A Thought Experiment on Heroism and Inaction | Glass of Water

I lied. The reason was to show you all that beautiful sapphic artwork from my darling wife.
The Sith Resurgence - archiveofourow...
----------------------------------------------
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

[@LilianOrchard]

Please keep your responses to 2 paragraphs at most. Some of you are writing entire essays and while I think that's great, it's unfeasible for me to deconstruct it in a follow up, which is the entire point of this.

[@pessoaqualquer5616]

If you ever do a video like this again it would be a good idea to say that in the video

[@cathalmcmanus833]

Did not read this message last time ahead of talking about Trigun, sorry. Great series for grappling with pacifistic tendencies and where violence is necessitated.

[@ricky578]

love you comrade lily

[@Grizabeebles]

This is the sort of question philosophers have been wresting with since before the written word was even a thing. It's a safe bet that "complete" ideas aren't going to fit in a 500-word space. I did give it my best try though.

[@Hollowmello1285]

So you don't want us to discuss a morality that has had philosophers debating to this day about it?

[@vividdaydream1516]

"All that is needed for evil to succeed, is that good men stand by and do nothing." Too many people fail to see how easily non-violence can cross into enabling when it comes to oppressors who abuse others, and will _continue_ to do so as long as no one physically stops them. Empathy and kindness _doesn't work on sociopaths._

[@Grizabeebles]

At the same time, there's the old man who stood up to Loki in "The Avengers". Just _saying_ "there are always men like you" took away the validation that Loki was seeking. The most powerful resistance is often *just resisting at all*

[@solsystem1342]

Blue queen baby! (Aka the opposite of a red queen) ie: someone who acts friendly until you start behaving like a dick to them or other people. At which point they turn around and repay you twice over. Usually it's something small like eviscerating someone's argument for something harmful (see: anti-vaxxers, snake oil salesmen, homophobes, etc) but, I'll still be waiting in case I'm needed. Tldr: from a game theory perspective It's people who ruthlessly cut down monsters who help enforce pro-social behavior.

[@cratwane]

Also thanks for bringing up what “with great power comes great responsibility” means. Because so many people misinterpret what that saying means.

[@epicfights7898]

I'm not sure if I even understand it correctly so I'll try to say it in my own words to try and understand the "Great power comes Great responsibility" message. (not just the one from the raimi sm, but the same with how the other 2 sm reboots worded the message) "If you can make a change, you have ability. If you have ability, you hold control. And if you hold control, you are a factor of the end results whether you choose to do something or not." I guess to put more simply, the message is, "hey learn to be aware of the cause and effect due to your choice of action or inaction."

[@epicfights7898]

Taking into account something I saw from a Reddit post, it seems the funny thing is, Raimi's Uncle Ben said it simply to mean "don't start fights in school, it may result in making a bad habit of choosing to start a fight with those you don't like, but if it was self-defensive and you truly didn't provoke it, I'll cut you some slack, you showed him you had the ability to fight back." A person then commented that Peter became obsessed, taking the advice too far and over-corrected himself by becoming Spiderman to "fulfill Uncle Ben's dream/wishes" thus Peter believing that this is making Ben proud. A selfish reason, but one Peter thought to be "doing what is right", only for Spiderman 2 to come along and have him give it up when divided between "making Ben proud" and taking care of himself and his life. This in turn makes the resolve of SM2 more amazing because Peter becomes Spidey again when he clears his focus that he wants to be sm because the ability to be Spidey let's him choose to take action and protect others even if it's at the price of himself. (By all means maybe alot of what I said is incorrect, I just sorta think this relates to the point)

[@Grizabeebles]

I like how the "Superior Spider-man" storyline explored the idea of "with great power comes great responsibility." Not only is Peter Parker strong enough to kill most of his rogue's gallery with one blow, Peter has an IQ of about 250 and a PhD in biochemistry. If he spent less time chasing muggers (or getting beat up because he pulls all his punches) and more time studying his own mutated DNA, he could make any number of diseases a thing of the past and save millions of people - while getting rich in the process. And yet, when Peter gets control of his mind back again, his company tanks and he and goes back to listening to a police scanner because he can't convince himself to let one person die in a house fire today to save thousands of people some day in the future. Peter winds up having less power because he can't take responsibility for lives he can't save.

[@dracomurdock6349]

A lot of people misunderstand the saying because of the 'great' part of it, so I much prefer the edited idiom 'any power makes you responsible'.

[@basilnottheherb]

Very much love the use of spiderman for this. I think this discussion also opens up a door for another intetesting story concept (one spiderman tackles often). When you have the power to do something, how much can you give before its too much. In a small scale, how many shifts can you work to cover for a sick coworker before you need to rest. On a grand scale, how many lives can you save before you slip up and how many of those livesost will you cary with you forever. You have the power, but is thier a limit and how do you cope woth those limitations.

[@anitanielsen1061]

169 nice

[@phantomstrider]

I think an interesting point you made about Amorosi was that there are millions of innocent people whom deserve her compassion more. I personally think this is a helpful philosophy when on social media. There are millions of innocent, decent human beings who deserve our attention more than a small minority of trolls or right-wing twits. I understand ignoring them does not stop them, but balancing more attention on the decent people in social media seems a sensible philosophy to me personally.

[@benny687]

Fancy seeing you here Phantom. Thats not sarcasm, im pleasently surprised to see you here. Nice to see you enjoyed the video as much as most of us have

[@dawnglitterwind]

I think something worth noting in comics is that “no kill rule” was developed due to censorship. Back in 1930s and 40s when comics first came out, there was no issue with killing in a comic book. Batman even killed people once or twice. It wasn’t until the Comic Code Authority(CCA) came along that the “no kill rule” was added. Basically the code stated that no killing was allowed in comics. The censorship was apart of comic until 2011, though the rules and regulations changed throughout its lifetime. The big takeaway here is that the “no kill rule” was first enacted due to censorship, but overtime became part of Batman’s and others’ character. Now that rule is here to stay.

[@bubblegum1366]

An interesting aspect of it is that in universe, the vast majority of DC heroes don't particularly care about killing evildoers. The only reason that the entire Justice League follows the no killing rule is because the two members that actually believe in it, Batman and Black Canary, have made it clear that if anyone "crosses that line" they will come after them personally and nobody wants the Batman on their tail.

[@dawnglitterwind]

@@bubblegum1366 I’d argue that Superman is firmly for the “No Killing” rule. In storyline of “what’s so funny about truth, justice, and the american way,” (it might be called “what’s happened to truth, justice, and the american way”) we see the issue of killing enemies being dealt with. Superman has to face the Elite and basically deals with the issue of killing his enemies. At the end of story, it shows why Superman doesn’t kill. That’s the short version of the story, but it’s one of best Superman stories out there.

[@josephhughes8180]

@@dawnglitterwind I think That was brought up more than once in his animated appearances, like the world of cardboard speech. Super Man could kill easily with no difficulty but Superman feels that allowing himself to kill could start him on a slippery slope. or at least that's how he's written and most of the times he does kill, either he goes down that slope ala, the time he killed Luthor than took over the world, or the time he killed the joker and took over the world. Or swings the other way and does literally everything in his power to make things 'right'. I find it funny that most often his slippery slope is often Murder to Fascism, and why that often are connected. Murder is often shown as the 'easy way' to solve a problem, that the act of killing is simple choice or decision. but I wonder why killing Luthor is the first step to World domination" like is Murder bad because it leads to Fascism, or is Fascism bad because its a result of murder. i dont have an end to this comment but its a thought, i guess

[@dawnglitterwind]

@@josephhughes8180 the idea I those elseworld stores is that power corrupts. Superman knows this, and keeps himself in check. It’s not the murder rather the power(the power over life and death) that comes with.

[@whirlybird6796]

One of the things they also put int there was that they were not allowed to mock or disrespect police figures or authority. Which is interesting, cause that meant that at most times - the hero was not allowed to question or is faced with a dilemma, whenever dealing with a corrupt cop or someone whos within higher authority, miss using their power.

[@cheyenneguest4495]

It really does come down to the personal beliefs of the characters, especially if you pit the 'Killing is always Wrong' character against a character who has no qualms in killing someone to end the future suffering. Bringing in the Punisher and Daredevil for examples bc they really do embody the opposite ends of this argument so well. For Daredevil, he has the no-killing rule as vigilante due to the overwhelming guilt of taking another person's life and having the belief that people deserve a second chance to make themselves better (a very catholic belief due to him growing up catholic.) Also, Daredevil is trained as a defence lawyer, wanting to help those who need help against the corrupt system bc he wanted to do something to help besides being a vigilante. The Punisher on the other hand is very much a vigilante that subscribes to the 'ends justify the means,' method due to how his family was killed by the mob when returning back from war and decided that criminals of that calibre don't deserve second chances due to how they create suffering for others - even to those who are immediately affected by it. Those criminals are never given a second chance even if they express remorse to him bc The Punisher doesn't care if they are willing/want to change, the damage has been done. Which is probably why I like those two meeting each other in the comics and arguing about their personal beliefs/philosophies bc each bring a valid argument to the table of why they believe this way (especially with the 2019 comic run that has Daredevil actually dealing with the fact that he accidentally killed a robber while on patrol) when it comes to dealing with criminals. It shows the argument and the counterargument that each side has - which is helped by the fact that these beliefs are held by the characters, regardless of the writer who is in charge of them at any given time. I like both characters for the differences they bring as vigilantes, so it's always fascinating to see them argue about this regardless of when the comic had been published.

[@cheyenneguest4495]

@@arditlika9388 I've seen several comics where Daredevil has saved bad guys from being exploded by a bomb so I can only see him actually letting himself die rather than take someone else's life bc the guilt would be overwhelming for him. Yeah, The Punisher is intentionally written that way - which I actually like since it means he doesn't agonize over it like other characters that are similar to him. But I still find it interesting to see him and Daredevil fight (verbally and physically) over their beliefs in the comics on how to deal with criminals since it's such polarizing views on the topic.

[@Grizabeebles]

I'm about 80% sure there are Punisher comics where Frank finds criminals that have turned their lives around and dedicated themselves to doing good with their rest of their lives and their blood money. And he still kills them anyway. Gerry Conway (creator of the Punisher) has gone on record saying that Frank is supposed to be an example of why a simple "eye for an eye" moral system *does not work* and can only exist in a world where society has failed to protect those who need protection most.

[@cass7448]

@@Grizabeebles Yeah Punisher is NOT meant to be someone who is admired or emulated. Also, cops like to appropriate Punisher's imagery for their own self-gratification. I'm sure these two things aren't connected at all.

[@hedonismbot1508]

Speaking of Daredevil, Wilson Fisk would have to be one of the worst offenders with respect to all the "thou shalt not kill" absolutism. You have a man who has a big chunk of local law enforcement on his payroll (and even people in the FBI), has no reservations bout killing innocent people to get what he wants, and has used a combination of bribes and threats to subvert multiple attempts at taking him down the legal way. And we're still supposed to buy the standard "heroes don't kill" rhetoric? Yeah... no.

[@Poglavnit_Pferdefuhrer]

The main problem with killing Fisk in most continuities is that he is very savvy to present himself as a caring philanthropist, much like the Old Sicialian Mob and various drug lords. He would be martyred and anything that comes out after would be derided by reporters on his payroll as Fake News, you _must_ destroy his reputation first. In some stories he is even the buffer against worse criminals, killing mobsters who engaged in CSEM and trafficking in " *HIS* " city It depends on the writer, but many versions of Fisk like the one in the CW daredevil would have backing from the public even if the white collar crimes become known.

[@elizabeths.3307]

"If you kill a killer, the number of killers remains the same." Yeah Bruce, but the number of 'killed' goes waaaay down :P

[@bubblegum1366]

That's such a stupid justification because it's only even true if you stop at 1.

[@Memelord-md5hs]

The best part is by that logic is that if you kill two killers it does go down. So if you keep continuing to kill killers than it goes down so batman is full of shit

[@Poglavnit_Pferdefuhrer]

That just means *you need to get more efficient with your killing!* SEE: Akumetsu

[@TheRegularHedgehog575]

​@@bubblegum1366 That is a slippery slope fallacy. You can have a moral code on who you kill and never go against that moral code, the same way batman can punch people, stab people, blow people up, and throw them into acid vats, but he refuses to use guns. You can have that same mentality about any violence ever, and it will still not be true.

[@JDog2656]

Well part of the issue there is that 1. Bruce worries he won’t stop with just Joker 2. His point is that he is not the one to play judge, jury, and executioner. If Gotham gave Joker the death penalty, he would likely be ok with that

[@metroidnerd9001]

This reminds me of your episode “Cold Blooded Stupidity” where Satine should have felt no qualms about killing the galactic terrorist who was about to blow up the ship. I’m actually a little surprised you didn’t mention it, but it’s definitely an example of where if none of them had done anything, the deaths of everyone on the ship that got blown up would have absolutely been their fault.

[@Minesniper07]

Though it wasn't here, Lily has covered that scene in a previous video, unfortunately I can't remember which off the top of my head.

[@metroidnerd9001]

@@Minesniper07 I know she covered the scene in a previous video. It was called "Cold Blooded Stupidity," and that's what my original comment was referencing.

[@basicwitch6562]

Also, after watching this and trying to sort out my own comment, the very next video to autoplay was "Bug Spray" about the whole "Not my Problem, Fuck you" attitude of the Brony-Analysis content creators. I was like "Wow, hadn't even made the Steven Universe is Garbage video, and yet this video is echoing some of the things she said then; *THAT’S consistency, baby!*

[@Grizabeebles]

@@luckyc4t110 -- My brain can't accept the idea that Satine seriously embraced "nonviolence" for even a second. What it CAN accept is. the idea that Satine was lying about embracing nonviolence as a form of "passive resistance" against the CIS and the Republic at the same time. Mandalore has a long track record of backing the losing side in Galactic wars. Staying out of it as much as possible was really the best POLITICAL strategy. That way individual Mandalorians and/or clans could act "without government sanction" and groups like Blackwatch would become a excuse unto themselves to take down her political rivals at home. As Tsun Tzu says: "the highest form of victory is to win without fighting."

[@tristankawatsuma8962]

I think Mandalore and the Republic already have treaties and agreements to prevent anymore fighting and invasions. As Star Wars fans know, Mandalore was an empire of warriors that launched a crusade against the galaxy, including the Republic. At times they also teamed up with Sith Empires to invade the Republic. However years after the supposed wiping out of the Sith, the Republic feared Mandalore was rearming and gathered up an invasion force. Between that war and Mandalorian infighting, pacifism and neutrality began to look very popular to Mandalorians, leading to the rise of Satine whi for some reason allowed the Disney Canon Mandalorian Protectors to still operate on Concord Dawn. Anyways the treaties were signed so neither side ever invades the other again, and the Mandalorian people aren’t going to be happy if the Republic breaks the treaty and installs an occupation force. As for the Death Watch, they can’t take the planet by force because they are outnumbered and their Separatist Allies in this case don’t want to just invade since Mandalore would side with the Republic then. They want Mandalore to join willingly. Plenty of other systems did for understandable reasons even if it meant working with a droid army made by the corporations. An unpopular Republic force on Mandalore would be or at least look like an invasion, making Death Watch and the Separatists heroes for repealing this attack. Mandalore for the Clone Wars was actually ignored by the galactic community after this incident. It’s in fact why corruption grows in Satine’s government as people in power decide to take cheaper ways to get supplies, even if it hurts people like the poisoned tea. Honestly for Mandalore the neutrality only backfired when the Death Watch, no longer with the Separatists, take over the planet. The Republic doesn’t want to break the treaty they signed. It’s been their policy to try and win over neutral planets instead of invading them, so they fear sending forces to Mandalore to take on non-Separatists would look bad. The Separatists fight a war against the Shadow Collective the Death Watch is in, but after most members of the collective leave, the Separatists focus back on the Republci believing Mandalore is no longer a threat. Honestly I would say neutrality was a mixed bag for planets. They were able to avoid the devastating battles so long as they had nothing of interest to either side. Of course trade routes for cut off thanks to the war leading to the rise of the black market by necessity. And if they had internal conflicts, neither side was getting involved, especially if treaties were signed to prevent Republic or Separatist intervention. Still, far better than being caught up in a Clone Wars battle. Dooku’s officers were usually quite gruesome, Republic officers were just as bad, and while the Jedi tried to minimize casualties, a number of them gave in and became just as brutal as the Sith of past empires were. Sure the Separatists still invaded some planets that wanted nothing to do with the war like Ryloth and Malastare, driving them towards the Republic, even Dooku had to hold them back at times.

[@TheFirstOkiro]

When it comes to killing the bad guy, a villain, I think the intent is the most important factor in regards to if it is good or not. If killing this evil person prevents the suffering of others, then objectively it’s better than letting them live. IMO the only time killing of a bad guy or evil person should be something to worry about is in the context of what are the consequences that come from that action. Hypothetically speaking, If you kill a guard that’s abusing a refugee, do the other guards begin to treat the refugees worse? Does this take time away from the hero now having to deal with this escalating situation when her valuable time is already being stretched thin? Does her detractors use this as propaganda against her and paint the guard in a disingenuous light, using his family for that purpose. I’m a firm believer of death to tyrants, but from a writing or real life perspective, the consequences of those acts of violence should always be put into account. There’s nothing wrong with killing an evil bastard, but if a story is going to tackle subjects like this, they need to be prepared to also depict the aftermath and consequences that could follow. Every action, no matter for good or evil, has a ripple. Kreia preached this message very well in Kotor 2 How much killing do you have to do until you don’t have to do no more? And when the killing is over, how has that changed you? How has that changed how people see you? And did this journey cost you something you can’t get back? Those are to me the only important questions when it comes to violence against bad people

[@elsiekibler3160]

In regards to the hypothetical guard abusing a refugee argument, I actually doubt that the other guards would start treating the refugees worse, because it counteracts the self-serving reason why someone would abuse their power to begin with. Namely, the only reason why the guard would abuse his power to begin with, is because he wanted to, and was allowed to do so without consequence. Rey killing that guard establishes consequences for abusing refugees, and so if other guards won't stop abusing their power for the sake of others (which they would have no reason to do), maybe they will for their own. If anything, Rey killing the guard is an implicit ultimatum: you can treat people with dignity and keep your position, or you can die. I also think that the argument about propaganda doesn't hold much weight, because nobody really has control over what people think about them, and ultimately, propaganda doesn't come from a place of honesty to begin with. In real world terms, we live in an age where Fox News is allowed to bold-face lie on air about literally anything and anyone, so if detractors can spread misinformation that's completely fabricated, why focus on this one instance of the protagonist doing something to stop violence? I'm sure some people would see this instance as a confirmation of how "see, Rey is totally evil", but they are already probably willing to believe a million things that aren't true about her anyway. I ultimately think that the notion that Rey would have her time wasted by dealing with the propaganda from this situation falls apart at this question: why does she care? If a bunch of intellectually dishonest people think she's the spawn of satan, what good does arguing with them do? The simplest solution to me appears to just wave it off, because arguing with someone who isn't coming from a place of honesty isn't worth the time and effort, and sometimes the best way to show just how ridiculous an argument is is to just disregard it.

[@TheFirstOkiro]

@@elsiekibler3160 see I would agree with you if the fact that We already live in a world where people who have authority abuse others, face consequences, and yet still it happens. The entire movement of BLM is based around the fact that people in power abuse it and hurt others. Even during our peaceful protest, it was propaganda to make them look bad. Figures who stood up for equality and the better life we made out to be criminals or thugs. In the context of Star Wars, the Jedi themselves had already had propaganda against them to make them out to be the villains. Beyond that, this was just a hypothetical scenario, not a factual one that could or would transpire. My point is to showcase you can kill the bad guy, regardless of what position they hold it. An abusive guard, a fascist enabling trillionaire, or a tyrannical Imperial leader. But if you’re going to start tackling subject matters that deal with circumstances like that, you have to be aware of that every action you take, for better or worse, will have repercussions and consequences. That’s a part of any good story. The consequences or actions doesn’t even necessarily have to be a bad thing for the hero, it could be a worse thing for the villain. Without leadership the organization could crumble or it could find a new leader who is even worse.

[@elsiekibler3160]

@@TheFirstOkiro That makes sense. I see what you mean about considering consequences. Contextualizing it in terms of the BLM movement makes a lot of sense, and makes me think about the Civil Rights Movement. For context, I'm white, and I went to a high school with a lot of white teachers, and we were taught pretty universally "Malcom X bad, MLK good", without the understanding that the two of them were both integral parts of the same movement. It wasn't until college that I was more exposed to the actual context that both methods of protest are equally valid and important in the face of the very active danger being faced by Black Americans. I think because I'm bisexual and nonbinary, I come from a different perspective of action to prevent marginalization, in that the vast majority of LBGTQIA+ revisionist history takes place in the form of erasure rather than propaganda, two very different but incredibly damaging methods to silence equality movements. Though I was taught a very rinsed-off, biased version of the Civil Rights Movement in high school, I wasn't taught at all about Stonewall at all until my adult years, and many LGBTQIA+ people throughout history either don't have their gender or orientation addressed, or are not mentioned at all. The result is the notion that the LGBTQIA+ people are some sort of deviation from the norm, when we've been around for a long time, and had our experiences silenced, and as such less sympathy is garnered for our movement. I suppose my point is that you are right, and the effects of propaganda ARE substantial, and does influence the way future generations perceive a movement, but I also see the harm that can come from not taking action or giving an issue a spotlight when you have the opportunity to. Coming back to the hypothetical consequences of the guard scenario, something that could come of it is more people could see the way refugees were being exploited there could and a push to regulate or better train the guards. It's an optimistic outcome and perhaps overly simplistic, but a Jedi taking a strong stand on this issue could get people to think more critically about why this guy was allowed to exploit his position to abuse a refugee in the first place.

[@deeptides8363]

@@elsiekibler3160 its been statistically shown that the severity of punishment doesn't reduce the rate of people committing crimes, its actually the likelihood of being caught that makes people less likely to commit crimes.

[@elsiekibler3160]

@@deeptides8363 Wouldn't Rey's willingness to step in increase the likelihood of getting caught? If anything it shows that she's paying attention.

[@galdorial]

"Don't punch people. Unless they're a Nazi. It's okay to punch Nazis." - my pacifist, Quaker Grandmother

[@athenapromachos3027]

@@jmurray1110 bold of you to assume there isn’t SIGNIFICANT overlap

[@galdorial]

So, I actually talked to my grandmother about the topic of this video and asked her if being passive and allowing people to get hurt when you could have stopped it and she said yes. According to her, if there was a tyrant who was going to kill millions of people and you *could* have done something to prevent it, and didn't, you made a choice and therefore the out come is, at least partially, your fault. She says she wouldn't immediately choose to murder the tyrant if there was a different option, but if there are no options, violence as a last resort isn't evil and doesn't make you as bad as the person you had to kill.

[@galdorial]

@@ALookIntoTheEulenspiegel what is effective tho? Those types of people don't listen to reason. You can either fight like hell or roll over and die.

[@juliantapia1407]

@@ALookIntoTheEulenspiegel you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Why is it others' responsibility to educate nazis or nazi sympathizers as to why white supremacists are in the wrong? If you choose to openly show your racism and various unfounded bigotry, then your Deserving of whatever you get. I see someone harassing a Chinese American and blaming them for covid? Shoving them to the ground? I'm bringing the bat

[@Greenlog12]

@@ALookIntoTheEulenspiegel even if you only fought back in self defense people like that will just blame you anyway? Would you rather throw the first punch and have the advantage or wait and get punched while still being blamed for starting it?

[@Rednetthall2]

I have a friend that is super utilitarian and after watching this video with me suggested presenting these concepts. Omission bias, aka the problem of 0. Preference to not act, either due to perceived cost, psychological inertia, etc. Notably due to viewing harmful action as less moral or more damaging that equally harmful inaction. It's the inverse of action bias

[@InuMokuba]

To those who mention the cop having a family; so do the people who the cop is abusing or at worst kills. Funny how we only worry about the inflicters family and person but not the inflicted.

[@charlotterouge8107]

Facts

[@hedonismbot1508]

Besides, someone who's actually prosecuted for a violent crime can't use their family as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

[@Grizabeebles]

I'm in the camp that believes most crime and substance abuse are mental health and therefore public health issues. I'm in favour of seeing what happens if we make nursing degrees a requirement for police officers.

[@niyaodom1944]

I remember when I was shown that one movie, *The Hate You Give,* there was a scene that stuck to my brain like a leech. The main character has a friend who got shot by a cop and later in the film while watching protests against said cop…a “friend” who was watching with her lamented about the *goddamn cop.* Her “friend” expressed sympathy for his family and talked about how *“cop lives matter too.”* She really gave no thought whatsoever about *the boy* who was killed OR *his* grieving family and it just…really sucked.

[@nj7969]

I’ve got a crazy idea. Don’t break the law or assault police officers. I recommend you watch donut operators break downs of justified shootings vs unjustified shootings. You will find that most shootings are justified considering the context and the dangerous behavior of the suspect. Not to say unjustified shootings don’t happen. But he goes over those too. The cop has a family. Btw. And the criminal should have thought of their own before attempting to take the officer from his or hers.

[@jovindsouza3407]

I'm glad you briefly touched on stories introducing extremely villainous characters and then redeeming them while introducing another bigger and badder villain. She-Ra's redemption of Shadow Weaver and Hordak always rubbed me the wrong way. No, I don't care if they both have "sad" backstories. I don't care if SW was ostracized for making choices no one else was willing to make. I don't care if Hordak was part of a bigger bad but then got thrown out for "being defective". It doesn't change the fact that SW abused and gaslighted Adora and Catra since they were infants. It doesn't change the fact that Hordak was a fascist dictator hell bent on conquering the planet. Adora SHOULD have killed both of them. And the fact that the creators saw nothing wrong with not just letting them live, but fucking REDEEMING THEM exposes a nasty undercurrent to not just this show, but to every other show that pulled similar shit (like say Steven Fucking Universe)

[@theonewho...1298]

Wait that was a redemption? I mean I know Hordak was redeemed, but ShadowWeaver not so sure on. Heck didn't She-ra's Creator say somewhere she didn't consider it a redemption?

[@jovindsouza3407]

@@theonewho...1298 she casually left the Horde and started working with the Princesses. There were like 2 or 3 episodes where the main characters were skeptical of her alignment with them, and then basically nothing. Maybe it wasn't a redemption by the definition of the word, but her very last scene has her in a decidedly heroic role. That is a redemption no matter how you spin it, and it's a terrible one.

[@uncolaman99]

My personal outlook on the She-Ra redemptions: Catra: Her self-sacrificing moments all seemed more suicidal than redemptive. Her relationship with Adora should have started over at Square One instead of them becoming close at the end. Hordak: He... switched sides because of his love of Entrapta... wait, what!? When did... what?? This made no sense to me at all. He should have been killed by somebody, anybody, or imprisoned afterwards. Shadow Weaver: She was abusive and her continued presence would have been a slap in the face to her victims. Like with Catra, I saw her actions as more self-harming than heroic. The Alliance has been shown to not know what to do with prisoners, so her end felt kind of lazy to me. Sporpia: I'm fine with her switching sides, especially since it was voluntary.

[@Poglavnit_Pferdefuhrer]

One of the areas I think they should have stuck with the original, there was an amusing trend back then of some big villains who work for other bigger villains essentially being harried office workers trying to meet quotas and keep the conquest profits flowing (Hordak, Destro, Dr Go from Gobots, a billion others) *MUCH* easier "redemption" since all you have to do is find a non-conquest way to satisfy their quotas

[@josesilva3176]

honestly, I often ask that question when I think about the "no kill rule" many superheroes follow. I am particularly upset about Batman not killing the Joker because by this point he has not only killed and tortured billions of people but he's also killed Jason Todd, the second Robin, and crippled Barbara Gordon. Both of those characters are members of the Bat Family, Bruce's family and yet even after all of this, he still refuses to break his "One Rule". This is one of the reasons why I love the new Amazon adult animated series Invincible because there is an episode where the heroes are so hopelessly outmatched that three of them are left near dead. Once they realize this, the remaining heroes basically decide "fuck it, we're gonna kill the villains" and then they do with zero problems on a moral level.

[@camarin713]

The "no kill rule" can honestly be better explained with an out of universe explanation: The villains are too interesting and the audience wants to see more of them. In a realistic setting, it is much more morally correct for Batman to just kill the Joker/other villains so they don't cause any more crime in Gotham, but then the writers would either have to make more villain characters to oppose him or create different situations where violence isn't the most effective solution/isn't an option. For a comic/tv series/franchise that must return to the status quo at the end of every arc/episode/season for years on end, it makes more sense for Batman to have the "no kill rule" so nothing changes. But when nothing changes for so long, it gets predictable and boring. The morality of the characters should best adapt to support the story/message that the creator is telling. Simple morals and characters work better for episodic storytelling, exploring more complex morals and characters works better for serialized storytelling.

[@Phyllo9]

I think Batman already explained it to Jason when he came back as Red Hood. He doesn't kill the The Joker because he doesn't trust himself to stop after killing Joker or any villain. In his words it would be "too easy" to just outright kill him and it would make him no different than any other lawless murderer out there. I think partially is because he has a habit of accidentally making his own villains and can't bring himself to do it because of it. Depending on the version we're talking about The Joker was a normal grunt out of depth until he was accidentally knocked into a vat of acid. Batman felt remorseful when it happened and thought him to be dead. He was SUPPOSED to be dead but instead he came back from the event and it just drove him insane. Superman is suppose to be a paragon of good and justice. At least that's how he was raised. He leaves the villains to be judged by the justice system. We already know what would happen if he just outright killed villains.

[@cratwane]

Yeah, in Under the Red Hood Jason straight up asks him why doesn’t he just kill joker? Doesn’t even want Bruce going on a killing spree or anything, just asks him why he won’t just fucking kill joker after everything he’s done.

[@Grizabeebles]

I like the alternate rule "Batman needs Robin" instead of the "no-kill" rule. The idea that when Batman is teaching someone else he holds them *and therefore himself* to a higher standard of behaviour makes the whole thing seem to work more cleanly. Stories without Robin are free to be much darker because Alfred is an enabler and will almost never *force* Bruce to stop and question himself by abandoning him. It also creates a narrative cycle where each of Bruce's apprentices evolve to a point where they split from Bruce on some major MORAL or IDEOLOGICAL grounds and carve out a new identity for themselves. The first and most important being when Nightwing refuses to give up on having personal connections and realizes Batman is never going to love him back.

[@emargaux]

Honestly I think Batman just has story problems. I get that it’s probably better if Batman just kills Joker so he can prevent any more deaths that the Joker makes - but why isn’t the justice system doing anything? Shouldn’t the Joker technically be on a death sentence by now?? And that’s where you come with the question is if it’s really Batman’s fault that Gotham’s justice system doesn’t do anything. Both have the power to stop the Joker. Would it be wrong if Batman didn’t become Batman, decide to live his life ‘normally’ and get therapy for his trauma instead of going around as a bat endangering himself to catch criminals? I guess that’s how this video ends with that question. Would you consider yourself selfish to live in a life of privilege and safety when there are starving children around the world kinda thing.

[@krankarvolund7771]

To be fair, Batman have so many versions he can vary from evil protagonist to parangon ^^' But as said Red from OSP productions, if your Batman can't confort an eght-years old child, you don't have Batman, you've got the Punisher.

[@viralknight4602]

In a silly hat

[@King_Nex]

Which seems weird to me because to me, when I think Batman, I think All Star Batman and Robin. That is what Batman is to me.

[@azairecummings7049]

@@King_Nex that is Batman in an elseworlds story through the eyes of Alan Moore, (enough said) that isn’t how really is

[@King_Nex]

@@azairecummings7049 Well there's the different animated series where he'll do things like trap someone in a 5 second time loop forever or refuse to use his antidote on joker venom paralysis victims if they know his secret identity.

[@azairecummings7049]

@@King_Nex but again those aren’t earth prime main comics those are story in a different universe

[@ashbannana6286]

I always thought of Batmans refusal to kill as a personal vow he made for himself because of his own tragic past. You could say refusing to kill is his weakness especially when villain's like the Joker keep killing innocent people. Because Batman main driving characteristic in most stories is that he never gives up this makes his own vow a liability. He never gives up on people even when they have proven time and again that they don't deserve it. An interesting take on Batman might be if someone told a story of him overcoming his trauma and deciding that killing (or permanently crippling them) a villain would be the better choice. However that hypothetical Batman would then go about his work dispassionately seeing it as a necessity at least in the beginning till the emotional weight of his reversal would catch up to him or something. I guess what I am trying to say is that Batmans personal code is at its core very human and very flawed. He wants to help everyone but refuses to accept much help from those same people and wants to save the irredeemable. This is one reason this character has remained relatable.

[@3terna1Y0ut4]

Another thing is all the criminals he captures go are turned in to the police. So it can be assumed that they receive trials. Criminals like the Joker can and should receive the death sentences for the scale and impact of their crimes. The continued presence of certain criminals does not rest solely on Batman.

[@tenkenroo]

Most of it falls on the line of Gotham for some reason the death penalty does not exist in Gotham but I don’t think Batman would have a problem with a fair trial determination of the death penalty for the joker

[@aitipsea3909]

My ideal scenario would be one where a couple of heroes, preferably lesbians because I have my personal preferences too, have individual arcs to reflect both aproaches. The more violent no bullshit hero would find themselves in a situation where just killing the villain would make things worse, like a possible power vacuum in the criminal world, and so they would learn from the idealist hero a more diplomatic way to solve the situation. In turn there would be another situation where the idealist hero would have no choice but to actively kill a villain to end their crime spree and the more violent hero would help them cope with said killing and allow the idealist to make peace with it as it was best choice to make. Im no writter or anything, but yeah I think I would like to see that

[@Grizabeebles]

Sounds like a version of the Trigun anime where Milly and Meryl are a couple.

[@troperhghar9898]

8:58 "its school bully mentality" I speak from experience this is where the glorified pacifism comes from, schools take the out of sight out of mind stance because having a zero tolerance policy looks better for them so punish the victims for fighting back then when the child asks why they are being punished punish the child again for "not respecting the schools authority" The end result, the bully learns that there will no consequences for their actions and the victim is listed as "a problem child" Also thank you for all the great thought provoking videos, ive been using a lot of these discussions in my stories to flesh them out

[@ayannabranchcomb7535]

You’re exactly right about that. I work in a school like this and I always tell my kids if they are fighting to defend themselves then I will do everything in my power to make sure they don’t get in trouble.

[@nightingales_tail5326]

Preach about how no tolerance is stupid

[@izanblancoqureshy]

The way most schools handle bullying is absolutely horrid. They treat it like a grey and grey situation where both sides are wrong, but in reality one side is deliberately picking on the other, the other side is just defending itself.

[@charlie9644]

To me, inaction in the name of "moral purity" is pretty easy to debunk. Of course opting to not kill an obvious threat that's actively hurting people because "it's against my morals to kill" is just... stupid. It's saying "I'm totally fine with innocent lives being risked, so long as I don't have to anything that makes me uncomfortable." When it comes to talk about heroism and inaction, I prefer it when the consequences of their actions or inaction are personal. Like, the trolley thing: Growing up, my classmates and I have always been asked that question on occasion, and most of the time people would say that they would sacrifice the one person to save the four. And then the teacher asked the follow-up question: "What if that one person is someone you know?" Then the dilemma becomes "do I sacrifice someone I care about to save the majoriy?" and people become more split or indecisive about it, and that's a much better way to explore that kind of idea. Does the hero do everything in their power to save the people, even when it comes with great personal loss? The decision alone would probably take a huge toll on their mental health, and if they do save that one person they care about, that person might not be the happiest knowing that four people died on their behalf.

[@ayannabranchcomb7535]

I like your addition to the question way more

[@magnificoabsol]

"I'd rather my actions leave a pool of blood than my inactivity leave a lake." Daenu. my current D&D character

[@jovindsouza3407]

Amen to that

[@ishiode]

Im from the Caribbean. Every time I hear the extreme pacifism argument I think 'if my ancestors had been like that I would probably be a slave.' It was through the resistance of those horrid systems that I am able to sit here and be free. I can not be against violence when violence is a part of what eventually earned my country its liberties. Actually, isn't there a quote from an American politician that covers this? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" -Thomas Jefferson If a character chooses to hold their morality over the lives of innocents, I wouldn't necessarily say that the deaths are the character's fault, but I would argue they are at least complicit in the deaths. If you have the power to stop suffering and don't, you are at the very least okay with the suffering. It is tacit approval.

[@nj7969]

Yes but we only do that when we run out of water. It isn’t our go to.

[@lukastojanovic3023]

I think it's about hope. You've talked before of the Moral Event Horizon; the point where a character's actions become so heinously irredeemable that death becomes their only acceptable ending. I think that's what terrifies people, that notion that there's such a low point you can never escape from. A point of no hope. Of despair. People want to believe that there's always a way out and that things can improve, but when that idea gets challenged, they don't -- or rather can't -- take it well. And when it happens in fiction, where people overcoming hopeless odds and growing is kind of the whole point, it creates message whiplash. Things can always be better, except they sometimes can't. LOL! That's why sticking the baddies in jail/asylum (or offering the olive branch in some cases) is seen as the paragon move by most. You're solving the issue without outright denying the guilty party the possibility of change. Without denying them hope of becoming better.

[@King_Nex]

Well said

[@ultimaxkom8728]

Very well said.

[@Trickyni]

I found it very interesting that you've called those who preach pacifism "egoists" for rejecting violence out of nothing more than their attempts at protecting their view of themselves as "moral people. Not to be too pedantic (who am I kidding, of course I'll be too pedantic) but I'd say it's more accurate to call these people "narcissists". I think this nitpick is relevant, and here's why: social action/inaction could be motivated from many places. You could be altruistic, and act in accordance to what you think would help most people. You could be dogmatic, and act according to how much you think your action goes in line with whatever ruleset you subscribe to. You could be idealistic, and act according to how much you think your action will promote a goal/ideal you pursue. And to my mind- You could be egoistic, and make decisions based on what benefits you. Or you could be narcissistic, and make decisions based on what you think the kind of person you see yourself as/aspire to be would do. I hate some of these approaches more than others, but to my mind none of the above is more inconsistent and thoughtless than Narcissism. An Egoist might decide that killing rich bastards makes the world a better place for them to live in. A narcissist would just whine. Hope this contributes to the discussion! Loved the video. Keep pushing forward and never quit!

[@Trickyni]

​ @C You could absolutely say that, it's a pretty common (and valid) argument. For the sake of this discussion, however, I'm trying to suspend the cynical "all ideology is selfish, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded" take, and try to look for people's internal reasoning, rather to try and find some kind of objective reality to explain why people do what they do and believe what they believe. If we do indeed suspend our cynicism there, we can more easily examine people's internal monologues (or lack thereof). We can then distinguish between an "altruist", who will actively, consciously think of the impact of their actions on society; an "egoist", who'll consider the impact of their choices on themselves; and a "narcissist", who will weigh their decision against their *vision* of themselves. I hope that explains my position a little deeper. I personally agree with the idea that any ideology or belief must hold some level of selfishness. After all, whatever thoughts or feelings we possess cannot possibly exist without ourselves to possess them, and this cannot fully be detached from our "Selves". Nevertheless, I think that isn't wholly relevant to the subject at hand. I hope you agree. Cheers!

[@seesee405]

I really like your insight and bullet point breakdown of motivations. (I want to say more, but for now I'm putting this here so I can come back to it later)

[@Trickyni]

@@ALookIntoTheEulenspiegel I think trying to label pacefism (or violence, for that matter) as categorically good or evil would be reductive and unproductive. I don't think Lily was making that claim either, in fact. I think what's important to remember about any and all social/political action, be it violent or not, is that they are always a mean to an end. They are done for a purpose, and that means that "how much these actions achieve results" is a metric by which they must be judged. I'll have to refer you to "the Gandi trap" by innuendo studios. I'm about to liberally take points from there, but the whole thing (and the whole channel) are an intellectual treat and I highly recommend them. To put it simply- Pacefism is a strategy. Pacefism is a display. a tactic of applying political pressure. it has the benefit of cementing you as morally superior to your opponent, but it has a lot of weaknesses. it's hugely dependent on communication- communication which is often controlled by those with power. it is slow. it is inconsistent. You said that historically, murdering the bad people rarely brings good results. it isn't the prettiest truth, but I have to disagree. Historically, violence works. Those in power will always strive to remain in power. It's never in their interest to give that power up. asking them diplomatically, appealing to their morals, or trying to work through the systems they control is, time and time again, a strategy that proves slow, rarely-effective, and just opens your side up for further exploitation and gaslighting by those in charge. (oh, your people got this and this many rights. don't you think you're getting greedy?) and so on and so forth. Violence creates fear, material damage, and uncertainty. it undermines the existing power hierarchies, and distabilizes the confidence of those at the top. now, imagine yourself as a thought leader for a minority. your people are oppressed by the regime. your people are starving. your people are murdered on the streets. which would you choose? the strategy that is morally superior? or the one that's more certain to bring results, and faster? remember- every day that goes by without a change is another day when your people are dying for nothing. Lily clearly knows this, and so in her video she's asking the question: who's life is more important? the upholders of the current structure you kill? or the innocents on the streets murdered by a mob? Machiavellian thought will teach you that those inpower have a vested interest to stay in power. to make sure they stay in power, they must make sure that those who may resent them remains as weakened as possible. Violence causes real, tangible damage, fear, and instability. It forces those in power to have an interest in dealing with you. and if they can't shut you up, they'll be forced, out of their own interests, to make dealings with you, and satisfy you so you stop causing damage. or further- if you utterly dispose of those in power, suddenly you don't have to worry about their vested interest or the system they maintain. what comes after could be anything. might be better, might be worse. I don't agree that violence only rarely leads to good things, but I'll absolutely sign on the idea that it's chaotic and unpredictable. but sometimes you have to roll those dice. because leaving things as they are, complying to the status quo- that's just giving up. and with your people suffering on the streets, I'd say giving up is far worse than fucking up in retrospective.

[@leandrosanchez1212]

You're literally just describing virtue ethics as narcisism lol

[@Trickyni]

@@leandrosanchez1212 and I'LL DO IT AGAIN! *slams fist on table*

[@Ani_Musician]

My view on this is gonna seem reductive, but it's how I see it. Inaction IS an action. You chose not to do something when had the ability & opportunity, choosing some lofty morals over the actual safety of the most people. The idea of "violence begets violence" is such an invasive idea because of the moral superiority that comes with not fighting against injustice while not offering tangible solutions to the very problems. Whenever the trolley problem gets brought up, I usually hear people try to rationalize, adding "What if the one person was [insert important person here]? Would you still do it?" which is just a dodge from the real question and having to make a choice. I think, if a piece of media wants to talk about extremist pacifism, it should show the consequences of doing nothing but spouting platitudes to people that need help. That choosing inaction is effectively siding with the oppressor. That choosing "nonviolence" and "to not do anything" against violent people will result in more corpses.

[@silver1340]

There was a lot of violence in the past, yet you don't see civilians mass-murdering each other on the streets.

[@Dawa1147]

"You are as responsible for the actions you take, as you are for the actions you dont."

[@SkorpionDoorman]

From my own experiences, I was bullied for a good while in third grade everyone around me, including my parents, was saying, "Kick their damned teeth in, we won't be mad at you even if they suspend you." But I never did and to this day, I still don't know why. I won through pacifism... But that was a 1 in a million chance I know could never have happened to me again no matter how hard I could try. Every time I look back on that day, I think; "I should've kicked their teeth in, I could've ended it much quicker." But part of me is glad I didn't and was eventually able to make friends out of them. I fucking kid you not, they really did become my friends. I won through inaction... but at the cost of my mental health and it has only gotten worse since then. I guess part of me was afraid that I was going to end up like my birth father if not worse than him if I threw a punch even if it was in self-defense. So my brain thought the best course of action was no action at all. Nowadays, I don't think that at all. If given the chance, I would fight to save more people and risk dying trying. Because the only way for evil to truly prevail is for good people to just stand idly and do nothing.

[@reapergrimm8]

This whole "I won't let anyone die" business is Batman's critical failing. Joker's own actions will cause him to fall to his death or blow up? Batman saves him. Victor Zsasz is holding people hostage, but a SWAT officer has Zsasz in the sights of his sniper rifle and will be able to save all their lives? Batman will stop the sniper to save Zsasz's life. He's such a control freak and unflexable in his "moral code" that he never actually solves the problems plaguing Gotham. He uses rhetoric like he's "in a war" and that the extended Batfamily are "his soldiers", but doesn't actually do what soldiers are meant to do in a war. And his "reasoning" for this? That he knows that he's not right in the head and that if he allows one person to die, he'll just let all criminals die. Which means that he shouldn't be a vigilante in the first place. If he wanted to eliminate crime in Gotham like a healthy person, he could use his massive fortune to actually improve the lives of everyone in Gotham. But he doesn't, because he needs an outlet for his rage. And while he does use his fortune from time to time to help people or causes financially, it's usually a token effort that's more like using a band-aid when you need to make a cast. Sorry for the Batman rant, but he just causes me to think about these things. In regards to your actual thesis for your video, I'm reminded of the saying "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing". Which summarizes this moral code bs and waffling on the whole trolly issue. The trolly issue points out a critical flaw in modern thinking, in that the single person's life on the one track is more important than the lives of the four other people on the other track. Sometimes, there are difficult choices that have to be made. One of them is trying to save as many lives as possible. And unfortunately, there are times when you have to let 20 people die to save 100 other people. Like Spider-Ham says in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse; "you can't save everyone." I should probably stop here, because I have so much to say about this issue, especially about Rey killing the Coruscant guard or your Sith character killing those corrupt, rich asshats. But I agree with everything you said, just to let you know.

[@reapergrimm8]

@@jmurray1110 True, but it doesn't really solve the crime issue. The best way to eliminate crime is to reduce poverty. Poverty can best be reduced by implementing better wages, working conditions and employee benefits so that people don't have to struggle to meet their basic necessities. Now perhaps Bruce does these things for companies he owns, but since he spends so much time as Batman, who knows how his policies are actually enforced. There is also the fact that he doesn't own everything in Gotham, so the corruption remains. He could use his financial influence on the political scene, maybe even run for office, but he doesn't do that. The argument could be made that there is so much corruption in the state that it would be pointless to try, but we won't know know unless he does try. Which he hasn't.

[@Storm-crow13]

The morality of Batman’s no kill rule is screwed by the medium. If Arkham and other prisons in the DC universe had a realistic level of security it would be fine because he would be able to stop supervillains without killing and have a reasonable expectation that they would be permanently stopped. But the villains are marketable so the prisons are made of tissue paper and cardboard. So Batman should kill them because he knows they will just break out, but he can’t for the same reason the supervillains can essentially walk out of prison whenever they feel like it. Plus in most superhero settings it’s not like death is even that effective at permanently stopping a supervillain. Personally I feel the morality of killing someone to prevent them from harming others is based more on your capacity to stop them. You have the power and support system to stop them from harming others without killing them, then killing is immoral. If the only way you can stop them without risking them harming others is by killing them then I see no moral issue with it.

[@reapergrimm8]

@@Storm-crow13 I agree. The problem is that people try to apply the "morals" of comics and cartoons to the real world, which is where the problems occur because real life doesn't operate like the worlds of fiction.

[@reapergrimm8]

@@Dragonshade64 Many people have made that argument. They are all correct.

[@JDog2656]

In that instance though, it might be better for the Joker to live because of the trope of where the hero is blamed for not saving the lives of the people the villain killed even after they stopped or killed the villain. Like in BvS where they blame Superman for Zod’s actions. When the bad guy is stopped by being killed, people will blame the hero for not doing enough even they literally did all that they could. At least with the villain alive they blame them.

[@archivist_13]

This video really highlights one of the reasons I love Persona 5. To give some context for the uninitiated, Persona 5 is a game where you live out the fantasy of being Magical Robin Hood by stealing the evil desires of criminals who's wealth/influence allow them to be exempt from police custody. By stealing their desires it leads to a "Change of Heart" where the criminal becomes a good person and gives themselves up to the police out of sheer guilt. However there are multiple times throughout the game where the main characters consider simply murdering their targets rather then Changing their Hearts. The reason they don't go through with it is because they see death as an easy escape for their targets, that to live with the label of some of the worst crimes known to man and rotting in a jail cell for the rest of their lives is a better punishment for them. There's also the added benefit that by them admitting their crimes, more good can be done for the world, as their targets can then implicate accomplices, clear the names of the people they framed and bring light to their victims' suffering. In my mind, this highlights one of the benefits of taking a non-murderous approach, after all, the point of murdering the bad guy is to minimize pain, all Persona 5 did was show that that doesn't necessarily mean murder is always the way to go. That's all I have to say, peace. P.S. One more thing I love about the game is that whenever their target is about to be redeemed the character in the party who's been hurt the most by them will decide whether they live or die, rather then the main character or some mouthpiece character deciding, it makes the arrest scenes more satisfying because it was one of their own victims who chose this fate for them.

[@pn2294]

That’s honestly what disappoints me about their decision not to kill anyone. It betrays the spirit of a no-kill rule.

[@gd8693]

On: is killing someone who indulges in a corrupt system bad The focus in the thought experiment is whether they deserve punishment. Interesting, sure, but it's worth asking how people get to that point. That's a lot more fascinating. Why would someone support this system? Is it because they enjoy a position of economic or social dominance? Have people told them all their lives it's okay? And how does someone grow up or around a corrupt system and still become a rebel against it? Have they or people they know been personally hurt? The questions of how people get to these points is a lot more interesting, at least to me

[@chadnorris8257]

I think part of the reason superheroes aren't supposed to kill, is based on the idea that everyone should have their day in court. Stand before a judge and jury, and plead your case. When some civilian with superpowers comes over and rips a guy's head off in the street, it circumvents that freedom. Granted, you could easily have a corrupt government that lets the rich get off Scot free, where a poor man would be buried under the jail for an equal crime, but that problem won't be solved by just killing corrupt politicians one at a time.

[@tortoiseoflegends4466]

This conversation really made me think of the character Samara from Mass Effect. She is very similar to Amorosa (not sure of spelling sorry) in the sense that her code is extremely absolute. If she sees somebody committing an injustice, her duty is to end their life without trial or investigation. Her code has no moral grays, either something is a good action or it is bad. The problem is that she herself admits that she does not want context surrounding the crimes she witnesses. If she executes a murderer, she doesn't want to know if the crime was committed because the victim was abusing their family. She's afraid of the guilt involved with acknowledging the complexity. And I think that's very selfish; not acknowledging the good you've taken away from the world, only patting yourself on the back for stopping the bad. Like in the example of the Courascant guard; he may have had a family and children he was lovely to. No doubt that killing him saves countless future victims and I wouldn't disagree with the character for killing him on the spot. However, if the character is ignoring that he's more than just the abuser we first see then that is a form of willful ignorance.

[@Charolette21]

It's worse that no one has the chance to say "The fuck's wrong with you?" because they're afraid they'll be killed for criticizing them.

[@FatherIimaginedyoutaller]

"If a character has a power to stop people from dying at the expense of their own personal morality, are those deaths their fault? Is doing nothing in the name of purity in itself, a moral failure?" Hmm I'm going to say...yes? Kind of? like if you can stop someone from doing harm and you don't, then you are, at least, a bit responsible for it. I'm going to bring my personal experiences into it. Recently I deleted my Ao3 account because it just didn't felt right to still use the website after it was made clear that they don't care about grooming and CSA survivors by allowing CP to run rampant on the site. Before I quitted I left a message on my old story of what I was doing and why and... some people actually followed me on that: some guy told me I was brave and someone else said they were quitting ao3 too because of me. So I actually made a difference, a small one but still I did something that hurted the site. And I know that's not the same thing because I sticked to my principles **while** doing something good but the sensation inside of me was the same. In one video you said that "sometimes saving the world isn't going to make you feel all good inside" and here's the thing: I didn't feel good, I felt like crap for deleting 3 years worth of works that I loved. It was sort of a "Homer Simpson taking the hit for Patty and Selma" kind of thing. So to go back to your question: If I had stayed on the site, would the works of gross people that they produce in there be my fault? No, not technically but I don't want to be a good person only for a technicality. I want to be a good person because is the right thing to do. Because I genuinely believe that is the right thing to do. But that's maybe a too different of a situation. Let's put another example: I broke up a relantionship of 5 years because the person turned out to be a zionist. And my dad would reprimand me for it because he thought that me still being friends with this person didn't make me complaicit on the middle east conflict but here's the thing...that doesn't matter. He supports ethnic cleansing, he's not responsible for it but he stands by his creepy and racist position. That's maybe the only real distinction (without that much of a difference may I add) you're not **responsible** for other person's actions but as long as you don't do anything, you're **complicit** and who k own maybe that's worse. Because when someone is abusive or racist or whatever at least you can pinpoint them and said "hey you're a bad person" but when someone is complicit, is harder to get the fact that they're a bad person. And that's a cohnsious effort in part of them. At least when you're responsible for doing something bad you can claim you did it on accident, but being complicit is actively malicious, it inherently can't be an accident.

[@12skuly]

Wait the hack some actually put real life cp on Ao3!! That is fucked upp and now one is removing it!!!

[@12skuly]

No not now, I have dyslexia

[@AlcaragonTheBrass]

Short version: Answering the question Is doing nothing in the name of moral purity itself a moral failing? Yes. There can be other reasons for a policy of non-intervention (fear of doing more harm than good, severe discomfort that prevents you from taking action to the degree that is required, having a host of one’s own issues that need resolving first). But if someone is refusing to help on the grounds of keeping their hands clean when they *could* actually be helping, then yes, that is unquestioningly a moral failing. Longer version: Answering the video Okay, lots to unpack here so please bear with me. The big issue that I can see is one of media literacy and insulation from the consequences of systemic violence. In combination, these two things make it hard for people to engage with heroic actions that use direct (aggressive) tactics to achieve a positive result. I’m going to break it down into sections to make it easier to choose. 1. Anti-Heroes Starting with the definition of anti-hero. When I studied lit at uni, I was taught that anti-heroes are less about the questionable status of their “heroic” actions, and more about the extent to which the audience is rooting for them to succeed even in the face of actions that are emphatically un-heroic. The example I would go to is Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs. He is by no means a heroic character, but his courtesy towards (and, as the film progresses, apparent affection for) Clarice Starling paints him as almost noble, or at the very least no more evil than most other characters in the movie. His “nobility” is somewhat stripped away when he breaks free, but by that point his moral position relative to the rest of the cast is such that the audience is supposed to feel torn as to whether or not they *want* him to succeed. Few people may be actively cheering him on, but fewer still are hoping he will be immediately returned to his cell. This sense of cognitive dissonance related to anti-heroes is where the problems begin. From what you are saying in your video, it looks like audiences attribute the term “anti-hero” to any protagonist who causes them any kind of cognitive dissonance whatsoever, without considering whence that cognitive dissonance stems. Under the definition of anti-hero given above, Darth Amorosa would not qualify, because her motives are pure and the immediate results are inarguably good: fewer abusers in the world means fewer people being abused, no matter how that comes about. And yet, the reactions of some members of your audience suggests that they aren’t looking beyond the act of killing itself. I can’t speak for them, but if I had to guess… 2. The Meta-text of Killing There’s a quote attributed to Alfred Hitchcock about why protagonists of horror movies don’t go to the police when shit rockets skywards: “They don’t go to the police because it’s dull”. And yet, so many critiques of horror films begin with labelling the characters as “stupid” because it should be so easy to just call someone who can sort it out; all the while failing to realise the reason they don’t is meta-textual, or adamantly refusing to accept the meta-text of an entertaining story as reason enough. I think something similar is going on with killing fictional characters. Batman can pontificate all he likes about the moral reasons he doesn’t kill, it’s all bullshit. The *real* reason Batman doesn’t kill is because the Joker is popular, and it’s too much of a financial risk to remove him from the equation entirely. And that’s fine. If the focal point of enjoying a Batman story is the interactions between him and his villains, then more power to him for not killing. It does make the character’s moral standpoint a little anaemic, though. So it has to be addressed as this grand gesture of upstanding morality, and has been repeated often and loudly enough that people started to believe it on face. This stance has become so pervasive it has bled into a lot of children’s media. To use the most egregious example: Aang should have killed Ozai, and then spent the rest of the series learning to cope. But he didn’t. The story contrived itself such that he didn’t have to, and people defend that choice on the grounds that it is worse for Ozai to suffer a life without bending. Once again, ignoring the meta-textual reasons (Nickelodeon would probably never have let it happen) for something occurring within the text. Generations of this standpoint has led to a public who perceive death as the *worst* thing that can happen to a character, to the point where it overshadows everything else. So when Darth Amorosa kills the trillionaires, or Ray the cop, people see that act, and *only* that act, and shorthand it to their understanding of it being the worst thing that can be done. That’s one side of it, the other is because killing is violence that we can *see*. 3. Insulation: In my albeit limited experience, most straight, white-passing people above a certain wealth threshold are insulated against the consequences of systemic violence. It’s hard to see the consequences of a systemic abuse of power, because it’s so large and so pervasive that it doesn’t feel like an attack. Labour laws where I used to live meant that, technically, weekends don’t exist. The work week is 6 8-hour days without a lunchbreak (or 48-hours week), and the only reason the 7th day is off is because the country is religious and people need a day to go to their respective places of worship. For most people living there, this is just how life is. But people wrote those laws, and their descendants are actively enforcing them. If someone killed the politicians responsible, even if there wouldn’t be a backlash on political grounds, people would still be up in arms because, after all, those politicians were only doing their jobs. It seems to be that unless systemic violence is frequent, aggressive and jarring enough to affect people on a personal level, it’s much harder to see. Swinging a lightsaber at one of the perpetrators on the other hand… Killing is immediate and obvious violence. No matter the reasons behind it. This is not in-and-of-itself immoral, but it does make it *visible* to people who don’t have to live with systemic violence in a way that systemic violence just isn’t. None of this is mean to justify the backlash, merely to explain the behaviour and to reinforce the point that: yes, refusing or decrying violence that does genuine good on the grounds of moral purity without taking into account the reasons for that violence is intellectual cowardice and a moral failing. Just because you are spared the worst of the violence around you, or have chosen to accept what is being done to you as “just the way the world is” does not make it right. Appendix: When is it not a moral failing, or the no kill rule done right Doctor Who is an interesting case study of when not killing is acceptable, at least during the Tennant era. Tennant’s Doctor refuses to kill not out of a sense of moral obligation, but because they’ve partaken in too much violence to be able to bring themself to do anymore. They are by no means non-interventionist, they will do everything they can to try and thwart the evil scheme du jure, but they’ve been party to too much death to inflict anymore, even if it means saving everyone. The reason this worked in the Tennant era is because the show actively called them out on it, and mitigated it with a supporting cast willing to do what the Doctor no longer could. Would I still count this as a moral failing? Yes, but a more excusable one. In the Doctor’s case, the lack of killing is motivated by trauma, not a misguided sense of morality devoid of context, which I think makes it more forgivable, and would make it more compelling if the show called them out for their actions more often. Okay, that’s everything. If you’ve made it this far thank you for bearing with me!

[@cutiepie120048]

Hard agree with this 👏

[@dragon_dantri]

One important piece to this puzzle is the mental toll of actually killing someone. It's one thing to say it's someone's duty to help if they can, but is it their duty to help if it is at great cost to themselves? To use an absurd example to make this point, if you could have your arms cut off in order to save someone else's life, is it your DUTY to have your arms cut off? Is it your responsibility? Or is it a choice, albeit a heroic one, you could make? Would you be considered a bad person for not having your arms cut off to save this person's life? I believe it is not your responsibility to harm yourself in order to help others, because in practice you run into the problem of repeatedly sacrificing yourself for others until there is nothing left of you. I used to believe wholeheartedly that if you COULD do something to help, you HAD to. I have started a new type of therapy recently and one of the biggest things the Dr has had to hammer home is that it's not my responsibility to take care of other people all the time and that doing so is a direct contributor to my condition because I have no energy left to take care of myself. It's a lot like setting boundaries for yourself and your wellbeing. I have had to unlearn this exact thing in order to repair my mental health. If taking a life is a mental toll on you, which - let's be real - would be an enormous mental toll on most people, then it shouldn't be your responsibility to hurt yourself in order to save someone else's life. There's a reason that doing so can be thought of as heroic - that person is sacrificing a part of themselves to make others' lives better. But we can't have the expectation that every person is a hero, either. (Of course in stories, a lot of the time the protagonist IS a hero, but I think it's important to recognize that nobody HAS to be one.) This does not apply in stories where you kill all the lackeys and then suddenly become merciful for their leaders, in terms of like . . . most video games. That is just plain BS because it's obvious that taking a life isn't exactly a big deal for that character. I also want to touch on the similarities between this and arguments in favor of the death penalty, though I don't know if I have a comprehensive enough understanding to dive in fully. A lot of my thoughts for why killing the villain may be a bad thing is in large part the same reasons I am not in favor of the death penalty; sometimes we are just plain wrong about things. There are times when we think we know something for certain, but in reality things are not as they seem, and the one we think is the "real villain" is really just another puppet. How far up the chain do we have to go to find who's responsible? Or is everyone responsible, down to every last lemming in the villain's army? I don't think there's really a precise line. If you imprison someone, you are taking away many years of their life, but there's a possibility of them getting at least some of it back if it turns out you were wrong. If you kill someone, only to find out that they weren't actually responsible, there's not much you can do about it to make things better. Even in cases of self defense this can be messy. For example, internalized racism can lead people to believe PoC are more dangerous than they really are, which in turn results in faster assumptions of guilt/danger, which then can lead to "I need to kill them to protect myself/others/everyone." Obviously these are unethical killings. These kinds of assumptions can exist in fantasy too, and I wonder if stories promoting this kind of "dirty harry" justice might lead to people seeing quick judgments/executions as more normal/okay. I think that killing the villain should be more prevalent in stories, I believe there are cases where this may be necessary, but I also don't think it should be treated with any amount of frivolity whatsoever. IMO, especially in family friendly media, if it is present it needs to be treated with the immense amount of weight that it has. I do think it's important for stories to be more consistent about this. Again video games are the WORST with this, where killing every lackey/raider/unnamed npc is no big deal, nobody cares, but suddenly the big bad who has a name shows up and now you get bad karma if you kill him too. Makes no sense. It should at least be consistent. Random unnamed people's lives should be treated with the same preciousness as the big bad's. If everyone's life is forfeit, then the big bad's should be too, because a lot of video games couldn't exist with this moral framework and I understand that not all of them are about morality, and sometimes are just "bang bang murder fun" and I think that's valid too. Just, if they are going to make morals be a big deal, they should be a big deal the whole time.

[@loner6745]

I remember always being talked down to by teachers over my answer to the trolley. I always stood by making the choice to end the single person. They always claimed that there was no moral choice, but at that point I already had a stance on the subject. I grew up loving tv shows and batman stuck with me. But as I got older, I saw the big flaw with things like leaving the Joker alive. He just breaks free and kills more people. Ending him does not make someone as bad as the Joker. It means that he will have no more future victims to add to his already gargantuan count. To take a life changes you, for sure. It takes a cost on you. But the difference between being a bad person or not is in why you made that choice. To not act makes you somewhat complicit. Its why you choose, not what you choose that defines it all. Your characters in TSR understand this and I appreciate the story more for that fact.

[@storymaster164]

Moral purity is such a lame ass dilemma for any protagonist to have. When a character has to make a choice between two or more bad outcomes, choose the lesser evil, and deal with whatever consequences that follow it can become one of the singularly most interesting stories and character developments in any media. The “hero’s” third way out with no consequences is such lazy writing and it always gets told because people are so scared of their stories not ending wrapped up in nice neat bow.

[@epicfights7898]

ATLA ending in a nutshell.

[@herebejamz]

I really like Batman, if you ignore that he could do more good with his wealth than dress up in a bat costume. However, the amount of times he hasn't killed the Joker in spite of it all is bordering on the cliche definition of insanity. At some point every Joker mass murder is basically Bruce dropping the ball.

[@embez002]

This reminds me of the pacifist ending of Undertale, where Asriel says to the player that basically the Floweys of the real world can’t all be mercy-ed into submission. So that even this game recognizes that the power fantasy of time control doesn’t work in the real world and sometimes you gotta fight and accept that was the best outcome, as long as you keep doing the most good you can with the least harm you can. It was an interesting nuance to the pacifist ending for a game that recognizes it is a game and calls you out for your decisions, good or bad. Anyway, I’d love to hear you talk about Undertale at some point!

[@giovanatrajano3553]

Not choosing to do anything is letting the bad stuff happen to innocents, and such apatic action will only cause more damage as time goes on In the end..... apathy is death

[@pablocruz5613]

I so rarely get to see the premieres for these videos, and this one was worth it. As for inaction and heroics. Often times I struggle with this myself, less as a story writer and more as just a casual character creator for things like Star Wars or Skyrim. Would my characters through away their own morals for the benefit of someone else. It’s a great argument that shows what the person values. If the answer is no, they won’t sacrifice morals for someone else’s wellbeing, then they don’t value the other persons well being, simple ass. Your own pride and sense of morality overshadow their health. If the answer is yes, you show that what you TRULY value IS the benefit of the people. You don’t have to feel good about it, I assure you no one who’s ever had to kill to defens something they love feels good about it. But at the end of the day, you had a choice. Back when I was younger, dad and I used to discuss Aristotelian philosophies and I think the answer we came up with was sound. Evil is not to perform bad deeds, evil is to see that a good deed could be done, and deciding to do evil instead.

[@EyeOfLyger]

- "If a character has the power to stop people from dying at the expense of their own personal morality, and they choose not to, are those deaths their fault?" Yes, albeit indirectly. Narratives are often bending over backwards to make the hero both heroic and morally pure all in once, which feels rather cheap; it's like the narrative is providing an easy cop-out when the alternative would have made for a better narrative and a better lesson. (See: Aang suddenly getting energy bending so he didn't have to kill Fire Lord Ozai.) To me, the best kind of hero is someone who makes sacrifices in the name of the greater good. Technically, they would be indirectly responsible for those deaths, since those deaths could have been prevented. It's like not reporting a long-term crime when you know you could say something - you're not responsible, but you're complicit. You've given your tacit approval that you think this crime is okay, or at least not a big enough problem for you to address at the expense of yourself. That's not a moral high ground. - "Is doing nothing in the name of moral purity itself a moral failing?" In the short term, certainly. The long-term consequences are what need to be taken into account. If a hero refuses to compromise their morals in the short term in order to achieve their objective in the long term, then it's a moral failing. (See: Obi-Wan not killing someone who was going to blow up a ship - a point Lily herself made in a previous video of hers.) In light of these two questions and watching Lily's work in general, I begin to see how many protagonists just kind of luck into staying on the moral high ground where everything gets wrapped up neatly. The hero having their own morality questioned and needing to defend it is something I wish many works did more often, so I started including it more in my own writing.

[@pn2294]

That’s the thing; it’s a narrative. It doesn’t actually accomplish anything.

[@JDog2656]

But Aang making Ozai powerless is actually a greater moral victory in and of itself. It shows that Aang was able to defeat him and make him spend the spend the rest of his life powerless in a cell. That in a way is a greater victory morally and holistically

[@patinate]

This reminded me of a moment in DBZ abridged (episode 60 part 1, 18:15 in), where one character equates a second character's pacifism in the face of world destruction to cowardice and a need to grow up.

[@King_Nex]

1:38 I believe that most anti heroes fall into Chaotic Neutral or true neutral. Think Deadpool or Jack Sparrow. They tend not to be "Good guys" but they're also not exactly villains either.

[@maplesummers2023]

I remember a phrase I heard one time, “When you do nothing, you *do* nothing.” That, in saying that doing nothing because you want to sit in a fictitious moral high ground, you’re actively making a choice to ignore the problem at hand, which ultimately undermines the point of trying not to violate your own principles when doing nothing has a larger number of consequences to people as a whole. Take Batman for example, where the Joker’s casualty number is so high that everyone lost track of how many people died by his hand, but Batman refuses to kill the Joker on the principle that “killing a killer makes you a killer” and not on the principle of “how many people would still be alive now if the Joker was dead?”

[@jaredtheastralartist2510]

One of my favorite Series right now has this sort of take. The main characters Of the series are basically Vigilantes in a society of heroes and super powers. The main character is just a guy who likes help other people and stops minor criminals for the police. He’s a general nice character who has the power to do some Serious damage, but takes the pasifist road. That’s directly contrased by his mentor, An old brute who dose know when to kill . And a mentor figure tries to enstill This lesson into him but the main guys uncomfortable with the idea. And That ideal ultimately leads into making a mistake that not only injured him, But led to the death of several people. The main heroine conflicts with him about this and is angry hat him for it.And the protag ultimately learns that he can’t pacifist in everything, I need to get serious sometimes. I feel like the no kill rule can work well in a story in regards to developing your character who has that rule but also the effect they have on the people Who disagree with that rule .

[@vampwolfchick]

Inaction always aids the oppressor. Regardless of why you choose to not act, you are helping the people causing harm. Silence from the people that can make positive change is the most deafening support for the people causing harm. The moral question should be "What action can I take to help the most people? What helps the majority?" If that means killing one person to stop a multitude from suffering and death, you kill that one person and you've done the right thing. Empty platitudes of "But it's immoral to kill someone!" mean nothing to those that the person is abusing and grinding under their heel. The best stories are ones where the 'hero' has to make tough decisions. And depending on the choice they make determines whether they're the hero or someone that will support the 'villain' because they refuse to take any meaningful action.

[@BinnyKing]

I see it like this: Doing nothing is no different than doing EVERYTHING you can to keep the status quo in check, no matter how objectively wrong that status quo is. "Apathy is Death" and "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" aren't just catchy taglines. They are facts and clear stances that doing nothing in the face of suffering and injustice is no different than being an accessory. As for the confusion of Anti-Heroes, I see it as people trying to simplify a complex issues, only to make it more confusing and complex. I think a good example of this is the Marvel character, Frank Castle AKA The Punisher. The Punisher is at the center point of CONSTANT controversy regarding both his mission and his methods, but no one seems to really understand the core of it. On paper, Punisher only kills criminals and those the writer projects as objectively evil (at least at one point or another). One could argue that by killing these people, he is preventing more suffering. A common counter argument is the common "Killing is Bad" and "He's no better than the people he kills", or various complaints of the brutality with which he operates. But the core issue that people avoid isn't WHAT he does or HOW he does it, it's WHY. Frank Castle became the Punisher in order to avenge his murdered family. The issue is, when he succeeded, he wasn't satisfied. His family was still dead, and there were countless more like the people who killed them. So he made it his mission to kill as many of them as he can before he dies. And there's the trick. Frank's motivations at their core are not what would be seen as "Noble" or "Heroic", yes he prevents suffering, but that's not really why he does it. It's his justification. The real reason is because he wants to vent his grief on the criminal underworld until he finally gets the death he truly desires. And he will pursue this vendetta with a blind fervor, even fighting and even killing other Heroes. By sticking the title of Anti-Hero on every single "Protagonist" that either breaks the law to an extreme sense, kills, or just doesn't follow a set code beyond the end goal, strips away the more interesting and complex issue of WHY. And honestly, I find that a real shame because that is a much better debate than people screaming at each other whether or not killing, or really punishing an outright villain is bad. Because that debate can shed so much more clarity on the issue of "Action or Inaction" and into a debate of "HOW one should act" because whether or not you should act at ALL should never be a debate in the first place! Sorry for my poor writing skills, hope this doesn't set off the Author in you. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a fic that sounds like a better Star Wars Sequel than the actual Sequel Trilogy!

[@raphaelrodriguez8316]

No. The death of innocents is always the fault and responsibility of the person who perpetrated the crime, but if a hero refuses to stop them out of philosophical or moral reasons than they are not a hero that particular day. They are just bystanders. Heroism is not a state of being. It is an action. So inaction automatically negates that.

[@elithesia781]

"Chaotic Good is still good." Let me start off by saying that this statement needs to be understood by more people. I notice so many people who see the "chaotic" part of alignments and immediately think of villains or characters who are mentally unstable in some way and it's really frustrating to me personally. Like, these people almost deem Lawful Evil characters to be better from a morality standpoint because of the "lawful" word, but ignore the much more important "EVIL" that follows it. I honestly really love the points and examples you used from your own writing. I'd love to see more modern media that has certain ideas like the ones you presented. I grew up in an environment where the "only" solution to bullying (or the only one taught/allowed) was making me sit quietly and be a good girl while allowing my tormentors to continue doing whatever they wanted, and the only reason I never bashed their heads in with a brick (or something to that effect) is because I feared the consequences of defending myself. And I had to teach myself later in life that I am not wrong for not wanting to be tormented. I don't have to care what's going on behind closed doors in my tormentor's lives. While I can sympathize with people on a very objective level that no one should be abused, if their response to it is to abuse me, then I'm not going to give a shit about them. Why should I? I also really admire your dissection of the trolley problem. When I was growing up, it was always presented as an issue of "How much of a murderer are you willing to be?" and I could never answer when asked aloud because what kind of question is that to ask a literal child? No wonder children get groomed with such anti-violence messages and don't understand nuances or circumstances. But now I understand what the real question is. And I think I have an answer: If I had the power to save lives and I did nothing, then the suffering and death that follows would be blood on my hands. And even if I ignored that thought like so many people do, it doesn't and wouldn't make it any less true.

[@torturequeen1640]

8:14 does make me wonder,at what point has someone caused so much suffering that they should just die?Where would the line be? Also the point about 'the cop abusing their power might have had a family' makes me think that,if they're willing to do that to others,then it's not that much of a stretch to say they could do it to said family as well.

[@LilianOrchard]

Fun fact: 60% of cops beat their wives

[@torturequeen1640]

@@LilianOrchard Huh,guess that makes the argument of the cops family needing them even worse

[@flintfeatherr]

I found it interesting that you brought up that sonic IDW panel when talking about sparing the villains. Earlier scenes show that everyone is mad at sonic for constantly making the same mistake of letting Eggman or other villains go, and how they’re in that situation because of sonic’s refusal to deal with the problem. But Sonic knows this, he sees their complaints but still choses to stick to his principals and is willing to deal with the aftermath of it. I’m not saying that his choices are right just that they seemed to be more thought out than other characters with this same problem. The villains still make choices that are out of your control. Your friend committing a serious crime (like murder or any other morally wrong crime” even after you’ve tried to dissuade him, is not on your hands, he still chose to do that by himself. Here’s another example, some could say that the air nomad genocide was Roku’s fault because he decided to spare Sozin due to their past friendship. Even Roku says that this is the case. But, Sozin chose to commit genocide, it was his own decision that no one else could stop him from doing. There was no way Roku could have known what depths Sozin would have gone to for power. The Air Nomad genocide is still directly the fault of Fire Lord Sozin.

[@7OwlsWithALaptop]

I think a big subconcios factor in this reluctance to do things is the... directness of it. When the protagonist actively chooses to murder a person who is not posing a threat to them it is different then just killing people in a fight. Becuase they're not just abstract bad guys anymore but a character that the heroe goes after to kill them intentionally. Which makes it much more direct to the audience. To illustrate this a bit I would like to bring an example from the Practical Guide To Evil (PGTE). Near the beginning the MC lets a "Hero" go intentionally to start a massive revolt so that she can facilitate her power by crushing it. Later her "Villain" Mentor (The Black Knight) hangs some resistance members that she knew in front of her, and she vomits and hates the Black Knight for this and the audience can really feel it with her. Even though she just condemned Thousands of people to die in a violent conflict. The only difference being the directness of the scene. She realizes her hypocrisy later on in the series, but my point still stands. It is the directness of the act that people often balk at. P.S.: For anyone interested, PGTE is a webnovel that is free on the internet. just saying...

[@fijit4]

I view it through the lense of parents and children. If a parent chooses the "inaction" route and thus does not vaccinate their children, those children's deaths are on their parents head. Inaction is a choice.

[@stormeaglegaming5395]

To me it depends on the story being written and the tones/themes it wants to present . It all comes down to consistency , the issue comes when the tones and themes don't mix with the story being told well for example Steven universe . It has themes of war , abuse genocide , racism and trauma but wants to refrain from death at all cost at the detriment of the story . Another story which has similar themes would be the Sonic Archie comics but it it weaves those elements to create great stories and have death ever so often . When it comes to killing , if its to be a very kiddy show then its not required , but for theses cartoons that have soo many heavy themes and monstrous foes , simple forgiveness/redemption can't work . Due to many being redeemed nowadays being too horrible and no punishment for their actions like the Diamonds and starlight glimmer . For the question at the , TFS Dragon Ball Abridged Android 16's speech to Gohan sums up my view on the topic .

[@vexhutton8940]

I'm actually studying neuroscience in Atlanta and an incredibly interesting part of the trolley problem is the cortex involved in the decision-making process. Research shows that people with a damaged orbitofrontal cortex are more likely to take action and pull the lever to kill one person (regardless of the one person being a stranger or a loved one). The orbitofrontal cortex is ALSO responsible for learned values and social behavior. My answer to the trolley problem has always been to pull the lever, but this was a learned value for me. My family has always considered the most calculable good to be the most worthy of sacrifice, including personal morals and ego. However, for those who consider inaction to be the moral choice, neuroscience suggests that they were taught to think that way, or, at the very least, were taught that SAYING they'd pull the lever is socially unacceptable. There is a lot more involved of course, but I always found that interesting.

[@CharleeHomes]

Short answer - yes. The idea of being a hero is putting the people first. To be a hero is to be the person to make those hard decisions because no one else can. "With great power comes great responsibility" is often thrown around, but it seems like a lot of people don't understand it. It's refering to these types of situations - so not making those decisions, to me, means they're not really heroes. Killing a villain has always seemed like a smarter option to me as opposed to the "capture them and try to rehabilitate" mentality found in most media. When they break out and return stronger the people who are hurt are hurt because of the "heroes" not making that choice. Simply locking up the villain is the easy choice, being a hero means you have the strength to make the hard choices. Chaotic Good/Anti-Hero characters tend to be the characters that make these types of decisions, which to me makes them more "heroic" than most popular heroes. Even if the decision isn't right, making a bad decision is more heroic than not making any decision at all.

[@aggressiveprincess7905]

Heroism as a concept is based totally in perspective. The hero to one is a villain to another. There are very few heros that are completely detached from those shades of grey. As for responsibility for what one does or does not do. I figure it's best to follow a simple train of thought. One should always be allowed to not act. However, the results of inaction are not beyond critism. I don't like the idea of punishing people based on what might happen. A person at those crossroads has a lot to think about. And if their moral compass or whatever drives them to inaction, then they should not act. But if their inaction results in a negative outcome, the level of scrutiny and critism they should receive should be on the level with their capabilities and means to do good. Meaning of they had/have the means to help and chose not to, the backlash should match the difference between how much they could have helped vs what was lost because they didn't. That's how I approach that sort of thing. It's also why I fucking hate billionaires so much. Basically, don't force people do a thing, but don't forbid repercussions. Though I suppose that's more or less how reality works.

[@Fangfinders]

This reminds me of The Painted Lady episode from ATLAB, you can't stand by while injustice is happening in front of your very eyes. Doing nothing shows people that there's nothing wrong with the situation. That it's normal.

[@wdalbright]

You are such a godsend. It's so annoying how many people say things without actually thinking about it. This is why I love your channel, you apply your mind to everything.

[@Hmetal813]

Gods, doing nothing when you can, especially for a hero, is a moral failing imo. You CAN help people, you just say "Well helping them is bad, and I'm not bad, so Imma be good and let them/others suffer". Heroes are supposed to be people who help others, who want suffering lessened, even at the expense of their own comfort. This comfort may sometimes be found in not being able to sleep for more than 3 hours a night, or it could be killing the serial killer before they can do more murders. Stopping pain is more important to me that maintaining a moral high ground because we can change morals in a flash, but pain lasts far longer (we STILL have genetic trauma from godsdamned WWII and the Holocaust).

[@akinmytua4680]

I like your take on the trolley problem. And I like this Rey a LOT more.

[@tarbucktransom]

This is one of your best. Yes, inaction is still a decision. Asimov's 3 laws of robotics, for all its obvious failings, got this clean: a robot must not harm a human OR THROUGH INACTION ALLOW a human to come to harm. You bear the moral guilt of the decisions you fail to make, always.

[@Armaggedon185]

This is such a heavy topic that I’m not done thinking about, but in general I think killing in pursuit of saving people is a good thing. Might leave a reply with more nuances sometime.

[@untoucheddiguise]

This discussion is one of the reasons I love Lily's channel so much. This idea of "morally grey heroes" and how this attitude is reflected in real life has been on my mind even recently, but it all started when I watched the animated batman film Under The Red Hood. This film pretty much started the fall of Batman, for me, from my favorite superhero to one I view with near absolute contempt. For those of you who haven't seen this story it starts with Jason Todd, the second Robin, being brutally murdered by the Joker and being brought back to life as a new vigilante call the Red Hood. Red Hood starts taking out the criminal element of gotham and Batman gets very sanctimonious because Hood takes no issues with killing dangerous criminals. At the climax of the film Jason admits to Bruce that he's not angry that Bruce didn't save him, he knew the risks of the job, but he doesn't understand why his adoptive father has allowed the man who killed to live. Stating "I thought I'd be the last person you'd let him hurt." Jason points out all of the horrors Joker has committed; the entire graveyards he's filled, the friends he's crippled, and the countless other lives he ruined. Batman just gives the blatantly pathetic excuse of "If I go to that dark place, I'll never come back." Apparently Bruce is find with these countless atrocities so long as he's little feeling are spared. Even when this film first came out in 2010, I was only about 14, I remember thinking just how pathetic of an excuse this was. As if letting the murder clown live is justifiable so long as wittle batman doesn't have to deal with anything too hard for his feelings. And it only got worse with the video game Injustice 2. In which Batman needs to team up with a murder happy Superman to take down Brainiac. Brainiac by their own admission has destroyed countless planets and destroyed billions upon billions of lives. But when Superman at the end suggest killing the bastard Batman stops him. Even Superman calls him out on this saying "How many more innocent people die before you accept some lives need to be taken." All this with the framing that Superman is a power hungry totalitarian dictator in this universe. But he's right. Batman as a character has become about how it's okay to let innocent people die at the hands of horrible people, because killing said horrible people would apparently make you just as bad as them, and it's absolutely pathetic. And this attitude gets reflected in real life, both by alt-right neo nazis, and malignantly complacent centrists. Neo-Nazis and Domestic terrorist can assault the capitol, and there'll still be morons willing to protest they did nothing wrong and unwaveringly support the head fascist who inspired the revolt in the first place. And soon as anyone suggest we treat these malignant human garbage they way they have always treated us, there's outcries of "If you fight them, you'll be just as bad." Hell it doesn't even need to be that extreme. Look at bully victims who fight back and/or don't accept a bully's forced apology by a teacher, and then are derided by their teachers for "being just as bad." I need to stop now because I could type forever about this, but I hope I've at least some what illustrated how warped moral priorities in media bleed out into real life and vice versa.

[@diggitydog998]

That question reminds me a lot of the Mega Man X games. In those games, X is a pacifist, and he really does not like to fight. To the point that in the games prologue animation, he lets Sigma get away despite being able to shoot him directly. But then, once he realizes what letting Sigma away did, he was ready to hunt down the mavericks and destroy Sigma. He realized that his morals got in the way of innocent lives, so he sacrificed them. And this was always treated as the correct thing to do. If Mega Man X was a cartoon, people would be crying about how Sigma deserves a 2nd chance and that he should be redeemed.

[@Dranlia]

Yes. Moral purity is just way to egotistical. If you didn't kill to protect because it goes against your moral purity then you haven't done anything actually good. Just something some people consider to be good because you didn't kill. When you try and reduce morality to "never kill ever" or something similar it is basically admitting you stick more to an abstract code than actually thinking of the consequences. And I am actually happy to see you bring up that the victims need to be considered more than the hero's ego.

[@thongdo9809]

Here the thing, the question should be ask are "if killing is enough to stop the problem?" and "when do we have enough killing?". For the 1st question, If the problem lies in the system, killing people at the top not gonna stop the problem, it only delay it until the next leaders appear. For the second question, if the hero(es) justify their killing by this reason, how far will the heroes go to justify their later kills? Take the France revolution for example, the people at the top killed the King because he didn't support their revolution and justify it as his death will prevent any further deaths for his country. But after the king died, the people at the top keep finding reasons to kill anyone who disagree with them using the justification of "protecting the revolution", even the people who just pointed out the true.

[@StarMan2496]

In many classic tales of this, the hero does the evil thing, or sacrafices their personal beliefs or desires in order to achieve a greater good. That is the mark of a true hero. I don't know where this modern need for inaction comes from.

[@omodor9751]

For me, when it comes to questions like this I kind of default to the DnD alignment chart, an observation I made a long time ago is that Lawful Good is the most dangerous alignment there is because of the common contradiction in those two forces. Most people would argue that it is Chaotic Neutral(most people who play dnd have at least one horror story about a Chaotic Neutral murder hobo that ruined their game) but the thing about any of the Chaotic alignment is the everyone the sees it or figures it out knows that that person is in it for themselves, sure a Chaotic Good character will help people but that's because their goal is to help people, no ifs ands or buts. However Lawful Good characters will always try to twist their actions as something to aid the corrective(town/kingdom/world etc) and as such will always argue that any action that they take is the correct one even if the "evil choice" will help more people. Once you take up the fight for the "law" you have no choice but to sacrifice the "good" and vice-versa. In any society around longer than its founding group, there will always be people who profit more from seeing the law upheld even at the cost of others but without laws no one is safe. So is it a good thing to abandon them even if it's to help someone or is the fact that there is a law that might stop you from helping someone proof that the laws are no longer just?. The age-old "do you arrest the thief stealing to feed their family" question. Neutral is neutral it lets you justify anything with "I don't care I'm doing this today". Sorry if this rambled a bit I'm typing this up right before bed and I'm very tired.

[@hedonismbot1508]

Likewise, no set of rules can cover all possible scenarios, however noble the intentions of the people making the rules. Neutral is neutral because it lets you think for yourself about how best to be a real hero.

[@runelessruneless9024]

First off, thank you so much for introducing me to the Sith Resurgence, it's the first Star Wars fanwork I've given a shit about in literally twenty years. So kudos. Also, pointing out that antihero and antivillain are really just Designated Hero and Designated Villain really surprised me, but it's an excellent point, and I loved it. Secondly, my response (keeping it to two paragraphs as you asked): I think the main reason that we have such a strong push *against* violence, particularly when that violence is enacted in support of morals and against evil, is because it's useful for the people at the top, but not in the way I think most people have put together. The truth is, the one thing that unites everybody, that levels the playing field, is death. A poor man and a rich man are both equally vulnerable to getting a knife in the neck. A rich man can get murdered just like a poor person can. It's less *likely* to happen, since wealth means they can purchase defenses, but at day's end, if enough poor people- and there's always more poor folk than rich- get together, no defense can possibly save the rich man. It's a great measure of equality. Enter morals and religion. Why is murder held as the "worst" sin, even when there are many other sins that inarguably do much more harm, like a rich man's greed, for example? Because the rich and powerful have a vested interest in making sure that the one act that they are vulnerable to- getting killed by those they oppress- is unconscionable. Unthinkable. "Evil." That's the source of the revulsion. That's why they push for it. In a world where killing a rich man was not so abhorrent to so many, the rich would have their power curtailed by common goddamn sense, and the one thing the powerful of society truly want is *more power.* So it's a safety net for the wealthy.

[@PolarShift]

I would love to have a super hero film with the following premise/storyboard: All throughout act 1, it's basically a classic super-hero film but with a slightly faster pace. Recurring villain that causes destruction and even death, which the hero consistently captures but lets go because of the heroes "Moral Superiority". Act 1 ends and Act 2 begins with the hero killing the recurring villain. Preferably by accident, as not only would it be more believable for the character built up thus far, but it will also strengthen the choice the hero must make in Act 3. The next bit of Act 2 would be the hero waffling around and regretting having broken their self-imposed "no-kill" rule. Sprinkle in some background stuff about things being better for the city, but momentarily keep the focus on the hero's continuous waffling/regret. Towards the end of Act 2, hero either gets a wish or some time shenanigans that lets them undo their accidental killing of the villain. This begins act 3. Act 3 kicks off with the an alternate timeline where the villain was allowed to live, and things are objectively worse. Possibly even have it such that a character the hero knew has died to the villains actions. Hero could even admit to a character that they changed the timeline, and the two talk about morality, possibly even with the character who was confided in blaming the hero for the death of someone that they know. All in all, the hero eventually chooses to go back in time once more/use another wish/(something, idk, but superhero setting makes it easy to inject mcmuffins as needed for this). The hero then kills the villain again, this time not as an accident but intentionally, returning back to the better life for everyone - now including the hero after they learn to let go of their "no kill" rule. Thus they complete the heroes journey, having learnt sometimes killing someone leads to the most good.

[@RickyCow]

I think pacifism and inaction can have a place in story telling. But it has to be used correctly. Pacifism and inaction on their own are useless because they don't really do anything, they maintain the status quo. The only way they can really help is if they draw attention to the issue, show the extremes, show the disparity in power, question the morality of the other. This has its limits of course, after drawing attention to the problem and then the problem doesn't change then there needs to be action. I believe that killing can be a double edge sword. Kill the wrong person and someone worse can and probably will take their place. I don't think there is anything inherently with a hero choosing not to kill if he realizes that it won't really make a difference and that first they must prepare for the aftermath. But killing a corrupt cop that is abusing his power totally ok. Killing the war profiteers totally ok, but could potentially make it worse in the long ride. It's a bit of a slippery slope, and definitely shouldn't be a hard fast law. Some people are capable of change and can potentially make the world better once they do change and others are trash and shouldn't be given the mercy. But all of that involves action, you either set them on the right path, or kill them, but there need to be action on some level. Your individual morality doesn't matter, if you choose to do nothing the blood they spill is also on your hands, the same way that if someone is dying and you choose not to save them, it's your fault they died.

[@searuxianstudios9200]

How I allways saw it was that an anti-hero is one that is tied to personal morals and for some even religious morals. Alot if the time it comes down to "does the ends justify the means?" Some people think certain actions are too imorral to justify the end result, but for others that is not the case. Another thing is law, is breaking the law bad if its for good reasons? Are the reasons good? The end result also has to be somthing the viewer can resonate with, with the end not being met having x consequences, and what is worse? Some people would see "anti heros" as villans still because the ends were not great enough in impact to justify the potential blood trail that led to that end result?

[@wassupkids7734]

I think it would be fascinating to see more completely pacifistic characters framed as in the wrong or as outright villains. Having a high ranking member of government who is kind, well meaning and, allegedly, just, that still has to be killed, removed from government or at least convinced to be less peace obsessed by the heroes because their approach is hurting their people, could be a really interesting thing to play with. It would be one possible way showcase to the heroes and audience, who might be inclined to agree with the pacifist, why letting bad people live and run free is a bad thing that can't be allowed no matter how nice or well meaning you are. It could talk about how you can be altruistic and kind without letting nazis do whatever the fuck they want to your people.

[@blockyuniverseproductions6587]

Once again, great video Lily! I do agree, and I'm gonna gave an unusual example: Warhammer 40k. In 40k's lore (i.e, from the 30k novels) we see the rise of the Imperium of Man, and how things got to that point. We learn that before the Warp Storms that caused the collapse of the pre-imperium Human civilization, that the character known as "The Emperor" stayed on the sidelines for most of Human history, subtly influencing events. Unfortunately, it's not enough as Warp Storms cut off worlds from each other due to FTL travel becoming too dangerous. Earth itself--referred to as "Terra" and later "Holy Terra"--becomes a near-apocalyptic hell-hole. When this happens, the Emperor decides that standing on the sidelines was not enough, so he intervenes more directly, reuniting Terra by force, forging a deal with the Cult Mechanicus on Mars, and creating the Imperium of Man. He then began the "Great Crusade", where he and his armies began to reunify the Human worlds by diplomacy and force. He created a secular government and was close to total success in creating a Webway so they didn't have to rely on the hostile Warp, but things went awry when his lead Primarch was corrupted by the Warp, causing a bloody civil war across the Imperium. I say that this is an interesting example since it shows a scenario where someone tried to do things the nice way, but once that failed, had to take things into his own hands--and nearly would have succeeded if a few small choices were made differently. Had the Emperor decided to keep on the sidelines, the entire Human race would have gone extinct.

[@callumparker7737]

Watching the video, I'm seriously thinking about how more often than not, absolute scumbags in fiction get redemption arcs or at the very least get beaten without actually having to die or get killed by the hero of the story (Bale Batman's "I don't have to save you" scene comes to mind). It's almost like whoever's writing stories like these don't want to actually say there are consequences for hurting innocent people, or that or that spouting love and forgiveness applies to pure evil monsters. Isn't the quintessential Hero's Journey about traveling and getting strong enough to slay the villain and save the day, having become a changed person? Love and forgiveness are for minor transgressions, not for heartless and unrepentant monsters and I think shows need to be able to tell that lesson and say that maybe the most heroic thing is to accept that not everything can be solved by talking people down and take action to help. I will always believe that compassion and communication make the world a better place, but there is a point where it's just wasted breath.

[@issacthompson330]

The way I see it the line Antiheroes are on is either good intent with a Grey or Black method that is acceptable under Utilitarian Ethics or good actions with very questionable intent. Heroes tend to function more on Deontoligist Ethics. The separating factor between Antiheroes and Antivillains is a very blurry line that is drawn first by the author, then the reader. There is also a splattering of Virtue Ethics throughout but...

[@issacthompson330]

Having watched all the way though, I agree, the big problem with Deontologist Ethics (there are immoral acts you must never commit even if the result is good) is people with these Ethics tend to have a stick up there but and unable to actually do any meaningful good if they don't even think about what they consider acceptable. The only problem I have with Utilitarian Ethics is that it will sometimes go too far. Something I think the Fanfic character hasn't done based on the authors description.

[@LemonLoserLover]

In fact this video made me think of a saying in my country "money doesn't help you in life". It's bullshit. But my language teacher thinks different. She thinks it's a good saying because money doesn't form connection for you. And that's true. But the saying is vague and refers to everything. If the person who made it really meant to say what she said, they would've frame it differently. I think it's just a saying for rich ppl to say it when the poor complain about the economy. Just like the ppl who complain about being violent to a Nazi. It's all about keeping the power and control, not being right

[@dog640]

A cool thing you can do with a character like that for exsample is when she kills the rich assholes she can look around the room and shout “whos gonna do smth abt it!!?” Cause basically no one can since a force users is most powerful being in the star wars universe except maybe when in a big open space faced with overwhelming blaster fire

[@Eclipsed_Embers]

whenever I'm faced with the trolley problem my first thought is "what consequences will my actions have beyond the conditions posed in the problem?". if I flip the tracks resulting in that one person's death will other people then hold me responsible for that death? I understand that this is a selfish way of looking at it and this is because my main priority in life is staying out of trouble and I feel like that should extend to my answer to the problem as well. if there are no consequences beyond the deaths then I'd flip the tracks.

[@guardian5698]

I feel the game Ghost of Tsushima discusses a similar statement but in the context of honor and the samurai code. When faced by the mongols who have planned defenses for the samurai method of fighting the protagonist, Jin Sakai, adopts new methods such as stealth and poison. He justifies these breaks of his/ the samurai code as the only way to save the people of Tsushima. He begins to blame traditional samurai methods for the loss of so many lives due to the samurai becoming slaves to their code. I apologize for rambling I just felt as though this was another good example of the topic.

[@honeyjaigaming5912]

one of the best example I could think of after watching Lily's video is an episode of ATTA (Avatar the last airbender) "The Painted Lady", specifically, when Katara argues with Sokka about sitting aside and doing nothing when people need help. this also come back when she talks to the villagers. it would be easy from the gang to leave and believe that everything would get fixed after they beat the fire lord. but that's not the cause. sure something may of happened, but it was the here and now that the people needed help and they were fully capable of doing so. although Sokkas reasoning for initially helping was to help Katara not the villagers, he too supported Katara when she spoke to them about complacency. some people would rather sit around a wait for thing to get better than actually going out and trying to make things better. Another example (an Anime example) is from My Hero academia, "SPOILERS" where after Tomura destroyed his family and house, he sat waiting for someone to help, and many people walked past him believing that a hero would deal with it. it would have been simple some one of them to walk over and talk to him, to ask if he was ok and if they could help, by either taking him to the police or to a hero, but it was easier for them to just walk past and ignore him, thinking that someone else with help when they could. This ties in with what lily was saying about weather the people affected should be the persons who does nothings sins or not. its easy to walk away from a situation and ignore the consequences of that decision than try to do something. some people only want to do what is easiest, which unfortunately, is to walk away and ignore it. no matter the consequences.

[@danieljohnson1123]

Long-time listener, first-time commentator. To the answer to the question at the end of the video, yes and I find it interesting in the difference between programs that feature superheroes/extraordinary beings that do and don't tackle this question. Star Wars shows and films did not question the morality of the villains (before Kylo) because they were in war and knew a world without the empire would be a better one than a world with it. Despite its flaws, Legend of Korra understood this and each villain had to be stopped. Whether they be arrested like Kuvira and Zaheer or killed like Unalaq or the other Lotus members, the main characters knew the goal was just to take them out of power by whatever means necessary. Morality did not come into play because the character's literal job in the universe was to stop the antagonist (Star Wars and LOK). I think that is an interesting item to remember: these character's job is to protect the world. A Green Lantern cannot be against using deadly force because they might have to kill to stop a villain from destroying planets. A world leader cannot ignore an active invasion of their land because of the potential loss of lives (I believed you mentioned something of this effect previously). The same goes for a Jedi, as shown in that clip of the EP3 videogame where Anakin (for selfish reasons) wants to ignore doing the obvious thing, despite being both a Jedi and a general in a war that has already caused costless deaths and suffering. Windu can surrender his morality because he has to. He knows the simple equation of kill the sith lord equals no more war. And at the end of the day, Anakin showed his code to be completely selfish and that he is willing to kill when necessary to preserve something that he believes can help him, only then something is not a system, but someone he believes can save his wife. Writing this, I am reminded of the scene from "Endgame" when War Machine asks why not kill baby Thanos and Hulk calls him out for it, to which WM reminds him that it's Thanos. It's funny because the writers had to give a reason why that wouldn't work, otherwise that would be the safer and easier plan when compared to what they had to do. Also, Thanos comes back later, and guess what, they had to kill adult Thanos anyway and there was no questioning the decision. Now to slightly contradict myself but not really: I think the only "cannot kill" rule that has been done well is when it involves Superman because the thought of an unkillable god in human form is terrifying even when he says he doesn't kill. Add onto that he does kill when necessary makes that horrifying and the Injustice games illustrate how that is done well. However, that comes with two addendums: First, Superman has been willing to kill other superbeings like Doomsday. He is willing to sacrifice his morality when necessary. He can probably do it more like with Luthor, but that's just me. And second, with Injustice and the First season of Justice League Unlimited, seeing a world of a Superman in charge does provide a visual image of "oh, yeah, we don't want Superman to be like colonial Europe/US." And with that being said, it is still ridiculous because I don't think killing one person (Joker and Luthor) makes you a dictator. Especially when those people are two of the evilest men in your universe. It is a good jump scare to the audience to see the character completely different from their usual self, but I always found the stories like Reefer Madness. "Kill one person and you become Stalin!" "Smoke one joint and you commit murder!" Injustice works more because you see more of the process of Superman becoming evil and also, how his grief and depression are driving his actions, but generally, even as a kid, I found the stories, cartoony. Luke would have still been a Jedi if he killed Vader. Aang would have still been a good Avatar if he killed the Fire Lord (and I like both pieces of media, but still believed this) and Superman can still be a hero if he killed the Luthor. All three would definitely need to talk to someone and take a few days off afterward, but all three would still be heroes. Well, this was a fun exercise. Hopefully didn't contradict myself or make too many grammatical errors and can't wait till the follow-up video! Have a nice day :)

[@homuncuhottie]

Inaction when you have the ability to stop another from causing harm is in fact a moral failing I fully agree with this. I also fully agree it can still be an interesting story to frame it as a moral failing on the character who did not act but were in a circumstance where if they did act they would receive hostile or violent action in return, perhaps in a situation of abuse. Its still on the character that these people died but there is an actual reason other than sticking to worthless principals. It would actually be worth discussing if the characters inaction was worth it in the moment to free themselves later or not worth it at all and either way in freedom that character still must make amends for what they did no do. At least there is something of value if you want to play the inactive hero

[@isobelrose7189]

If killing the person would make the situation worse, you shouldn't kill them. Of course, you'd need actual proof that killing them would make it worse, and if you do get that proof and you can't kill them you should still do something else to fix the problem. I believe that, if possible, you should put them in prison rather than kill them. I haven't read your fanfic, but the way you described it makes it seem like the Sith lady didn't consider prison as an option. However, considering the way you described the people she killed, they'd probably weasel out of it, so I think not considering prison in this case is fine. And while I don't think characters who use lethal force should feel guilty, I don't think they should be cavalier about it. If you need to kill someone, fine. And I do think people can deserve death as a result of their horrible actions, but it's still a serious matter. Unless it's a comedy. If it's a comedy, be nonchalant. It's funny.

[@christopherhicks858]

I'm guessing the reason media has elected to take the inaction is heroism path has a lot to do with how we define justice. Our modern understanding of justice, as a society, involves due process, state officers, people to make your case to, and a judge. Any actions taken that undermine that system (i.e. killing a serial abuser) are colored as less heroic because you've put yourself and your moral code above the system. Killing a serial abuser, although it certainly reduces their future ability to inflict harm, is wrong because it robs the system of the power to enact justice. Putting the power to enact justice in the hands of the system, even if it means doing nothing, is painted as the more heroic option because it empowers the justice system. Tldr: killing someone to prevent harm is widely seen as wrong because it undermines the systems in place to enact justice

[@kenndreafoltz8632]

Morality is entirely subjective, until you reach the point of life or death. The only thing that really grounds any human ideals and goals is the perpetuation of life. This is because life is all we know. Not because life is sacred, but because we have no metric by which to measure its value, thereby making life priceless. Egoism is a flawed concept, because you need other people to survive and thrive. Egoism is not a moral concept, and that is because it undermines the very foundation of morality. Egoism is lazy and childish, because it prevents you from taking on emotional burdens when you need to. If you fail to pull that lever and save those four people, you have deigned that your emotions and self image are more important than three people's lives.

[@ThePiachu]

We have had the idea that killing is always wrong ingrained in our minds for too long, which short-circuits people thinking. It is refreshing to see characters solve problems from a new point of view since it challenges those ingrained assumptions. So killing vile people, punching bullies, or lynching exploitative rich people and the like should be an approach to explore in stories like that.

[@stopmotiongarage220]

Doing nothing in the name of moral purity makes you nearly as bad as those who chuck morality aside for personal ambition or righteousness. The pacifism of so many shows began frustrating me some time ago because when you break it down, there is always someone willing to use violence to achieve thier goals. If it isn't you using it to defend what's important then eventually it will be someone else using violence to destroy what you love so long as it gets them what they want.

[@claireity8490]

Straight up doing nothing for "moral purity" is the same as declaring the moral high ground. Batman for example has caused untold amounts of suffering in random citizens as well as the people he considers FAMILY. It's like injustice 2, superman finally calls out batman for his convenient rule against killing and a refusal to accept the consequences his actions bring. Like everytime batman puts joker in arkham, and every time he gets out and kills more people. I dare say batman would watch the world burn around him and everyone he knows die, if the only way to stop a threat was to kill it. Morality means nothing if it allows people to die. That's not moral.

[@watchm4ker]

Here's a better question: Why haven't the police killed the Joker? How does a know, frequent, and unrepentant cop-killer escape reprisals while at their mercy? Why hasn't he suffered any 'accidents' while in custody? Why hasn't he been shot while attempting an escape (real or invented)? Because of 'moral character'? The *Gotham City* Police? Why is it Batman's responsibility when the Joker escapes incarceration? What of the judges that sentence him to Arkham? Or Arkham's management and staff? Or the mayor and council for allowing Arkham to be incapable of handling the supervillains sent there?

[@thelilartzy]

“The only people we beat under this house are Nazis.” - My Puerto Rican Grandma

[@namiburali5611]

inaction is in and o f itself an action. I've actually asked my coworkers a variant of this question. "If you had the opportunity to kill a serial killer who is actively murdering the people around you to the detriment of society, and who has a very real chance of harming your closest family, would you do it?" and the response I got was an overwhelming "No." the only exceptions would have been "If the murderer came at me, and I could kill them in self defense." and I always found that interesting that they would make that choice only if it was in that scenario. its absolutely WILD to me that they would actively choose to let a known murderer go free if they had the ability to stop it. another dodge I got was "what kind of serial killer?" because people have seen the show Dexter and get hung up on THAT bit of morality, but then say no anyway after we exclude Dexter from the conversation. They're fine with someone else killing the bad people, but they themselves don't want to get the blood on their hands for the greater good of protecting people from harm. Wild.

[@Traiden]

One might consider permanently disfiguring and rendering the evil person incapable of doing what ever acts of evil so that they might be a mouthpiece to warn more of the retribution coming towards those who follow in their footsteps might be an alternative to the full on killing, but yeah, pull the level as many times as it takes to save the most people. You only need one survivor to act as the mouthpiece after all.

[@kaiad.1903]

I always viewed anti-heroes as a protagonist that not everyone will agree with, even if the way they think is something they DO agree with. Unfortunately that's kinda turned into "do they kill people" which really caps the ability to give anti-heroes any nuance. It's enough to make me want to disregard the concept entirely. As much as I hate to call back to A:tLA as much as I do and let it rest, Zuko is a somewhat passable example of what I would consider an anti-hero. Not everyone agreed that we should forgive him for what he did, despite being set up to and the warforged tragic childhood, even if the gaang eventually did. He was someone that COULD be argued against. I've heard of people saying Deadpool is an anti-hero and that never really sat right with me, I'm unsure why. I'm not sure if I learned this from you speaking on it, but not every protagonist is a hero and not every hero is a protagonist, an anti-hero is an attempt to still make a sense of that while still shoving them back into a hero-esque light. *Azula would be an anti-villain because while she did fucked up shit it could be debated whether she is as fault for it because of her abuse and general upbringing and, yknow, war does that

[@mercedes6076]

I agree with you 100%, no exaggeration! It’s genuinely extremely validating to hear someone else say this! 😊 To answer the question: Yes. If a person has the ability to stop or reduce the suffering of victims of injustice, and they don’t, they may not be “responsible” for said suffering, but they have just become complicit. The concept of what would actually help people never crosses most people’s mind in scenarios like these because they believe utilizing any force against anyone is just as bad regardless of context (even if they do nothing when they see force actually being abused) and therefore through their inaction, prioritize the perpetrator over the victims. People may sanctimoniously believe these types of “violence against the violent is bad” platitudes, but they never actually practice them. They’re more interested in being classified as a “good person” (an obedient person) by the system, that actually being a good person. Holocausts survivor, Elie Wiesel famously said “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere” I can’t think of anything that rings more true, than that.

[@mercedes6076]

Apologies for the typos

[@pn2294]

I’m glad we’ve settled on violence being the solution

[@ithinkflutterawesome6511]

I think egotism is a very intresting thing to explore in a protagonist. If they choose their own ego in the trolley problem, they abide by a strict code, and *refuse* to break it. And it might lead to serious consequences in the narrative, with people getting badly hurt, and other characters harboring resentments for the protagonists inability to actually kill the root of the problem. The protagonist still wants what's best, they want to help people, but they have come done on the side of refusing to kill. And no matter how hard they try to save every single person, at the back of their mind, they'll have to live with the fact that on some level, they are enabling the antagonist, and the cycle of violence is their own fault. Whether or not they're a good person, is up to debate, even if their motivations are rooted in kindness.

[@TheCalcMan]

If I remember correctly, this was basically the theme of the Dark Knight

[@ithinkflutterawesome6511]

@@TheCalcMan I've never watched The Dark Night but that's pretty cool.

[@GateDoors]

The choice to do nothing in the trolley problem would be a form of negligence, whether or not you pull that switch you’d will be responsible for someone’s death, and at that point either accept that and reduce the amount of death or willfully cause more from inaction

[@kylerjohnson2638]

To phrase it in terms of the trolley problem, "Whether or not you choose to flip the switch, exactly zero deaths are your fault." If you choose to do nothing, the 50's villain who tied those people down killed 5 people. If you choose to flip the switch (the obvious better moral choice imo), the 50's villain killed one person. So while I can applaud your character for killing abusers (at least in the abstract where real people aren't getting ganked), I can also whole-heartedly say that choosing to do nothing would have added zero additional suffering to *her* plate. The suffering rests solely on the actors, not on the shoulders of people who have the chance to fix it through whatever means may be at their disposal. I mostly am saying this to myself, because not taking responsibility for every blessed wrong in the world is something that I'm actively working through in therapy.

[@raptor5700]

i was interested in this video when you announced it based on its title alone, and i can happily say i wasn’t disappointed with its content. i don’t have an entirely unique answer for the ending question and i don't just want to comment that, so instead i’m going to watch through the video a few more times and jot down the thoughts i have at specific points. this might be a bit messy and inconclusive because of that, but maybe someone else will find it interesting. edit: changed the wording/structure of a few sentences that were bugging me 1) Antiheroes Overly Sarcastic Productions’ video came to mind pretty quickly. the Antihero is so difficult to define because it’s own definition (either a hero with a: unheroic qualities, or b: a lack of heroic qualities) is entirely subjective; what one person views as ‘unheroic’ or even ‘heroic’ could be completely different from the next. Antihero is not a meaningful label at this point, it’s a personal one. it’s used by the creator to tell the audience, in the most basic way possible, that this character doesn’t fully embody what the creator thinks is heroic. 2) The Sith Resurgence i’ll start this section off by saying i’ve been reading TSR since its chapter count was in the single digits. and i’ve really enjoyed it; it’s one of my favorite fanfics. the ‘criticism’ you’ve received over the Canto Bight chapter is really weird. especially from the ‘killing vs murder’ semantics guy; you can see in the last 2 paragraphs of his rant that he implies he wouldn’t be upset about Amorosa killing the trillionaires if they had threatened her first. to him, what makes your actions wrong is how direct or intentional they are; since the trillionaires aren’t making people suffer on purpose, they’re not evil (or at least don’t deserve to be killed as punishment), but Amorosa makes the deliberate choice to kill them, so she’s evil. which is a bizarre way to look at the situation. we live in an era where information is basically free, so the 1% existing as they are means that they are either aware of the suffering they cause and don’t care, which is straight-up evil, or have taken the steps to not be aware of it, which is a level of ignorance so malicious it might as well be evil. Star Wars (to me knowledge) doesn’t have an internet like we do, but in both The Last Jedi and TSR people are clearly aware that the Canto Bight trillionaires got there by selling weapons to the First Order, which is a fascist empire trying to take over the galaxy. the trillionaires on Canto Bight would be evil even if they didn’t have slaves or made their money through entirely unharmful means. personally, i’m not sure if i was in Amorosa’s place that i would make the same decision. there are a number of reasons for that, like: • being raised and taught in a largely Catholic environment • not being a Sith • being very hesitant to engage in violence myself but i’m not the one in the story, and Amorosa wasn’t raised like i was. her lived experiences have taught her that the Republic won’t deal with these people, so as someone with the power to do so, she must. and as a Sith Lord, her methods are, well, efficient. there’s also the effects of the setting to consider. the scene we’re talking about follows the same beats as the one in TLJ- so while all of this is happening, the Resistance is being hunted by the First Order, which puts Amorosa and Poe on the clock. they have a limited amount of time to do anything on Canto Bight, so anything they do must be done quickly. so in this instance, to achieve the desired result (stopping the rich from hurting more people and redistributing their wealth) it’s faster to use Amorosa’s way (just killing them) than it is to use what my way might be (bringing the harm their actions have done to light until either a) they say they'll change, or b) they say they won't change (let's face it though, they won’t). and if it's B, then threatening them, where either a) it works, or b) it doesn't work, and then killing them.) there’s a time and place for my way, just as there’s a time and place for Amorosa’s way. my way wouldn’t really work here, even though i'd really like it to, so i will take the only other way that's available. 3) The Trolley Problem i’ve always been fine with pulling the lever in this scenario, so long as i am not the only person who goes to jail. i’m fine with the justice system saying i had committed a crime, (because i would have) so long as i am not the only person who's done so. i didn’t tie 6 people to the tracks, and i didn’t give the trolley a shitty braking system. i made a choice, but i’m not the only person who made a choice, y’know? maybe that's a more complex scenario than the trolley problem was designed for, but it's already kinda weird. philosophy is weird. 4) The Ending Questions “If a character has the power to stop innocent people from dying at the expense of their own personal morality and they choose not to, are those deaths their fault?” yes, at least partially. they didn’t kill that guy, but they are now part the reason that guy’s dead. “Is doing nothing in the name of moral purity, itself a moral failing?” yes. it is morally right to help others, so choosing to preserve your perceived moral ‘right-ness’ over helping fails the former condition.