549709
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
@Vaqvbu1a Lol? Torture is usually considered worse than killing someone. Death is just killing the enemy. Torture is making them suffer.
Death is clean and final. Torture is often followed by death anyway for one reason or another. Most moral standards consider torture unnecessary violence and suffering.
Think of it this way. Your going to kill someone. Does that mean it doesn't matter if you rape them first? Does the method of death not matter? Are you just as bad by most moral standards or your own feelings as the person who just kills them?
Death is clean and final. Torture is often followed by death anyway for one reason or another. Most moral standards consider torture unnecessary violence and suffering.
Think of it this way. Your going to kill someone. Does that mean it doesn't matter if you rape them first? Does the method of death not matter? Are you just as bad by most moral standards or your own feelings as the person who just kills them?
@Merilirem I disagree.
Murder + rape is worse than murder.
Murder + torture is worse than murder.
Murder + rape + torture is worse than either of above.
How they die matters.
But strictly torture is less than murder.
Tortured victim has a chance to regain their lives. There exists a possibility that they'll recover. Even if they don't, they continue to live. Dead person can do none of that.
I would argue that my POV is more in-line with what is considered a more usual viewpoint because the laws reflect so. Punishment for murder is worse than torture. Punishment for serial killing is clearly LOT worse than torture. I would say (since I don't want to actually start researching in depth and calculate to prove my point) murderers of history that tortured their victims and then killed them still received a lower penalty than those of serial killers. Serial killers are always held at the epitome of crime. He just killed a bunch of them and is going to kill a whole lot more of them.
Murder + rape is worse than murder.
Murder + torture is worse than murder.
Murder + rape + torture is worse than either of above.
How they die matters.
But strictly torture is less than murder.
Tortured victim has a chance to regain their lives. There exists a possibility that they'll recover. Even if they don't, they continue to live. Dead person can do none of that.
I would argue that my POV is more in-line with what is considered a more usual viewpoint because the laws reflect so. Punishment for murder is worse than torture. Punishment for serial killing is clearly LOT worse than torture. I would say (since I don't want to actually start researching in depth and calculate to prove my point) murderers of history that tortured their victims and then killed them still received a lower penalty than those of serial killers. Serial killers are always held at the epitome of crime. He just killed a bunch of them and is going to kill a whole lot more of them.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- May 3, 2018
- Messages
- 652
@Vaqvbu1a
@Merilirem
That depend on how bad is the torture.
You can say its worse than murder if it leaving a deliberating damage on victims body, that the victim will suffer thorough their life.
And in context of war... one can argue that torture is worse than murder. Soldiers often didn't have a choice in killing their opponent; you kill or to be killed. But torture is always a deliberate choice, and sometimes the torturer doing it not for information, but just to for a sake of torturing.
@Merilirem
That depend on how bad is the torture.
You can say its worse than murder if it leaving a deliberating damage on victims body, that the victim will suffer thorough their life.
And in context of war... one can argue that torture is worse than murder. Soldiers often didn't have a choice in killing their opponent; you kill or to be killed. But torture is always a deliberate choice, and sometimes the torturer doing it not for information, but just to for a sake of torturing.
@Vaqvbu1a It's not about which is worse (because that's subjective), it's about the implications. You can argue that he has to kill them due to necessity, that is, despite not wanting to kill them he has to. On the other hand it is questionable whether torture was necessary, or at least our MC doubts that, fear is often a more effective motivator than simply physical pain after all. Thus he sees one as a necessary evil, and the other as causing needless pain that was otherwise avoidable. And seeing as the residents of that world didn't even consider that point, he's once again reminded of what kind of characters they actually are.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2018
- Messages
- 676
You guys forget about basic war laws and psychology of warfare. There's a reason why it is considered okay to kill combatants while in conflict, but it is strictly prohibited to not only torture, but also treating POWs inhumanly.
War is an extreme extension of diplomacy. By exchanging damage numbers in both troops and property sense, countries are resolving their disputes, ultimately proving to each other who is more 'right'. Human resources that are no longer capable of changing these numbers (KIA, MIA and medevaced) are therefore no longer can be considered elements in this game. Because of this, they become technically uninvolved for the time being and therefore the agreements regarding damaging warring countries' resources (both human and material) no longer apply to them.
Simply put, conflicts such as wars are resolved by damaging, destroying each other's resources. Torture doesn't really help nearly as much as killing, and also is considered much more inhuman and uncivilized than simply killing people. Because of this, inhuman treatment, including torture, of noncombatants (i.e. anyone who can no longer continue carrying military actions) is condemned and prohibited by a number of laws and agreements worldwide.
That is to say, while a combatant is still engaged in action, that is, before they are killed or captured, it can be justified to torture them in order to gather military intelligence. Usually, though, such actions are carried out by special forces and exist in the grey area of legality.
In the case of this manhwa, since MC isn't originally a member of armed forces, he could feel tolerant towards killing someone in order to survive, but such things as torture would seem barbaric and horrible to him. All in all, the idea that torture is more humane than killing is flawed at its core because of the sheer amount of suffering that subject is receiving. The is a reason why in media we often see victims of torture asking to kill them instead.
War is an extreme extension of diplomacy. By exchanging damage numbers in both troops and property sense, countries are resolving their disputes, ultimately proving to each other who is more 'right'. Human resources that are no longer capable of changing these numbers (KIA, MIA and medevaced) are therefore no longer can be considered elements in this game. Because of this, they become technically uninvolved for the time being and therefore the agreements regarding damaging warring countries' resources (both human and material) no longer apply to them.
Simply put, conflicts such as wars are resolved by damaging, destroying each other's resources. Torture doesn't really help nearly as much as killing, and also is considered much more inhuman and uncivilized than simply killing people. Because of this, inhuman treatment, including torture, of noncombatants (i.e. anyone who can no longer continue carrying military actions) is condemned and prohibited by a number of laws and agreements worldwide.
That is to say, while a combatant is still engaged in action, that is, before they are killed or captured, it can be justified to torture them in order to gather military intelligence. Usually, though, such actions are carried out by special forces and exist in the grey area of legality.
In the case of this manhwa, since MC isn't originally a member of armed forces, he could feel tolerant towards killing someone in order to survive, but such things as torture would seem barbaric and horrible to him. All in all, the idea that torture is more humane than killing is flawed at its core because of the sheer amount of suffering that subject is receiving. The is a reason why in media we often see victims of torture asking to kill them instead.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
- Messages
- 3,405
I can see Vaqvbu1a's point (he treats life as a more precious thing than avoiding suffering and possible traumas), but Roktus were actually killed after the torture, so, even in his own words - "Murder + torture is worse than murder".
That said, torture is unfortunately such a simple way to get others to act like or tell what you want them to, i'm surprised Ju-Yoon didn't even consider she'd do it after she said "Collecting information".
That said, torture is unfortunately such a simple way to get others to act like or tell what you want them to, i'm surprised Ju-Yoon didn't even consider she'd do it after she said "Collecting information".
@Vaqvbu1a You..disagree? I was not advocating anything i was explaining the MC's opinion on the matter and why one would kill but not be ok with torture.
I never put anything forth as my own opinion. In the end its a subjective choice and has to be decided upon by the individuals involved. A good society decides based on the will of the people after all.
I never put anything forth as my own opinion. In the end its a subjective choice and has to be decided upon by the individuals involved. A good society decides based on the will of the people after all.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,734
With her red garment and her right hand claw she reminds me a lot of Vincent from Final Fantasy VII.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
- Messages
- 1,665
"You tortured them?!"
Is this guy serious? What did he think she was going to do?
He's not doing that thing where he protests 'evil' acts constantly to show the audience that he's a good guy, right? That kind of thing is so annoying and just makes the protagonist look dumb in this setting. (Certainly not saying he can't be disturbed by things, but he's being kind of overtly naive)
Is this guy serious? What did he think she was going to do?
He's not doing that thing where he protests 'evil' acts constantly to show the audience that he's a good guy, right? That kind of thing is so annoying and just makes the protagonist look dumb in this setting. (Certainly not saying he can't be disturbed by things, but he's being kind of overtly naive)
Similar threads
