enough for now. I’d like to write more philosophy-related posts in the future because that means I am taking what I’m learning in school and applying those ideas to something else, allowing me to better remember them.
Entries (RSS)
philosophical blogs i like. and i love ur rule about the Death Not should not be used in passion xD
Well, on overcrowding of jails. I find this very curious, as the crime rate in the US has gone down over the past few years, and the great number of convicts in the state penitentiaries. Though, killing off inmates would be a speedy solution, I would argue that the California system isn’t quite as efficient and flawless to insure only the guilty be killed.
If you know about the California criminal court system, it runs under the Frye rulings. We’re one of the few states that still operate under Frye. A bit of background, Frye allows “generally accepted methods” to be entered as evidence. This is a great problem when convicting people of something that they can be put-away for good or at least a very long time. Eye-witness testimony, fingerprint analysis, and bullet striations; all seemingly conclusive in proving guilt, but in reality, are very inaccurate (Eyewitness testimony being wrong 33% of the time from the “police lineup” scenario). As long as we can admit evidence that can’t be proven totally (or very close to be) true, committing people to a speedy death row process is an unwise choice.
Chiaki, the crime rate may have gone down in the past few years but remember that it can take over a year for some rulings to be finalized. And given your argument about the Frye Rulings, and how you feel about them, it makes you see where Light is coming from. People who are on death row usually stay there despite all of their appeals. Sure cases do get overturned given new evidence but what Light was trying to do was hasten their inevitable executions. You see people getting “life sentences” which basically means 20 years if you get out for good behavior.
Personally, I disagree that they should be allowed out early for their so-called “good behavior” while in prison. Good behavior in there and in the real world are 2 completely different things. One could argue that probation is the answer to this, but I feel that while important, it’s only a check in to make sure you’re employed, not drinking or using drugs. I’m willing to bet (other than drinking) that 9 out of 10 capitol murderers were employed and drug free while they were committing those crimes. So what does parole do for the public against those types of people? It doesn’t make me feel any safer, that’s for sure.
While Light may be extremely arrogant and pompous, I feel his killings with the death note were justified in most cases. I don’t feel that ALL crimes should be punishable by those means but by taking out the big time criminals and working his way down, it makes people think twice before committing a crime. This is ruling by fear BUT unless the death note user goes too far, it would be one way to ensure order around the world.
In the end I would definitely be a Kira supporter even though I do disagree with some of his actions. I’m not sure that I would have the discipline to use a death note solely for criminals. But such a thing could never exist -nor should it.
All in all I find this to be a great series and it does indeed raise many philosophical and ethical questions. I have yet to read the manga but I’m fairly sure how it will turn out in the end. This series will be one of my favorites for many years to come.
Hmm, just surfed to her through Google and found your post interesting on Death Note ethics, but I wonder if you are missing the bigger point of the series?
**spoiler warning**
Death Note is ultimately about somebody who is essentially good who slides into darkness and evil. Even Light’s essentially good motives get corrupted through time and power causing his fathers, friends, and eventually his own demise. That’s why the Shinigami kept saying that no human who has ever used a Death Note has gotten anything but misery from its use.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s not meant to be had. It impinges on the power of a God, but Light was human, therefore corruptible and fallible. If you noticed, Light’s sanity fell into darkness as well. He felt nothing for his Father or his love interest dying. No, in fact he was relieved, because they were ties that could leave him vulnerable. Eventually, it was his ego that was his downfall which was led to by his believing he was unstoppable.