A Follow Up On Heroism | Glass of Water

----------------------------------------------
Patreon - bit.ly/39XbKga
Ko-Fi - bit.ly/3fw7BB0
Tumblr - bit.ly/3gvBR0m
Got Something For Us? Send it to [e-mail]
---------------------------------------­-----
A Special Thanks To Our Patrons - bit.ly/2QMdWOI

[@kittybutch]

If someone is a good person outside of being a murderous cop, I feel like it makes them look even worse. That person clearly has the capacity for kindness but refuses to use it when they hold power... being both a good person and a bad person doesn't mean you deserve mercy for being a bad person. It means you have no excuse for being bad because you know how to and reap the benefits of being good. If a killer cop just so happens to be a very soft, nice person when they're home it just exhibits the cognitive dissonance they embody. Not the serve that one commenter thinks it is, lol.

[@Dranlia]

Indeed and in some of these cases the people they are nice to can just be because they are friends/family or just not from a minority group they are hostile to. If someone can be nice to their fellow straight whites then they have no excuse for not extending this to everyone else.

[@dataweiss3756]

Have you seen the movie I Spit on Your Grave? This describes the main antagonist perfectly.

[@Justme-wm8vr]

@Son Goku Man, those tyrant-boots must be squeaky clean by now, the way you've been licking them. Don't use empathy and compassion to excuse your own cowardice and self-centeredness. The only reason you give for not killing nazis is basically "I would feel bad." If that's your personal reason, fine. But don't try to force it on others or pretend that you're a better person for being more concerned with your own moral purity than the well-being of other people.

[@64girl2thresq4]

This is a form of compartmentalization that is commonly associated with racists, sexists, etc. The type of people who say "I'm not racist, but-" Many people think the nazis were these complete monsters who only felt hate and bloodlust. But no; around friends, family, colleagues, and anyone else who isn't a part of the groups of people they were terrible to, they were decent people. They were monsters to anyone else. It's sad that there are people today who, because they don't know this, become apologists to murderous police officers, saying "but they have families and their friends think they're great!" I'm sure this has something to do with projection. Maybe some of them subconsciously see themselves in these officers because they look alike or know someone they like who reminds them of them?

[@vienlacrose]

Kind of like how Nazi Functionaries would regularly play games with the kids of the targeted populations at whatever towns they were assigned to murder up till the day they received the kill order. Of course, this was before they mechanized the process, but i don't think the image of infants on bayonets impacted their willingness to receive payment for orders that bore no consequences in refusing.

[@Louipol]

I think Tom Hollands Spider-man put it really well "When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you"

[@perpetuallyfalling9499]

That’s a long way to say “with great power comes great responsibility”

[@LilianOrchard]

A long and more thorough way, as the old one was too vague

[@Hollowmello1285]

@@LilianOrchard how it really just says ''with great power comes great responsibility''?

[@Tabby112]

@@Hollowmello1285 it doesn’t really define those responsibilities so it allows u to weasel out of being responsible for bad things. Where saying “if you can stop it but u don’t it’s your fault” actively makes u responsible for “the bad thing”.

[@Tabby112]

@@Hollowmello1285 to put it in another way “with great power comes great responsibility” can kinda apply to everyone and everything. Not exactly just crime. Where the new version makes it more specific to what spider man can do. 🤔

[@rainyrouge5123]

Don't apologize for taking a vacation after getting married. You two deserve that Honeymoon free time together. You don't have to be constant content machines, you can celebrate big things like that.

[@pirateguy3521]

Fucking same

[@anitanielsen1061]

469 nice

[@LegendofLegaia929]

The "no kill rule" largely exists so that fan favorite villains aren't killed off. No one in their right mind would suggest that killing the Joker would make you as bad as the Joker, it's just a bullshit excuse to keep him in the story.

[@petrelli231]

There's like sixty different ways you can make the Joker functionally or literally immortal though.

[@Storm-crow13]

And it’s the same reason why they would need to kill them, because realistically prisons don’t have a revolving door that people can break out easily. So if the prisons weren’t made out of wet tissue paper a superhero could reasonably assume that not killing a defeated villain would mean that the villain would not be able to harm more people so they wouldn’t need to. Though if killing the villain is the only way to stop them without risking them harming others then they should be killed.

[@tenkenroo]

Also… where the fuck is the death penalty and how have law enforcement not shot joker in the head over the course of one of his sprees. Batman is given so much crap but he is trying to make Gotham’s justice system work. Part of the reason Batman doesn’t kill is because he really isn’t a vigilante (as much as people say he is) the guy aids gothams justice system. Should he kill the joker, absolutely. But it’s kind of Gotham’s fault for not just giving joker the death penalty and executing him.

[@lettuceman9439]

For Superman and those within his power level, Its Reasonable why they have it being due to it being a Limiter and reminder of their responsibility in how they perceive there own godlike power. For Non-Supers but Former Assasins and Soldiers its more of a stand-in how they look at Redemption and Separation from there past.

[@Eclipsed_Embers]

the thing is that that excuse really isn't needed anymore since they've pretty firmly extablished at this point that the Joker is multiple people and is more of an idea than an identity. Batman could kill the Joker several times now and DC already has a way to replace him without a word of extra explaination needed.

[@perpetuallyfalling9499]

I love villains who are just evil for the sake of being evil. Like Frieza and Dio Brando.

[@pupstuff4389]

They're the most fun and campy, definitely.

[@stormeaglegaming5395]

I agree

[@nanoff815]

I like Dio obviously but my favorite(anime only) is Yoshikage Kira. There's almost nothing redeemable about him like Dio but he's less campy and larger than life when compared to Dio.

[@perpetuallyfalling9499]

@@nanoff815 hard to disagree with that. I would only say that Kira is weakened by the part he is in. Part 4 is a slight drag to get through and I love the stakes in Part 3 much more. Again Kira is a vile piece of shit but he is much more believable than Dio. However, Dio’s evil and menacing nature has matured since the days of Part 1. And that’s satisfying to watch.

[@cass7448]

Plus the actors tend to have a lot of fun with it.

[@jeffreywarf]

I wanna hear you and catwoman-core talk about batman. Her perspective is that batman actually DOES do his best to avoid harming the mooks (even offering them jobs that pay better and with better benefits) and the real problem is that batman only gets violent, fascist adaptations so that's why the general view of the character is "batman is a fascist that beats up poor people" since there's no exploration of all the other comics that go into the many ways Bruce/batman help gotham outside of violence

[@turner15]

I love the ones where he offers people jobs!

[@petrelli231]

Considering the sort of people Warner Bros. keeps on payroll, no wonder that's the Batman they approve of.

[@artisticcannibalism1350]

And honestly that's a damn shame because Bruce Wayne is an interesting character that's worth exploring in ways that doesn't tie back to Batman.

[@mrblackhouseprez]

That's whats so confusing when ppl talk about batman. Its why i hate the newer movies. In the animated series batman always gave the thugs chances to give up and it was used as comedy sometimes were villains would see its batman and just go home. The reason for his scary persona is so most low level thugs just give up from fear. He doesn't break bones, he ties ppl up or uses knock out gas and brutal violence is always the last resort. He's more "brutal" and cautious of superheros because they have power to hurt the weak and spends more time making sure the justice leauge cant take over the world

[@scarletstudio3232]

In all honesty when lily said she tries to not make these videos to long but I could listen to her go on and on about these kinda of thinks for weeks

[@mercy5004]

Something important to keep in mind when people say "but they could have been a good person outside of this instance" , or "he had a family" is that most big-name serial killers had a really great public persona. John Wayne Gacy, for instance, was considered a pillar of his community, a public hero, and a great moral role model. He ran a buisness that would give young people and underserved communities better work opportunities, did tons of public works, entertained children, etc. Most people in the area looked up to him, and until all the evidence came out, thought him innocent based on public persona alone. But he still murdered 33 (known) men and boys. If anyone has any semblance of an interest in the true crime documentary side of media, especially those that cover serial killers, you'd know just HOW common it is for a killer to have a count in the dozens... and people around them say "but he's such a great guy, He couldn't have done it! He's done so much communal good!" And yeah. Some serial killers from all respects DO seem to do these good acts because they genuinely wanted to help their community . But that still doesn't forgive or justify their actions, nor does that mean that a hero *in that moment* of catching them killing someone, should stop and be like..." did this guy donate to charity?" That's just information to help entertain audiences so we can mull over the moral complexity of this decision after the fact. BUT that's not really a good excuse for why a hero shouldn't still make that decision in the here and now.

[@arourallis]

The 'no kill' rule really bled into the family film industry too. It spawned an entire trope where the villain can still die, but in ways that keep the hero's hands squeaky clean. Don't worry potentially-conservative American suburbia, that villain fell to his doom because of his own hubris! Now you can enjoy all our hero and princess themed merchandise guilt-free! Then, How to Train Your Dragon came along. We get a villain, a titanic despotic dragon overlord that turns all the wild dragons in the area into its slaves, and eats anything that doesn't serve to its liking. This is the cause of all the problems for the hero and his side of the 'war' with dragons. Solution? Kill it. Just, kill the giant dragon. And everyone's lives are made infinitely better because of it. Then, it got a sequel. We get a villain, a titanic despotic human overlord that three different people tell the hero is bad news. He's a bloodthirsty tyrant that brands his own subordinates like animals at the slightest inconvenience, he CAN'T be reasoned with. What does the hero do? Try to reason with the villain, when his side of the battle has already LOST, and then he just sits there like a dead fish while the villain orchestrates his murder via his best-friend dragon. Then, his father takes the blow meant to kill him. So after having his father murdered, best friend kidnapped, and village flattened, he STILL doesn't make the decisive blow. He just makes the villain retreat. Gotta keep those hands squeaky clean! Then, the t h i r d film. The hero has failed to learn from past mistakes and lets the new edgelord '''''''dark foil to the hero'''''''' villain monologue, after he's been disarmed and is surrounded by people ready to kill him, then escape. And again, the hero has the perfect opportunity to just snipe the bastard in the dead of night, or launch a night attack on the completely helpless enemy fleet hunting them down because the hero has a DRAGON ARMY at his beck and call, but he doesn't. That wouldn't be very Lawful Stupid of him now would it? A LOT of media like this winds up with a fundamental problem: they have a conflict that can easily and IMMEDIATELY be solved by killing someone, with basically no consequences, but most heroes fail to do so. They want to pretend 'kill the bastard' isn't a solution at all, but something the villain does to themselves in the end because that's what needed to happen. If you don't want to kill a villain... don't make a conflict with a villain that needs killing. Its that simple.

[@arourallis]

@Son Goku Grimmel is more 'allowed' to fall than deliberately killed. At any point, Hiccup could've kicked him in the face with his METAL LEG and that would've been the end of it. But he... didn't. For reasons that can only be chalked up to 'deliberate violence, no matter how justified = bad'. And Hiccup had half a dozen opportunities to kill him before that, all of which would've been equally justified, ESPECIALLY the first time he met. What better justification for self defense is there, when someone breaks into your home and threatens you and everyone you love? But Hiccup is now Lawful Stupid and Killing Is Bad(tm). So, Grimmel gets the same death as Gaston, Clayton, and that one dude from Rescuers Down Under, who basically _was_ Grimmel done right.

[@arourallis]

@Son Goku Still, this happened at the last possible second, in the most squeaky-clean way possible for a family audience. This doesn't change the fact that, within the story, we see multiple opportunities to just kill the person causing the problems, but the story bends over backwards to keep that from happening. If you don't want your hero to kill a villain, don't give them the motive and means over and over again and contrive reasons why they don't.

[@bluerose235]

*standing ovation*

[@thereaperofu2326]

I didn't feel.... for lack of a better term, qualified to participate in this experiment. I felt that if I did, I'd be doing something that wasn't correct. And that, was inaction. And that, was ego. This video has gotten into my head already, and I'll probably be thinking about it for a bit. Thank you.

[@BreadBush]

@@Dragonshade64 take the holocaust as an example, the people who saved lives were normal people, not always soldiers and people of power. There were plenty of normal unqualified citizens who hid people in their homes and risked death to do the right thing. In the context of not wanting to look stupid it’s ok to not act because the consequences are practically nonexistent, but in a situation where someone is getting hurt I don’t think that unqualified is a good enough excuse to do nothing. There is always something that can be done, even if it’s small.

[@JazzyReShawn]

Congrats on the marriage! You enjoy yourselves, we’ll be here!

[@petrelli231]

I believe the explanation of how LefTube went to shit is rather simple. They're all rich now. Suddenly, community support is no longer a factor on their sustenance or wellbeing. They can afford to go months without uploading, they have book deals, they founded a streaming service, their most oppressing medical needs are suddenly within their personal budget. They don't need others anymore. They're at the top. So why would they keep caring about the values they talked about? It's not their problem anymore. And no longer caring means no longer making good content, and getting writer's block because they lost their flame, and getting in twitter drama with their own community. Because none of it matters to them anymore. They made it. Who cares about those who didn't?

[@zactyl8387]

Another problem that some versions of Batman seems to have, is that he not only refuses to kill Joker, but he also refuses to let him die. In the movie Under the Red Hood, Batman could easily just leave Red Hood alone or just watch him kill Joker, but instead, he saves him from Red Hood. He literally fought his dead son, just to not let Joker die. And there is another version that I haven't read, but that I have heard a lot of, where the Joker was sick and dying because of it, Red Hood again beg him to just not save him, he wasn't asking him to kill him, he wasn't asking him to kill some lower treat villains. And yet... Batman denied him that. In both scenes Batman is asked to do nothing, un both scenes Batman is reminded that Joker kill Red Hood and kept them separated for so many years, in both scenes Batman is told that no other villain needs to be kill... and yet, in both scenes Batman refuses to let him die.

[@andrerodney454]

@C in the case of batman saving the joker, the joker is not the innocent victim of someone abusing their power. His death would have no negative effect on anyone , and will most likely put and end to his cycle of breaking out of prison and killing more people. If your point is simply that batman letting joker die would break is no kill rule because of his inaction then my apologies for the critic

[@XainRussell]

Very happy to see that this experiment worked out and you got some good discussion out of it. That point about Capitalism encouraging this sort of morality issue was something I also had not considered, but now that I’ve heard it it’s almost head slapping in its obviousness.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

Then you don't know what it is like to live in a non capitalist country

[@Zuginator]

My father always said "The most dangerous thing a society can do is take everything from someone. When a person no longer has anything to lose, all they can do is gain."

[@frick_____you]

Congrats on getting married. While I don't think Batman should kill all of his villains; Gotham would probably sleep easier if the Joker, Rhas Al Goul, and the Tallyman were to die. I don't believe for a moment that he wouldn't know when to stop. That is an excuse for him to keep his moral high ground. On the other hand, his no-kill-rule is too baked into his character for them to change it at this point.

[@christianlee2487]

While I agree with you on most levels with your statement. Do I think batman should kill SOME of the rogues gallery, Yes. Do I think that writers have been cowardly or just strong armed into when it comes to the no kill policy, Yes. But also think that the only thing keeping batman out of arkham is a technicallity that he's rich and a "good guy" Batman is as a person is unstable at the best of times, (I mean the guy adopts kids just to coerce them into fighting crime) and with his various depictions and events that showcases how close he is to becoming something akin to a tyrant and or mass murderer. A few examples: The dark knight returns DC batman metal event Titans (whenever Dick grayson talks about batman or to bruce)

[@emargaux]

Honestly I think Batman doesn't even do it for people anymore. Like the video provokes, he literally just goes around in a batsuit to protect whatever is left of his sanity - and well, his ego.

[@emargaux]

Oh and there *was* actually a Batman universe where he kills the guy who killed his parents way back at the incident. He continues to serve justice in that way for that universe, too. Unfortunately, the cops in that universe were against him doing so because it was as if he was going above the law - so he had to make a run for it. While I do like this Batman they did him dirty in that comic (it's from the Batman Who Laughs).

[@xzsamzilla3506]

@@emargaux That's the Grim Knight, he's sort of like Batman Punisher? (I still think he's based off of Darkwing Duck's Dark Warrior Duck episode.) He actually did take over Gotham in his universe, but Marsupial Boy That Chuckles took him to main Gotham after the other evil Batmen were killed.

[@emargaux]

@@xzsamzilla3506 Ohh I see. Kinda sad that they had to portray a Batman like that in a bad light huh? There's also that Batman that Superman had a dream about where he finally kills the Joker after the Joker attempts to murder a pregnant Lois Lane into space. Batman surrenders himself to get arrested after that, but Superman says he doesn't have to do jail time and he's thankful Batman sacrificed his principles to protect his family. ... Which, again, is from Superman's dream. The fact that even Superman himself wants Batman to do something than just letting Joker loose is pretty sad in itself.

[@hinata1ize]

So I recently talked to a philosophy student and apparently they were discussing it in class. And according to his professor, apparently the correct choice is to do nothing because “we don’t have the right to choose who lives and who dies.” Except, we do it all the time. From the death penalty to the army to cops to many other examples, we choose. And that logic implies that doing nothing, even if it causes more suffering, is better than doing something that helps more people.

[@AmejizutoProductionsOfficial]

I feel like Fallout has a really good reputation and moral system that I find not only realistic but also is why I still like playing the games. You can kill bad guys in Fallout 4 with inpunity and no one bats an eye.

[@ZodiacEntertainment2]

New Vegas still did a better job of this by simply boiling it down to faction relationships. Nobody is going to care that you killed some raiders, but they will care if you shot their buddies regardless of why.

[@AmejizutoProductionsOfficial]

@@ZodiacEntertainment2 True

[@athenapromachos3027]

How To Train Your Dragon 2 is pretty cool on this! First movie, Hiccup saved the day with idealism and trust and peace, because yeah, the dragons were animals, you can study and figure out their behavior and befriend them. Secondly, he’s dealing with Drago Bludvist, a madman who almost killed Hiccup’s father and did kill many of Stoick’s friends. Hiccup is absolutely determined to talk to Drago, even though every time he tries, something goes wrong, and ultimately his father dies as a consequence of Hiccup’s hesitance and insistence on pacifism. He cannot be talked to or redeemed, he needs to go the fuck down. So he does.

[@dracomurdock6349]

Except that wasn't him. Hiccup made peace with the dragons in the first movie, but had to kill the leader and didn't say away from that. If anything, he took to to it with glee. But I'm the second movie, he never tries to kill Drago, and the same goes for the third movie. He HAD the chance multiple times and decides against it. Both die from things outside Hiccups control.

[@bluerose235]

Yeah, both the second and third movies rely on Hiccup being a pacifist for no good reason to make the villain a bigger threat.

[@endstudios9345]

"but what if that cop had a family" is a bit dumb. If they can't think empathetically for the people their abusing, it's not my job to think empathetically for them. As a person in a relationship, you are the one responsible for your actions, and if your abusing others, of course someone is going to object. If your death is because of stupid actions, it's on you to account for the family that is yours and for the friends that are yours. If you put yourself in a stupid situation entirely of your own will, whose consequences are easily seen, your death and it's effects are on your own hands.

[@elithesia781]

I love how videos like these always make my mind start stirring in one way or another. There’s pretty much always something that makes me think, and I like that.

[@BreadBush]

Inaction is like sitting in a bus that’s hurling towards someone on the street. Like, you could 1-chose to take the wheel and run them over 2-chose to take the wheel and stop the bus or 3-do nothing and ultimately end up with the same result as the first choice. I agree with the idea that doing nothing when you have the ability to help is ultimately siding with the bus driver

[@jeffreywarf]

Also, you didn't address the issue of reprisals brought up in the second comment. That's a real ethical concern, when people use hostages and threaten to inflict more harm if you don't surrender to them. Edit: that's not to say "the hero needs to have a moral deliberation before deciding what to do in an emergency" but actions do have consequences and evil people are perfectly ready and willing to inflict reprisals on innocents as a response to some upstart shaking up their status quo

[@LilianOrchard]

To quote Commander Shepard: "Hostages only work if your enemy cares if they live."

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@LilianOrchard You should think this comment through again

[@spraticstudios8651]

I think it's funny how it hasn't even aired yet and the video already has a dislike. What are they disliking? The fact that they have to wait? Lol

[@jacobb4795]

Or maybe they hate heroism

[@Armaggedon185]

Definitely missed the point of the question first time around. I just took it for granted that killing even the innocent to save more people is the right thing to do, whether or not it’s considered heroic. I definitely remember coming down much harsher on inaction as a kid, though recently I’ve found it harder to judge those who struggle against their own psychology.

[@dracomurdock6349]

Inaction is all too common, and it's definitely a bad thing, but you cannot simply blame all people who do it. Taking charge or resolving a tense situation is something most have to train for or experience repeatedly to get it right, and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to get those kinds of skill, just as it's unreasonable to expect everyone to know carpentry or sewing. Inaction should be punished based on the responsibility placed on the individual. If a parent neglects their child, that's a problem, but if the mailman doesn't do anything about it, that's less of one. Still an issue, but not the same.

[@arielgalles2107]

I like how centaur world handles the end of the Nowhere King and the General. The general actively chooses to let a devastating war continue so that he can continue to live out a fantasy of being a great general and war hero when he could easily do the right thing and keel over and die which would kill the nowhere king and end the war. The nowhere king, on the other hand, has a sad uwu backstory but is directly responsible for the deaths of millions and has ravaged both human and centaur world. When the mysterious woman fuses them together again into elktaur she spends a couple minutes singing about how elktaur was a shitty partner who let his own insecurities completely ruin their relationship and also the entire world and then kills him.

[@TheVentusninjaChannel]

Whenever I think of the trolley problem, I always make the option for the one person harder: do I kill four people, who do I pull the lever and kill someone who is very dear to me. My answer remains the same, pull the lever. Because through inaction, you will have more blood on your hands and you are equally guilty, if not more-so.

[@hinata1ize]

Maybe I'm a bad person, but that just made the question easier. I'm not killing a loved one over 1 or 4 or 10 strangers. Now, there's a limit. But 4 people ain't it. Is it selfish? Sure. Do I care that it's selfish? Nope. I could at least pretend that there was nothing to be done in an effort to cope if I don't touch that lever.

[@arhamshahid5015]

@@hinata1ize I can't quite understand your reasoning. Are you willing to kill the father's ,mothers ,wives , husbands and kids of several other people die just so a single person you love doesn't die?

[@hinata1ize]

@@arhamshahid5015 I don't *want* to kill anyone. I would that no one died. But I'd have a less difficult time recovering (assuming I did recover) from the loss of life from strangers than from someone I care about. I'd be torn up about it either way. But making the choice more personal makes it even harder to do the right thing. Had we kept it to innocent strangers, I'd hate myself, but I'd sacrifice the one guy. But despite the fact that saving one life is objectively less valuable than saving multiple lives, the subjective value of the one life is far greater once you make that one person someone I love. For 1, I don't love many people. I have very few connections close enough to call it love, and it took a long time for me to trust them. It took me 7 years to trust my best friend. I'm not likely to have people be patient enough with me for that to happen again. My entire life has been based solely around the people I love. For 2, those people's families aren't even on my radar. I'm sure they do have people that will miss them, but saving them the pain does nothing to ease mine. Again, it's selfish. But I'm no hero. I won't say I don't care bc that's not true. I would still feel terrible. I just don't care about them more than I care about my own.

[@MartaTarasiuk]

My painfully honest answer to the trolley problem: I would not touch the leaver. I fact, I would go nowhere near it. Instead I would call police, an ambulance and firefighters. Why? Because that way my ass would be covered. I did my civil duty and called appropriate forces, so I couldn't be accused of negligence. I didn't move the leaver, so I am not accountable for anyone dying. In other words, there is nothing I could get jailtime for. Avoiding punishment and/or danger is my main motivator in life.

[@jw5397.]

I love this type of video! Getting to see perspectives from different games/shows I haven’t heard of before was really interesting, I’ll try to comment next time you do something like this 👍

[@blackkitty369]

I liked how you used the recent Sonic comic as an example of this. It was an interesting read.

[@mattpostingcinematicuniver7920]

This reminds me of those old "Best Pony, best villian" videos. I enjoyed those. I this is the start of more videos like this with more fan interaction.

[@hiya022]

People try really hard to preserve their ego with things like "Well that person is probably a sexist Nazi that kicks puppies in their spare time!" But completely miss the point because this isn't supposed to kiss your shoes and gently whisper compliments into your ear, but to make you feel bad. Understand that not doing anything is actually doing something. Yes, you will have life-long regrets about pulling the lever, but imagine those regrets ×5. What I like to do, is when someone asks me: "Are they [insert horrible person trait]?" I say: "No, they're [insert good person trait]." Here's an example: "Well, are they a conservative?" "No, they're a BLM and gay rights protester." And I just watch their ego crumble.

[@SpecialEdge]

Always hated the trolley question bc my thoughts always been straight forward, flip the switch. And that’s literally it, fuck how you feel about it, five people are still alive.

[@cadweirdness6133]

Y'know even tho I was completely wrong in my own argument. (Saying that if doing nothing could bring more good, then do nothing but you still have the guilt of doing nothing.) I still very much enjoyed this video. I mostly wrote my argument to be contrary to the others sense I didn't see others making that point. But also that was just me being dumb but thinking I was being the big smart. If you decide to do another discussion like this I would love to see it!

[@josuebartley7272]

I always read the batman no kill rule (particularly with the joker) was written more as a character flaw, not originally but definitely in resent interpretations

[@TheRusty]

Thing is, Batman believes in the system. it works for him, so it must work. This touches on the point one commenter in the video made about his privileged upbringing making him unable to empathize with or understanding people "lower down" on the social order. Batman doesn't kill the Joker because Batman earnestly believes that the system will prosecute Joker and lock him away safe and secure. Honestly even with all the flaws in our real-world system, that's not too unreasonable a belief to have, when it comes to a mass-murdeirng psychopath who looks like Iggy Pop went to clown college. In the real world, yeah, I'm absolutely sure Joker would be chained on every limb, put in a plexiglass box, and tried, sentenced, and locked away in a padded refrigerator forever in short order. of course, Batman exists in a comic book world where permanent resolutions are impossible, and in Gotham in particular the system is designed around perpetual failure. Thing is, Batman doesn't know that he's in a comic book, and is naive enough to believe the systems of Gotham function. And a problem there is, if he were ever to accept that the system didn't work, then... where is he? Either he hangs it up entirely and Gotham loses the one person who is capable of standing up to Joker and his ilk, or he accepts the gritty grimdark edgelord reality he lives in and is just the Punisher with more money. I do not think Batman is a moral failure for not killing; he's naive, but he has to be given the particulars of his world. he tries to make things better, but is blind to the fact he's trying to bail out the city with a sieve. Batman's moral failing is that his solution to the problems of Gotham is to dress up in pajamas and punch evil clowns. He's the wealthiest man in the city, the top captain of industry, with connections at all levels of the power structure. he could very easily gain real meaningful political power and ACTUALLY FIX THE SYSTEM, or at least make real attempts. He could even divert his wealth towards mass improvement; the "Rogue's Gallery" will get a whole lot less done with fewer goons-for-hire. But let' be honest, in a world where trillionaires are competing to fly into space in giant dildoes, who would ever believe Bruce Wayne would divest himself of wealth to help his hometown?

[@TheRusty]

@Son Goku Mmmm, corporate philanthropy is a sham, you know that right? Like I dunno, maybe in the DC universe it really Actually Works For real, but in the real world, philanthropy is a means of garnering tax breaks and great PR at a very low output cost. It doesn't ever actually address the situation it claims to, nor does it want to - because if the problem goes away, well, now you can't use the problem for PR, tax breaks, and profitable skim-via-overhead on donations. The Wayne Foundation doesn't do shit except make Bruce Wayne richer.

[@ArtemisMoon90]

"Is my ego worth more than the lives of 4 people?" That is the fundamental question the trolly problem asks, and the answer should always be no. You pull the lever.

[@jaredtheastralartist2510]

I really like this video. And I only gives some unique perspective on a writing topic, but it also gets the writing committee involved. I would love to see more videos like this. (that is only if you have the time.) and congratulations to you and Makayla! Be happy!

[@OlaAremu]

Damn! i'm really glad i found your channel!

[@johnhodson3433]

I wanted to partake in the experiment video but every time I tried typing out my thoughts on the matter I ended up off topic, unfocused, both, or my brain just started spitting gibberish. I'm not sure if that's ego or anxiety preventing me from partaking, but if another one comes out hopefully I can do...something at least. Also, congrats on getting married!

[@HarmlessNightshade]

This was a really interesting couple of videos and it got me looking at my own stories and characters and how I need to change them. I haven't agreed with the "no kill" morality in a long time because its just dumb, but there were other things that hadn't even crossed my mind, so I'm glad these videos kinda shook me by the shoulders and woke me up a bit. I hope we se more of these types of videos in the future cause this was really good!

[@StupidMovieStudio]

I think my view on whether or not killing a villain, especially in this modern world, is the creation of martyrs. I once had a conversation with an old supervisor, a man who has dealt real twisted fucks in his life, about a similar topic. In his view, he would execute all pedophiles and convicted murders, but people with a strong influence, he would lock away forever, for their death would be more powerful to their movement then they continuing to speak as their death can be interpreted by more dangerous people to further a potentially negative cause. Keeping someone villainous alive keeps the hope of deprogramming sinister cult mentalities alive.

[@Extreme2566]

2:04 it's funny cause Batman used to kill people by snapping their necks and use guns

[@gamepopper101]

Congrats on the marraige, this was insightful, it's been a long time seeing you decipher and argue the points of commenters, and possibly the first time on a subject that wasn't about cartoon characters... As far as Batman analysis go, my personal favourite to this day is Reginald D Hunter describing Batman as a "Conservative's Wet Dream" because he's a corporate billionaire with high tech gadgets and weaponry and yet only goes after street level crime. Honestly sick and tired of the Frank Miller, dark, brooding, and violent Batman.

[@fourcatsandagarden]

Plus, since Batman is a billionaire, he could solve 90% of Gotham's problems by investing in the people of Gotham. Sure, that won't make the Joker or Penguin stop existing, but it will make sure there's no one who would sign up to work for them because no one would be so hard up that they'd need to. Most of the villains would be much less dangerous if they didn't have desperate help. The idea that investing in those people wouldn't change anything is another part of the conservative wet dream.

[@Boss_Isaac]

@Son Goku Except individual charities can only do so much. If Bruce were honestly concerned with combating the root socioeconomic problems that see people resort to crime, he'd... you know... run for office and enact policies that could do so.

[@Hollowmello1285]

Welp im either gonna be disappointed or intrigued

[@Hollowmello1285]

And also first

[@kevina.2129]

I want to thank Lily for this experiment, it was fun. It made me think about my own morality and how I see the world. It did not change my mind, but it did give me a more articulated understanding of how and why I view things, especially on the hard choices in life. Like that even though I know I personally would choose to do nothing for the same reasons Lily pointed out, I would write a character that would pull the lever because I want to be the kind of person that had the emotional strength to do it. This experiment gave me more to think about on what to consider when making such a character. So again, thank you Lily for the fun experiment.

[@akmalsy159]

Watching this is so fascinating, probably the best Lily Orchard video series I seen to date. Personally, I can live with anyone's views, since anyone else have different circumstances to myself, but I do believe the world should follow one simple code. Treat others the way you want to be treated. I hate hypocrites, simply put if you act a certain way, you must accept when people do the same to you. For example in the trolley problem, if you decide to pull the lever, you must accept the same decision if you are the 1 person tied to other track, and condemn anyone who choose to spare you by not pulling it. Which is why reading about CEOs recieving bailouts from government when they themselves oppose social securities for others fill me with rage.

[@TE-sq1xk]

This is the most single minded understanding of the trolly problem. There are multiple questions that spring from the issue, one being what gives you the right to kill? Another question is what determines the value of a human life? This is why lily gets the question about the actions of the individual. The second that you believe you have the right to do something, you give into ego. This is why lily not understanding egoism was a bit odd. Also lily not understanding that her with character is authoritarian is also odd. The reason why people tend to be opposed to radical good characters is because people want to know what gives you the right. Being on the left is not being anti authoritarian, it’s being anti right. Depending on my axioms doing nothing is morally just because it’s not my place. Personally, my answer depends on the moral good or evil that comes from the action. If the single individual is a good brain surgeon they have more value in practice, but not essence. With no additional information the answer is obvious.

[@jacobb4795]

Part of the reason why Batman will not kill the joker is because he himself is mentally unstable and wouldn’t trust himself to stop killing when he starts

[@LuckyG9728]

Yeah, it seems like a lot of people forget about that part

[@LuckyG9728]

@@wisdommanari6701 Obviously not, I'm just saying that people forget there's a reason behind it that isn't just "not killing makes me better than the villain". It doesn't make it ok, because it's a flaw baked into the character.

[@pkmnherofan22]

Im happy for you and Mikay!! This was a nice follow up and It made me glad that a lot more people than I expected were critically discerning enough to not have to think twice about killing a villian.

[@pablocruz5613]

Ok genuinely that “Capitalism leads to an excess of ego” argument caught me by surprise. While I myself do support capitalism when regulated as to limit its abuses (as any system has abuses hence why Laws exist and should be followed not danced around as many of the ultra rich do) it was ABSOLUTELY eye opening to think about he Capitalism can affect morale views. That protecting your own personal status and wellbeing would come over helping another due to how capitalism emphasizes competition. I’ve always seen competition as a personal test, it’s why I like games like Chess or fighting games, it’s my own skill be it in tactical thought or speed of reflexes that gives me the win, but I never thought that same thought process could be attributed to monetary value. I’ve always commented to friends who always wanted the latest phone or new sports cars that it seemed like a waste, now I understand why, it’s not to have something nice, it’s to lord it over everyone else.

[@petrelli231]

of you keep on this line of thought, in about half an hour you'll realise why everyone hates capitalism.

[@fourcatsandagarden]

all of us were raised to be capitalists, it can be hard to let go something that feels so familiar and safe and known, but I promise you - capitalism gotta go. We as a species can do so much better.

[@pablocruz5613]

@@petrelli231 I do not hate capitalism, I know very few people who hate capitalism. I’ve had this argument before, because when you and I trade something, say, yugioh cards in the playground, that’s technically a capitalistic affair. You are willfully trading something with perceived value for something of greater perceived value than what you hold. That is capitalism in its purest form, trade. Hell I had yugioh cards gifted to me, and would trade them for bags of chips or candy because they had more perceived value to me than the card. What people hate (and so do I) is the Crony establishment modern capitalism has created, where mega corporations and Ultra wealthy moguls skirt laws (look up Tax Avoidance vs Tax evasion if your jaw hasn’t hit the ground in a long while) or lobby for favorable terms. I’ve always maintained the fact that the government should never have allowed lobbying to become a thing, the decision that corporations are people and thus can donate to political groups is a horrible one. When companies do everything in their power to trick you out of your hard earned money, yes it’s a form of capitalism, but so is me going to my local baker and giving him 10 bucks for a pound of bread and some ham.

[@pablocruz5613]

@@fourcatsandagarden maybe I’ve grown calloused to this due to a very, “realist” upbringing. My father was always a “this is how things are, it sucks, we gotta deal with it” man, and while it did help me in some ways (such as with my Autism and ADHD) in others it has made me calloused. I do not believe capitalism can be eliminated from humanity without severe changes, attempts at eliminating capitalism have resulted in horrible conditions. I believe that we should work towards that eventual goal yes, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It’s actually due to people like Lily Orchard and Blair from the Illuminati channel that my eyes have been opened to a lot of these aspects I previously ignored.

[@petrelli231]

@@pablocruz5613 trading existed for thousands of years before capitalism. It exists in socialist countries today. That's not what it is. This "crony capitalism" you talk about is just all capitalism once you distill it to its core values. Lobbying is illegal in most countries, but it still happens under the table, because the people in power in government are also trying to get rich. It's not government vs capitalists, they ARE the capitalists. They're not deregulating out of some innocent naivety, they're doing it because they're the same people benefitting. The whole thing's rigged from top to bottom. It's capitalists vs the working class, and because we keep buying into their bullshit rhetoric and technicalities, they keep getting away with it.

[@darth_dan8886]

The Sith Philosophy does state that your choices come from your Self and that you should be honest to yourself about that fact. It is egocentric, yes. But it also encourages responsibility. A Sith cannot ignore the fact they were given the lever and had the ability to pull it. The binary outcome of the situation is literally in their hands. So you just choose the outcome more desirable for you. With usual, "faceless" representations of the trolley problem it is a really easy choice for me. I can however think of configurations where I would pick the opposite, or ones where neither option is better than the other _for me_ (in which case I just do what I desire and walk away from the situation, even knowing I'll never live it down). BTW, fun fact, the first couple times I've heard about the trolley problem many years ago... I didn't understand that it was about action vs inaction. Since both options registered as choices, I thought it was more about whether you can live down an individual who knows that you killed 4 people to save them, or 4 people who know you killed one for their sake.

[@goldencyclone4984]

Grats on the wedding!

[@Draiocht012]

I wanted to be involved in this so bad but I get so tongue-tied when trying to explain these sorts of things. Nothing I wrote out felt like it made my point.

[@backseat-of-the-audience]

i took ebony’s response to mean something like you should think about the consequences of your actions. mindful movement. idk. it reminded me of game of thrones and the dragon lady who wanted to do good, kept doing all the actions she believed would result in a greater world, but ended up leaving power vacuums=more problems to be fixed. yes, you should pull the lever to save those people. that’s the question you asked. but what’s wrong with then asking how to stop the trolly because you don’t want to keep pulling levers?

[@fourcatsandagarden]

"pacifist power fantasy" makes complete sense to me - certain sorts of "pacifists" may be against violence, but their reasons for being against violence can be very malicious. Just take a scroll through r/enlightenedcentrism to find examples of centrists being more than willing to let oppressed groups suffer and even die just because 'wah violence bad ;-; don't use mean words! that's not civil!' when right wingers are speaking in level tones and using polite words while oppressed groups are protesting. They are also often completely silent or at most shake their heads and tuttut when right-wingers scream and get physical because golly gee it was never actually about people not behaving violently in the first place. The people that make those enlightened centrist arguments often try to hide their own racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism, victim blaming, or whatever else behind being well behaved and 'against violence.' They don't want us to /die/ necessarily, they just want us to "know our place" and behave. Not all pacifists are like this, some really do want violence to stop just because violence is horrific even when it's warranted, but the good pacifists tend to be understanding of why oppressed groups sometimes respond with violence (or otherwise "uncivil" behavior) when they're being harmed and killed. Those types of pacifists don't go around whining about oppressed groups being 'just as bad' for daring to speak too loudly or say crude words. I guess I'd more call the first group 'fash in pacifist clothing,' because that's really what they are.

[@DeathLadyShinigami]

Congratulations on your wedding! Now onto commenting on the video. Personally I can't analyze things, my brain just does not work that way.(I love rereading/rewatching things as I can try to find the foreshadowing I completely missed first go through). But what it does love is hearing is many different takes and going either 'Yes' 'No' or 'sounds right but somethings off' so I LOVE your Glass of Water videos. This particular one was very interesting hearing so many differing opinions and when my brain twinges at 'something sounds off' you usually found Why it sounded wrong to me. Very thought provoking so thanks!

[@2centstudios]

Batman's reason for not killing the Joker or any of his supervillains is most often attributed to the idea that he understands his own moral fragility and would not stop. I've seen people say that he would and that it's just an excuse, but given that we've seen alternate versions of Batman like Owlman (cataclysmic nihilist) and Lord Batman (global facist), I think it's reasonable to trust him on this. The closest example we probably have of what that would be like in the beginning is Light Yagami from Death Note. The end result of that is already present in his own series as Ra's al Ghul(notable for wanting Batman to be his successor). When is the economically disenfranchised mook ok to kill? His third or fourth supervillain job? When he tries to kill you? When he hurts an innocent? What about people like Carmine Falcone? Or Takuo Shibuimaru? Or any of the convicted murderers from Death Note? How about villains like Lex Luthor who can be tried by the justice system and either be found innocent or be jailed and released only to do it again? I'd imagine Batman has already asked himself these types of questions and come to the conclusion that there's no criminal and maybe even potential/convicted criminal that he wouldn't kill--and so he has his one rule. I can understand why some people might consider it a moral failing, but I'm not sure I agree. The idea of assuming personal responsibility for potential injustice has an impossibly large and infinitely expanding scope. The trolley problem (despite a logical/utilitarian response) suffers from similar issues. If you stop an attempted murderer, they're arrested, tried, imprisoned and serve time, but are released/escape and kill someone--is it your fault? This is essentially Batman's predicament and a more complex version of your original question and I think the answer can be simultaneously yes and no. Belated congrats on the marriage btw~

[@ebonyblack4563]

Ego ruins far more than almost anything else I can think of. The only things ego does that are good are make people brave enough to be willing to put themselves out into the world, and to stand up against those who seek to hurt them. Ego can make scientists reject evidence, give abusive parents excuses for themselves, and perhaps worst of all it can undermine one of its few redeeming qualities because it can also keep people from growing because they shield themselves from criticism. So many of the worst aspects of human kind are driven by ego, or the fear of damaged ego. Having a healthy ego can save you from abuse by giving you the strength to stand up for your own rights, but the vast majority of the time ego is a barrier to moving forward, not a helping hand off the ground. Checking your Ego is incredibly difficult to learn, especially if you had to first learn to grow one during/after abuse, but it is necessary to be able to ask it it's helping or hurting; to become a better person you need to see your ego clearly. Also ego feeds conspiracy theories.

[@Kamekaze.]

I used to, and still struggle with Procrastination. I could, and have made many excuses in the past. But I don’t let these excuses get to me because they are at heart, excuses. I procrastinate because I am LAZY. It is nobody’s fault but my own. So It is better for me to accept responsibility rather than excusing myself. Because if i make excuses i am rejecting the blame, and by proxy rejecting the notion that it is my fault. Or that i should make any attempt to change.

[@UnrealityMatrix]

About Batman outside the practical reasons for not killing (i.e. Story and logistics) his no kill rule is a fight with himself, he doesn't know if he can stop after just one for him it's like completely abstaining from drugs as opposed to taking measured doses - a decision made out of extreme paranoia of getting addicted. for normal people it might be a ridiculous fear but for batman it is a legitimate worry because the numerous times that batman(or a version of batman) loses themselves and starts killing it normally doesn't go very well in the long run I've seen a version of batman wipe out entire multiverses as result of killing one person. It's this spiral away from justice that batman(rightly) fears and the no kill rule is to keep him on the straight and narrow.

[@andrewphilos]

> "Your creative writing teacher told you villains had to be complex and sympathetic, but that's dumb and wrong" Preach! I feel like the vibe is coming back around to "one-dimensional villains are fine, actually." There's nothing necessarily wrong with complex and sympathetic villains, but that's a choice for specific stories. Really, all a villain needs is a hook and enough power to impede the hero.

[@deviousdelibird]

Yo, congratulations you two!

[@awalkingparadox4058]

People be like: ok what if I find a way to stop time, get jacked, and then stopped the trolley

[@mikeywise3411]

my biggest problem with batman, as a batman fan, is he seems to give the corrupt businessmen/politicians lesser punishment/a non-punishment and the victims of that abuse basically a fist sandwich. batman returns is the ONLY FILM where he gave a corrupt politican (penguin running for mayor) a proper punishment

[@sniperalexander248]

this reminds me of a dilemma, in a move called "silence" where two priest go to japan to find another preacher that supposedly denounced god, throughout the movie, they must either tell the locals to denounce god which of course they do not what too. If they do not they will not kill the preachers but instead will kill the locals in front of them to make then feel guilty. so they must decide... is there faith more important then human life or not?

[@kenaniahwilliams6564]

Kinda love this thought experiment format, you should do another soon.

[@Redbloodthewise]

thank you for the wake-up call I needed Lily. ps love your videos.

[@georgespiggott5615]

This is all well and good for fiction, but historically and culturally speaking nonviolent resistance is almost always more effective than violent uprisings against oppressors. In fiction the underdog can win if they fight back, but irl the oppressor will always seize the opportunity to hit back twice as hard. With nonviolence you can change the culture a lot more easily, to the point that many oppressive regimes ban books about nonviolent movements for fear of their citizens learning their tactics. Nonviolence means more people are willing to join your cause and more onlookers will take your side rather than the oppressor's.

[@georgespiggott5615]

@@wisdommanari6701 I'm not saying violence never works, but all the data shows that most violent uprisings fail because the oppressed are much less powerful than the oppressors. Nonviolent movements all across the world succeed at much higher rates, or at least force the oppressors to give activists concessions, where violent demonstrations get labeled as looters or rioters or even enemies of the state, so that the government can put them down with military force without international sanctions.

[@Ani_Musician]

Congrats on the marriage. Hope you & Mikaila enjoy yourselves. And thanks for this thought experiment & follow-up. Enjoy your honeymoon

[@metroidnerd9001]

This video gave me some really good insights that I now want to implement into the story of the game I want to make in the future. There will be a part of the game where you encounter a town that's being ravaged by bandits, and part of how you affect your trajectory in the story is how you deal with them. At one point, they all attack you at once, and you can either kill them, get them to surrender, or run away yourself. What differentiates the good and the bad endings of this part of the game won't be whether or not you decided to kill them (i.e. you get the "best ending" by getting them to surrender but not killing them), but rather, you get the worst ending by running away and not doing anything. If you choose to let them live, they still cause problems later on, escaping from prison, which I may use to force the player to make some tough decisions, but the point is that whether or not you kill them isn't what makes you a good person, it's whether or not you do anything to fix the injustices they're causing.

[@lori0747]

Onestly, to make It more interesting you could make so that all three option cause problems, and for example if you kill them people are gonna be treating you a lot worse because you just killed some people which you could have spared (wich could clue you that you started the"Gray ending") , if you make them surrender they will escape prison and you must do some relatively difficult missions to catch them before they can do any damage (making the good path the hardest)while in the escape option the bandits just wreck a lot of damage till you manage to capture or kill them, wich starts the path to the bad ending

[@metroidnerd9001]

@@lori0747 I like that idea, though I don't think everyone would be mad at you for killing them. Maybe some people would celebrate it while others would deride you for being unfair and straight up killing them instead of doing due process stuff. The best path being hardest fits well with another concept for the game, where you get 10x as much EXP for killing people as you do for just beating them. This makes it so that if you go on a killing spree, you'll get super strong and make the game easy, but people will respect you a lot less, and you won't be able to get as good of an ending.

[@sarmaangel]

The thing about the trolley problem is that it doesn't actually have a real solution. In one of my classes this semester, we had to read Ender's Game. For anyone who has not read it, it is about a 6 year-old boy who gets drafted into the space military and is groomed to become the "chosen one". When we discussed the book, I brought up how the officers did not have to abuse the shit out of this child for years, if they wanted to do this war, they had many children that they could train so that together they could be great leaders. Once I had brought this up, my professor and class turned it into a trolley situation, where we could let I child not be abused or let the world be destroyed. This of course ignored what I said about different ways to go about this situation but also, anyone who has read this book will know that Earth was not actually being threatened. The war had ended years prior and the others had no intentions on trying to attack humans ever again. The trolley problem is not an actual scenario, it is a false problem that is created to make people feel like they have the moral high-ground.

[@epicfights7898]

"it doesn't have a real solution" But isn't the point that it *has* a solution, you just won't like it? The solution is defined as choose to pull the level or don't pull, so the solution is not dependent on your liking of it, it's just an inevitable cause and effect from your course of action or inaction. Lily gave her solution which was to pull, and the cause and effect nonetheless is still something she didn't like because that's the point of the problem, it will be inevitably solved, but no matter what, you personally won't like it.

[@sarmaangel]

@@epicfights7898In the way that Lily is defining it as action or inaction, that version definitely has a solution, with is pulled. Most people however, don't view it as that. They use it as a way to not answer a question and to say "well what is really moral". Most people don't care about an actual solution to a problem and want to 'seem' like they are moral. Lily illistates that you should help the many even if you have to live on with the guilt. Which I 100% agree on, but as we saw in the video, people can't really grasp that concept.

[@epicfights7898]

@@sarmaangel I think to clarify what im saying, all I am saying is that the Trolley problem in all honesty is a real situation, and the 1 and only Solution to it is also real. Why? Because when there comes a time where you are in a situation that says you can either act or not. The logic says, "greater losses or lesser?" And the problem and solution is simply that, its real. So thus we choose lesser, even though we still personally don't like the outcome. Just like many similar scenarios in real life, it can't be ignored, we have to deal with the reality simply put. Lily chose that Tom Holland quote because it addresses awareness. "The situation is real and I choose to remain aware of it and act on the logical solution." Ppl can acknowledge both their personal feelings and the logical aftermath, but choosing the logical aftermath shows you are aware that the problem and answer is real and can't be ignored. (I repeat myself waaaay to many times, but I choose to keep doing it XD) Tldr: This is all teaching us that we have personal feeling and ego in our nature, that's perfectly normal but learn how to also acknowledge the logical side. To the ego and personal view, this is an illusive problem with no solution, But to a logical and less ego-focused view, in reflection, this is real and that's that. Hope this helps.

[@sarmaangel]

@@epicfights7898 Yeah I see what you're saying, thank you.

[@epicfights7898]

I think I just realized that your 1st comment was talking about about not having a solution to those wanting a comfortable solution, I apologize for not getting it earlier. It has a solution in the logical sense, but not in the moral/comforting sense, I understand now!

[@genuineangusbeef8697]

1:51 shit. I never put this two and two together.

[@DixeyRay]

When I was younger I once tried to argue through the trolly problem. A whole, well why isn't there a safety break next to the lever switch? Why isn't the conductor paying attention enough to break before hand? And so on and so forth and was run out of ideas after long enough. ( Thank you very patient philosophy teacher) but once I got to it I was able to make the same choice I make now. Always pull the lever to save the 5. Because if all other options are exhausted and there isn't nothing else I could do, inaction would be murder five times over. And action would be a reasonable sacrifice for the good of the many more. My teacher then tried to extrapolate that to " well then if you are for sacrificing the few for the many here, why do you fight for the few now? " In reference to social justice and my only point was, I didn't want to harm anybody, it was not my fault a person had to die there but the whole system that failed to save them before I and I chose what would help the most. Castatrophes can be minimized and so can suffering, just because it is only a few suffering doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to see all the options, fight to no longer have to make choices like that. I don't know if that is very clear. I couldn't post it on the first video even because it wasn't clear then. I've been told I have problems address points clearly or in ways others also can understand. I will always fight to do good instead of being recognized as good. And maybe that's the little voice in my head that continually screams of how I am horrid which pushes me to action so often, because even if I think good and say good I won't get the satisfaction to shut that voice up if I don't do good. I don't know.

[@WingedRose96]

CONGRATS TO YOU AND MIKAILA!!! i'm glad you took some time to yourselves to just enjoy being married ❤️ love you both and amazing video as always with a lot to think on and learn from

[@rosebloodwater13]

😁 My birthday just got better.

[@armania_9064]

Happy birthday

[@Mia_Monika]

Happy Birthday!!

[@LilianOrchard]

Happy Birthday

[@RooftopRose079]

Happy birthday!

[@izanblancoqureshy]

HAPPY BIRTHDAYYY

[@caseycarpenter3221]

Congratulations!!!!

[@misterguyman9669]

Hey, Lily, could you talk about the new Marvel movie "Eternals,"? They discuss all these concepts that you talked about in this video as the main characters are not allowed to intervene in human affairs. It also got a pretty low reception because it is a "lore" movie rather than a quippy Marvel action/comedy, you were right, people just like funny characters, not edgy films that flesh out the shared universe.

[@JoseMunosMontes]

There's actually a line from Garrus in Mass Effect 3 the are along the lines of "Turians are trained to believe that if sacrificing 100 people saves 1000, then it's an acceptable action." I could be remembering wrong. Anyway, that line is paired with the notion that humans will try to save everyone when that is impossible in their current situation. I found myself siding with Garrus during that conversation. It was better to focus on the people that can definitely be saved rather than losing resources on people that can probably saved. Hell, I think that's something that Shepard does in the cinematic trailer for the fist game.

[@EricaMadrigalMegaBella365]

Congrats on both of you getting married!

[@juanmanuelpenaloza9264]

Okay, coming back to this I realized that as much as killing the villain seems like a good idea (because it usually is) there does come a point where the villain is the cause of their own downfall. For a real world example, The Death of Stalin. All the conditions that caused him to die of a heart attack were set by him. He told the guards not to disturb him so they never checked in on him. He got all the doctors in the gulag so no one could tend to him. He set himself up to die. And sometimes the trope is subverted such as in Injustice, where the Joker getting killed is part of the plan. It's not something that prevents killing the villain being justified, but what I'm saying is that sometimes it's not really necessary. Inaction is its own breed of violence.

[@PointBlank-nl5pf]

6:50 I absolutely agree, there was so much wrong done to that part of story. I felt spiders crawling down my back when I’m the exact same movie as Finn defects from his slave soldier army, he goes on to kill and blast away his fellow orphaned victims with glee…😬

[@leXie1337_chan]

I struggle with this concept on the grounds of what constitutes an ability to do something. Theoretically, I could live a destitute life and ensure that any money that would have gone to my benefit instead goes to others'. I live in what's been called the richest country in the history of the world, with a standard of living that would be nigh-unimaginable a century ago. But people need an amount of security and comfort, right? Where does one draw the line between selfish inaction and "trying to survive"?

[@munuaispapu4732]

"Then he is not a Nazi" thanks for bringing that up! The trolley problem shouldn't be easy to answer! And thus I would like to ask a counterquestion: What if the one person tied to the tracks was your own child? Is it still the right thing to do?

[@lucienhaulotte388]

Logical wise yes Psychologically a nightmare

[@Yusei1Fudo]

This is still one of my favorite glass of waters. Genuinely art, while also a science experiment.

[@lordheadass9365]

Always thought about if you're good person even has a negative effect on you you'll still do the right thing.

[@jospehjack]

The Awesome trans singer Leslie Fish - The Day It Fell Apart Sums it up Perfectly Lily. That lets you see What a True hero is and what they sometimes must do.

[@geomease]

On the subject of Batman, the Joker, and superheroes in generally. No i don’t believe they should kill the villains if they can avoid it for 1 simple reason. They shouldn’t have to, the state should do it. It is the failing of the state that after the Joker killed his 5000th person that he not be sentenced to execution. Even on the grounds of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ I’m pretty sure a jury of his peers will gladly convict a guilty verdict despite his insanity. Thats it, full stop. We actually saw this in The Injustice comics, the people were overall happy when superman murdered the joker because it was a long time coming his mental insanity or not. The Batman, nor any other hero should not have to replace the entirety of the justice system. Their role in society is to step in when regular forces cannot. But they shouldn’t be a Judge Dredd style judge jury and executioner. If you give them that, then you make them Police but with unlimited authority and the ability to do anything at any time with 0 repercussions. If you have superhero’s running around murdering people on the street it means your entire system of justice has failed. Its not Batman who should be tasked with killing the joker, its the courts that should be. And thats why it never cones up in comics, because its too logical. If the comics court system were to work rationally, as soon as the joker or any one of these supervillains crosses the line and does a murder, they get sentenced and potentially executed like anyone else. If some guy robs a bank with a super suit and doesn’t kill or seriously harm anyone, sure throw them in jail. But as soon as they cross that line, the heroes step in, shit him down, and the justice system does the rest.

[@J_Isak]

Congratulations on the wedding 🎉

[@that_demigod5101]

I honestly would always chose the one person to die over the 5 bc if some of the five turn out to be bad who says you can’t just kill that other person. Idk it just makes sense in my mind

[@bob.8866]

I also want to add that some people who were even commenting in the first place wanted to sound smart by adding anything to the conversation, even if they didn’t completely understand or missed the point completely. That’s what I see in some of the less thought provoking comments at least

[@menialharpsichordist553]

it's a shame glass of water is being discontinued, it's probably the best series the chane;l ahs to offer unelss it jsut flew over my head

[@tbarryvii9900]

5:50 I'd also like to add that as much as people regard the Nazis as something unique in German history much of their rhetoric would not have been particularly out of place even 30 years ago prior to WWI conservative politicians (Bismarck in particular) regularly employed this sort of histrionic fearmongering about socialists and Catholics presenting a sort of fifth column hellbent on destroying the proud German state (until they figured the Catholics were politically useful to them at least). Treating the Nazis as some sort of aberration that wouldn't have happened if weren't for that all gosh-darned economic anxiety requires ignoring a large part of German culture at the time of it's founding and it's impact on subsequent atrocities in order to protect the image of some of the people involved. It's literally the same thing happening now in the US with the debate around our founders and how to reconcile the country they created, the values they claimed to hold and how they didn't actually follow them and the all to real consequences from their hypocrisy

[@th3nightlion624]

You make a point about Hannibal Lecter being an elitist. While Hannibal does enjoy a fairly high class life, he does not kill because he has power, Hannibal kills those he thinks are rude, and those who get in his way without being interesting enough to be left alive. He isn't an elitist, he's a psychopath that acts exclusively with self interest, killing whoever he wants regardless of social, economic, or political standings. You could have someone that shares the exact same interests as Hannibal, is also a psychiatrist, and even agress with him on most topics, if Hannibal found them to be rude, he would kill them just because he wanted to. He has no regard for human life not because he has power, but because he totally lacks the capacity to empathize, and as a direct result, sees his own interest as the only thing worth considering in any decisions made. He dislikes rude, uninteresting people, likes eating human flesh, and as a direct result of those two personal traits, has decided that he will kill and eat any rude, uninteresting person he encounters.

[@dexterity494]

A variation of the trolley problem I've heard is that you are the one person on the track, and there are 5 people on the other side. Most people initially say no, so I follow up with "ok, there are now a million people on the other side. Would you still save yourself?". This then leads to "what number is your minimum requirement of other people to sacrifice yourself?" Followed by "why do you think you're more important than (limit minus 1) people?" Always a good time to see people thinking over with their morals and ethics

[@zackarystockdale7946]

I'd pull the switch to reduce the potential fatalities, then I'd try to jump on the trolley as it passed by so I could try to stop it before it hits anyone. This way, a guaranteed death goes from the best case scenario to the worst case, with the new best case scenario being nobody dies.

[@Kingskoto]

Though I do believe tyrants should be dealt with I believe in a real life situation, like any person who has committed a crime they must go through due process and If possible be permanently incarcerated rather than killed

[@LilianOrchard]

Permanent incarceration and the death penalty are the same thing

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@LilianOrchard In one you end the person's life and in the other you limit their right to freedom of movement. They are not the same.

[@steveburns6636]

I love your use of the quar-geth insanity as an example here. On a personal though on this, i think it was around the time mass effect 2 came out that the creators said they were disappointed that so few people were going to the hidden renegade-shep dialogue because a lot of were not completing it all the way through But the problem was on a first-time or casual or "no spoilers" playthrough it becomes easier to activity screw yourself out of dialogue and cool hidden content. If u didn't look up all the little things to do for the ren-shep runs and "did everything right" anyway u were still going to miss out on something.

[@zeldomaine]

this was definitely a great watch (along with the first part).

[@ScottishAxolotl]

First off congratulations on the marriage. Second, I would pull the lever. I just would. One person vs several then its the better options. If I stood there and did nothing then I would never be able to forgive myself. Yea the memory of causing the death of a person would be traumatic, but it would be more traumatic to let more people die and knowing I could've done something, so I would pull the lever.

[@444gothicgirl]

Oh dear god please talk about the horrible morals in the lastest spiderman movie!

[@epicfights7898]

Man, they legit reversed the lesson of the Raimi Spiderman 2. In that movie it was "letting go of being Spiderman out of forced obligation that cannot realistically be maintained because Peter needs to have some degree of focus on having a healthy life", -> to "ok I know Spiderman is needed so others will be safe and protected while also knowing I don't need to ignore my own life and needs" And now they made it so Tom's Peter went in reverse, from Homecoming's "Be Spiderman so the bad things won't happen because they are your fault if you don't." -> to NWH's "forget it, be obligated to have Spiderman save bad guys and ignore your pain as a victim because ("it's what we do/ it's right")". Literally spitting on the fact that Peter now had a bad thing happen because of staying "morally obligated" to help the villains without question." Rly?! Responsibility is now doing something because someone tells you it's right without reason?! It's a horrible lesson to show kids cause now they will expect to be given talks about "staying on the right path" instead of support and consolation for being a victim of the acts of evil ppl. It's teaches ppl being "morally right and staying true to obligation" is more important than reflecting on harsh reality and logical consequences. They went back on what they did with the more applicable Homecoming quote. I'd rather have the lesson of maintaining what is right based on something tangible and practical that tells you how things affect myself and others (Spiderman 2 and Homecoming), than an unquestioning idea of "what's right" despite the logical consequences shown right in front of you. (No Way Home and Tobey's Peter losing his health/powers trying to "live Ben's dreams") We had a perfect lesson about going by what's right based on being aware of consequences and then backtracked it to going by "what's right" based on obligation and unquestioning ideals, which is frankly more rigid and thus unhealthy on ppl when they try to maintain it.