Kaifuku Jutsushi no Yarinaoshi - Vol. 6 Ch. 25.1

[criver]

@urmumske
That is not a question, it is a statement. Even assuming that the goal here is supposedly removing the "worst" people, this still only requires killing them, not torturing them. The torture part comes from a perverse sense of justice and a descent to the base human instincts without a shred of rationality. Keep on reading my answers to the other comments below - they should clarify what I mean.

@Destinyfckr
You need to read more books and also some history (preferably WW2).

@Qelix

Your also right about "an eye for an eye" being a barbaric policy, but it is also a very fundamental part of our sense of justice.

Not justice - revenge, the two are not interchangeable. Revenge often has little to do with justice - people are ready to trample over justice and hurt other innocent people in the process of achieving their revenge. This is actually a perfect illustration of the means not justifying the end.

Also, as it is like an instinct, it is satiable.

Not in the way the MC is going about it. There has been research done on this topic - the main goal of revenge as an evolutionary instinct was to deter individuals from hurting social communities . This is also the reason why the person enacting the revenge wants his victim to know why this is being done. This answers your question:

What I don't get is why he told her about his circumstances.

So if he believes that she's incorrigible, rationally death would be more than enough, and anything beyond is just his own perversion.

Also, as it is like an instinct, it is satiable. Sometimes there is not enough revenge, but the cruel truth is, it does fill your stomach to a certain degree. Sometimes to the point you can move on.

This goes against the results from research done on this topic. People have described emptiness and feeling worse, not satiety, after enacting their revenge. His desire for torture is his own perversion + disproportionately strong retaliatory reaction, where he "overreacts" to the given stimulus instead of reacting only with the required severity.

Maybe so he can get his fill, but it's still stupid.

Most of MC's actions are stupid. He's not thinking rationally - he's like a child with PTSD that got too much power.

See the link at the end of my post. It may provide interesting insights.

@Tamerlane

Not only does it force her to go through the same traumatic experience of having to be sexually assaulted and dominated by people she's not attracted to, which is what she forced upon other women, but it also has some symbolism in that she was basically "eating her own," so to say, by slaughtering her own people and killing defenselessly girls and civilians who did nothing to provoke or harm her.

Which achieves nothing but introducing more pain and suffering, and confirming that the MC is as perverted and stupid or more.

how it poses some interesting moral and ethical dilemmas, and that there's an interesting and nuanced conversation to be had about if MC is justified or not.

There are no moral or ethical dilemmas here that cannot be resolved in an uncomplicated manner. He just lost control, turned off his brain, and fell back to his base instincts while overreacting.

The simple truth is - revenge doesn't lead to catharsis, it just opens old wounds, and substitutes a rational response for a primal instinctive and emotional one.

See: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/06/revenge for more details, specifically:

In the feelings survey, the punishers reported feeling worse than the non-punishers, but predicted they would have felt even worse had they not been given the opportunity to punish. The non-punishers said they thought they would feel better if they'd had that opportunity for revenge—even though the survey identified them as the happier group. In other words, both groups thought revenge would be sweet, but their own reported feelings agreed more with MLK Jr. than with Exodus.

"Rather than providing closure, it does the opposite: It keeps the wound open and fresh," he says.

 

[rainparadox]

this healer already fell from grace the moment he want to take revenge.Revenge is like burning some pesky weeds or pests but youre surrounded by the weeds as well,the moment you burn those weeds you will also burn yourself.In my opinion the better thing to do if im the healer is just starting a coup or revolution,make the people open their eyes those who you called heroes are actually a wicked people like power hungry wizard,rapist swordwoman,and murderer gunner.I mean law and court are exist with a reason you know.

 

[theShear]

@criver You are right, I should have written Antagonist. Or "not 'The Villain of the Story'".

 

[stefankeys]

Few manga are as moral as this. Lol the simps throwing a hissy fit because the MC is getting revenge from some women rather than men this time.

 

[criver]

@theShear The MC is the protagonist, not the antagonist - look up the definition. The antagonists are the characters he takes revenge on.

 

[lyme]

@Sep10trion what other revenge hero?

 

[lyme]

@ rainparadox

I think your downplaying how different it would be to start a revolution and how many people will die from it. Laws and courts are design to uphold the people in power. If rapists and murders are in power the laws and court system is going to reflect that.

 

[Veruschka]

WHYYYYY IT ENDEDN JUST BEFKRE THE MAIN PART

 

[larcek]

no way is he gonna let this hero go at morning. but well, he never mentioned which morning i guess.

 

[Karkeys]

Let her join the harem probably

 

[Akaze]

He's that dumb villain who explains their whole plan before getting their ass kicked

 

[saito197]

Mfw it ends right before the rape -_-

I'm calling it she gonna get some mind break action next chapter, and knowing MC it's possible that he will let the thugs eat her while she's climaxing.

Now I gotta head off to sadpanda to deal with this boner excuse me.

 

[womangadex]

I love the MC healer. Did he have sex with her?

 

[Tamerlane]

Okay, but an ironic and symbolic fate is more a product of story-telling and of achieving a cathartic end in the audience.

It's not like MC hasn't played with the idea that he's going to be unsatisfied once his revenge is over, he has on multiple occasions, but he ultimately reasons that he should go through with it regardless.

But I think you've misunderstood my point in the fact that Keyaru's actions lead to greater moral questions, where I'm not focusing on what his justifications are, specifically, nor really him as a character, but the effects of his actions. As horrible as the deeds he does are, they're undeniably effective, and he's essentially preventing society from falling into the hands of a bunch of genocidal and psychopathic rapists and murderers, even if this is not his intention.

The question of whether Keyaru will be satisfied with his actions once his revenge is complete is another conversation, (I personally don't think he cares, because the vindication for him in the moment will outweigh his long term desires) but what I find more interesting is the other, unintended effects.

What do you have to do to Hitler (or any figure that embodies this level of "evil," if you would like) before people believe you've crossed the line? Is there something so horrendous and unimaginably immoral that you can do to someone who is just as unimaginably vile and repugnant? This is the primary kind of moral dilemma I was referring to. Whether or not this will curtail Keyaru's behavior long-term is a different question, but both are interesting points with nuances to themselves within the work.

Hell, I'd argue that the author's ability to raise these questions naturally speaks for the strength of the work in and of itself to some extent, as the moral ambiguity around Keyaru and what he'll do once he's done everything he wants is one brought into focus often and raises some questions.
@criver

Spoiler

Nope, her fate is what you'd think it is

@Karkeys @womangadex

 

[criver]

@Tamerlane
The spoiler is just for compression purposes.

Spoiler

achieving a cathartic end in the audience.

As already mentioned, this does not lead to catharsis. In fact it reinforces incorrect behavioural patterns that lead to nothing positive.

but he ultimately reasons that he should go through with it regardless.

He doesn't reason - he simply falls back to his primal instincts, and reasoning is sacrificed in favor of and emotional PTSD-fueled reaction. Similar to the participants in the cited study, he is emotionally stupid, and mispredicts the effect of his actions. The only difference here is that he is more perverse, has PTSD, and the fact that he was given more power.

As horrible as the deeds he does are, they're undeniably effective, and he's essentially preventing society from falling into the hands of a bunch of genocidal and psychopathic rapists and murderers, even if this is not his intention.

His actions are not effective because of his revenge - they are effective in spite of it. The main reason why his actions are effective is because he has more power than the average citizen, however, he is more preoccupied with enacting his revenge over making a positive change. Basically, most people would do a better job if given his power and knowledge. To put it simply, he is just put in a position where his actions have a positive effect because the premise is designed in such a way.

Is there something so horrendous and unimaginably immoral that you can do to someone who is just as unimaginably vile and repugnant? This is the primary kind of moral dilemma I was referring to.

Whether an action is horrendous and immoral is not a function of the target. It is a cheap way for people to masquerade their perversions as "justified". Torture is torture regardless of the target. Granted, telling yourself that the person "deserved it" is convenient. Thus I do not believe there is any moral dilemma here. There's just human weakness and perversion, and letting an emotional response trump reason.

Hell, I'd argue that the author's ability to raise these questions naturally speaks for the strength of the work in and of itself to some extent, as the moral ambiguity around Keyaru and what he'll do once he's done everything he wants is one brought into focus often and raises some questions.

My gut feeling is that you're giving the author more credit than he deserves. As I see it, this is just a revenge power trip fantasy, where the antagonists are villainized to a comical level. The latter is done in order for the audience to be able to "justify" (but not really) the actions of the MC, allowing some to identify with him.

 

[Destinyfckr]

@Criver Would you care to be more specific? History is quite extensive after all (a lot of things happened during WW2) and there are a lot of books out there.

 

[Tamerlane]

If you thought your post needed to be compressed, then I have some news for you...@criver

Spoiler

1) For starters, I specifically was talking about catharsis within the audience. This specifically refers to solving loose ends and serving audience's sense of justice. The error with your argument is that it relies on the psychological phenomena outside of a fictional work to justify why it would be bad for a certain character to seek justice. Whether or not seeking revenge is beneficial or not is not the point of catharsis in the audience, but that it resolves tension in a way befitting of the situation. This resolution can be good or bad. The classical example is when Oedipus finally learns the truth that his prophecy has already come true and the curse upon Thebes is his fault, and so he stabs his own eyes out after his wife/mother, Jocasta, hangs herself. Naturally, this is not a positive or happy event, but it is a cathartic moment for the audience due to the build up in tension within the story leading up to it. You've misconstrued this to mean that the main character is finding satisfactions with his revenge, which, while he is, is not the point I am making nor is it a judgement on whether him finding value in his revenge is a positive or negative thing.

2) Consider that, in MC's mind, this is how people act. He's been psychologically conditioned by the party that abused him to act this way because they reconditioned him INTO this. Any empathy or good will towards those that wronged him has been breed out after years of drugging, raping, abusing, torturing, and terrorizing him. His justifications, whilst they may seem illogical to us, are consistent to what has been established for his character. Whilst you may not personally like him, that is not a flaw with the work as it is in-line with how we know Keyaru acts and thinks, and, whilst we know what he is doing is wrong, he is able to justify to himself, and doesn't really betray his own principles by leaving those who are unaffiliated or do not impede his revenge alone.

He doesn't behave like a mindless animal, but there's a method to his actions. He has his own internal moral code which, whilst you and I disagree with it, is consistent to how he acts. Ultimately, that's how you depict any character with their own philosophy or understanding, and even if you disagree with that presentation, it's not something that detracts from nor is objectively wrong with a work.

3) I'd say it's undeniable that, even without his powers, he's effective, as demonstrated by not only revealing that the people from his town had already been poisoned to rally public support for his cause, but also staging the Princess to seem as if she is on his side, (which she technically is) and being able to successful rally others to his cause such as the aspiring black-winged demon queen. His revenge serves as a catalyst for this action and its his character motivation for the majority of his actions. This isn't a fault with a work, and I don't see how it's an issue. Sure, sometimes his vengeance quest has unforeseen consequences such as the death of his first love because he pursued revenge over killing the captain of the guard, but, aside from moving the agency of the captain, it only goes to show the nuances within the work and that MC isn't an infallible Mary Sue. I think that it'd be bad writing to have him not have revenge for his quest.

Additionally, whilst it is true he does not care that his actions are leading to a better world, it is undeniable that they are, which is why it produces the interesting dilemma I talked about. It's the issue in economics where people respond to incentives and that those incentivizes lead to action. How much does intention matter when considering the end results? It's a difficult question, and it's why we discriminate between murder from incidental manslaughter, or how we differentiate between crimes of passion and premeditated crimes.

However, the position can also be inversed. Say you donate large sums of money to charity so that you get a tax break, or that you accidentally prevent a catastrophe from occurring, even if it's not your intention. Is what you did diminished by impure intentions? If so, why? The amount of good you did (if that can be quantified) remains the same and no one knows why you did it besides yourself, and, if not, how far can this logic extend to before it no longer applies? You can't in good faith give clear answers to these questions as they'd always be some kind of exception or logical issue, and I believe that this manga is exploring that dilemma as far as it can by seeing how far a person can go before what they did would be considered "too far."

4) Whilst that may be your philosophical take, it's difficult to apply that standard in my opinion. For instance, the way it's phrased it removes the value of context to the situation. For instance, killing someone in self-defense is considered to be morally defensible by most people, but if your argument is that the action itself would be wrong, then it's murder irregardless. Alternatively, it would also pose things like accidental manslaughter and premeditated homicide on the same level. The argument removes the important of context and I believe that the position lacks the ability to differentiate crimes or actions because it holds everything to some kind of objective level, which itself is debate to whether it even exists or even can exist.

The philosophy of morality is a vastly interesting topic, and I think that you've boiled down the potential complexity within it to a point that it's almost reductionist. It's basically a rabbit hole with no end.

5) My only response to this point is the same from the other thread I linked. I would say that even if the author himself supported that position, the work would still stand on its own and it doesn't invalidate my analysis of the situation. You are entitled to your own judgement over a work, but it all relies in strength of the argument and how well you can root your interpretations within the work itself. From my understanding, what I have presented here is backed up by specific sections within both the light novel and the manga, and that I have not read too deeply into the text because I can justify my opinions on both in individual events and in regards to the work as a whole in what it's trying to communicate.

Feel free to disagree, but this is the text as I see it and what questions it is seeking to raise.

 

[uzee]

Even if she succeeds there's no way he's letting her live

 

[Personne_Nobody]

New tag: Mind Break

 

[Northern]

I enjoy poetic justice, but there's a fine line between proper revenge and wallowing in the same perversions. This is a bit much. Particularly the cannibalism bit.