Koko wa Ima kara Rinri desu. - Vol. 10 Ch. 55 - You Can't Refuse To Share Your Stance
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Group Leader
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2025
- Messages
- 29
Hello everyone.
In the time I've been away, I've been learning a bit more about typesetting. I have applied these new skills to this upload so the visual presentation is improved this chapter. This series is my first major foray into scanlation so I've been learning the ropes with each release.
I plan to re-typeset every chapter that I have worked on to get them all up to the visual standard of this upload. I will do this after #56 is finished.
We so are close to the finale.
See you next time in Ethics.
In the time I've been away, I've been learning a bit more about typesetting. I have applied these new skills to this upload so the visual presentation is improved this chapter. This series is my first major foray into scanlation so I've been learning the ropes with each release.
I plan to re-typeset every chapter that I have worked on to get them all up to the visual standard of this upload. I will do this after #56 is finished.
We so are close to the finale.
See you next time in Ethics.
NAW they're teenagers and they're super uncomfortable with the discussion and, honestly, the whole situation. Honestly, it's a little messed up that Takayanagi is using his students like this. No preamble, not time leading up to this sort of activity. Just throwing them at each other, not really guiding the ones who are scared and confused, allowing a student to kinda tower over another student. The whole scenario feels bad, the vibes are terrible. The kids lashing out or crying or being scared is something HE setup in the first place.
But he's definitely "going through it" right now. The art makes it look like he wants to lash out and scream at points. He's clearly bitter.
Ethics-sensei continuing to be one of the lowkey greats of this era. I've almost never read a chapter and felt it wasted its opportunity to explore something meaningful about the way a good teacher relates to his students and tries to treat them as adults. Thank you for your continuing work on this series.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2019
- Messages
- 516
The sensei using his students to grapple with the death of his sensei 
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 2,950
WE'RE HEADED INTO THE FINAL CHAPTER!
I think the one guy who's against it could have some good points, but his main one being human arrogance and a natural death even though we are also animals is not exactly the best one to bring up considering how unnaturally animals die to begin with. Most often by human hands, and not even necessarily out of good or bad will. Be it being put down, being raised and processed for food, or a side effect of human destruction. If his point is that execution and euthanasia are the same and both murder, then he'd be better off arguing about who gets to MAKE these decisions and who has the power in these situations. But he doesn't have the luxury of having thought about this before or personal experience. None of these literal kids really do. I don't envy their position
Actually kind of reminds me of why trolley problems exist in the first place. Like, nowadays we often use it as trying to decide between two bad things. But the original is to visualize a situation where many people will die if you do not personally kill one person. If there are no options left, do you turn the lever yourself
I think the one guy who's against it could have some good points, but his main one being human arrogance and a natural death even though we are also animals is not exactly the best one to bring up considering how unnaturally animals die to begin with. Most often by human hands, and not even necessarily out of good or bad will. Be it being put down, being raised and processed for food, or a side effect of human destruction. If his point is that execution and euthanasia are the same and both murder, then he'd be better off arguing about who gets to MAKE these decisions and who has the power in these situations. But he doesn't have the luxury of having thought about this before or personal experience. None of these literal kids really do. I don't envy their position
Actually kind of reminds me of why trolley problems exist in the first place. Like, nowadays we often use it as trying to decide between two bad things. But the original is to visualize a situation where many people will die if you do not personally kill one person. If there are no options left, do you turn the lever yourself
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2018
- Messages
- 9,856
I'm more of a case to case basis kinda side.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2025
- Messages
- 3
I like this chapter a lot. After reading it and thinking about it I don't think it's just about Sensei's emotions or euthanasia, the chapter seems more to be about "belief" and how him being a teacher doesn't allow him to express that.
Chouno is the one to unravel the debate for the selfish, pain fueled exercise where Sensei can see others go through his thoughts without having to feel the pain of thinking about euthanasia logically. He's the student who was taught to love and have confidence in his faith, and to not be afraid to speak about it. He recognizes someone who's not speaking his mind.
"You brought this up. You can't refuse to share your stance" is such a good phrase. You can see it as a critique of his teacher/student attitude. The students bring their problems up and are forced to have a position on them, to share what they feel, and in turn Sensei can point them in a direction that can help them. But that isn't "ethics", from the first debate (which was a celebration of the students accomplishments after the year while this one is an impromptu brainstorming session) Sensei reveals that the most important thing for him to teach is "dialogue" and yet he refuses to engage with the topic of euthanasia without refering to textbook "ethics" without saying what he truly feels.
The end is cathartic and almost shocking, because it's Sensei taking a position that he BELIEVES, not something that he justified for himself with logic or arguments, he believes it because his pain taught him that belief, that having someone tell him that they have "so much more they want to learn" and not getting to teach them, for even a second more, even knowing that maybe they're not even listening, is something he can't accept. It's something too deep in him to detatch from. He can't take the position that he thinks will teach the students, for the first time, he's forced to take the position that serves himself.
Chouno is the one to unravel the debate for the selfish, pain fueled exercise where Sensei can see others go through his thoughts without having to feel the pain of thinking about euthanasia logically. He's the student who was taught to love and have confidence in his faith, and to not be afraid to speak about it. He recognizes someone who's not speaking his mind.
"You brought this up. You can't refuse to share your stance" is such a good phrase. You can see it as a critique of his teacher/student attitude. The students bring their problems up and are forced to have a position on them, to share what they feel, and in turn Sensei can point them in a direction that can help them. But that isn't "ethics", from the first debate (which was a celebration of the students accomplishments after the year while this one is an impromptu brainstorming session) Sensei reveals that the most important thing for him to teach is "dialogue" and yet he refuses to engage with the topic of euthanasia without refering to textbook "ethics" without saying what he truly feels.
The end is cathartic and almost shocking, because it's Sensei taking a position that he BELIEVES, not something that he justified for himself with logic or arguments, he believes it because his pain taught him that belief, that having someone tell him that they have "so much more they want to learn" and not getting to teach them, for even a second more, even knowing that maybe they're not even listening, is something he can't accept. It's something too deep in him to detatch from. He can't take the position that he thinks will teach the students, for the first time, he's forced to take the position that serves himself.
Last edited:
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2023
- Messages
- 435
According to Anilist next chapter is the last one?
Group Leader
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2025
- Messages
- 29
That’s correct
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 613
Damn, I wanna see some reunion happened with other previous students. To think the closing story is the death of his mentor, quite devastating.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2020
- Messages
- 466
I agree, this is probably the most unprofessional/inappropriate we have seen of him; making his minor students an emotional outlet for his own personal reasons lol glad one of the student called him out how he expects only for them all to talk for something he's personally going through
Hope he talks to someone outside of school.
Last edited:
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2025
- Messages
- 368
What an ethical topic in the modern day.
Personally and selfishly, I am against it for others but fine if it's myself.
I want others to live out until their body gives way naturally, but if i've fuffiled my purpose, or if I am no longer of use while suffering from something, I would ask for it quickly and quietly.
Personally and selfishly, I am against it for others but fine if it's myself.
I want others to live out until their body gives way naturally, but if i've fuffiled my purpose, or if I am no longer of use while suffering from something, I would ask for it quickly and quietly.
MD@Home
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2018
- Messages
- 755
Interesting that you bring up the trolley problem, because the issue I have with it is connected to the topic of euthanasia and the concept of humanity's "arrogance" brought up in this chapter.
I think the arrogance of humanity is less about considering themselves special compared to other living beings, and more about their haste to categorize situations into extremes. Calling a person or concept "utterly evil". Narrowing a choice down to "this or that, no other options". Calling someone's suffering "unbearable".
I think we do this because it's easier. It grants us escape from the messiness of real life. Because in reality, almost without exception, no person is utterly evil, there are no binary choices, and no matter how badly someone suffers, you can likely point at someone else who lived through worse.
It can be maddening, and narrowing it down to simpler categories makes it much easier for us to make a decision. But easier does not necessarily mean better.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
- Messages
- 560
If someone has a DNR or takes a road trip to Aokigahara thats on them. One can argue in the DNR case that as humans if we can help, we should help, and good samaratin laws mandate that in places as well, which is part of why DNR's came about to begin with.
If the person hasn't made their own will clear though, thats a whole other thing and its reasonable to assume most folks want to live.
If the person hasn't made their own will clear though, thats a whole other thing and its reasonable to assume most folks want to live.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 9,988
Honestly if the previous class had covered the topic and they all came up with blanks, yeah the students were badly prepared, but this really feels like he woke up and choose violence, and threw them into the sharks to have a debate without being prepared
It is the same thing those debate channels pull off on YT, one conservative vs 100 first year college kids
That's just bad work ethics on his part
Behind the choice there's also the reality of authority and power, under what right do you get to actually pull the lever and change the outcome of the system? what gives you the backing to interfere other than the random chance of being there? and as thus who will actually bear the brunt of the outcome, this is tied to why there were workers working on active railways with transit on, and it is one of the primary psychological reasons behind why most people when put in practical recreations of the problem, do not actually pull the lever
Inaction and detachment in lieu of an actual lack of direct responsibility, weights way more than an ethical call to action, this is also why, people do use and attach themselves to the concept of "following orders" when they carry out actions that break the law or damage others when they know that their actions come from the pressure of someone above themselves
The idea that people will act or choose while disregarding their own social position is what flaws the original dilemma once experiments are ran, self preservation and the question of being able to get away with your choice then takes precedence to the choice itself, and is what more often dictates the outcome
It would have been really interesting if the student had immediately parried sense with the good old "and why are you against it", but sadly the chapter ended
You have to remember that this particular student is part of a Buddhist cult, so when he denounces the arrogance of humanity to put themselves above nature, he does it from a naturalist point of view, in that sense human life doesn't has any more dignity compared to any other creature, so the argument of euthanasia as a way to preserve dignity would be from the very start irrelevant, because no such dignity exist in the first place, that's also why he denounce murder, chance are very high that his particular branch of Buddhism also denounce the consumption of animals for food
You would then have to argue in favor of euthanasia by using other arguments, you would have to address his objection within his framework, if human life has no inherent dignity, and physical suffering is ever present and inevitable, is euthanasia a valid choice? another student also argued about suffering, but unable to specify which kind he was able to dodge the issue
The opposite is true, in order for him to make an argument against, he had to change the framework into one in which human life has no inherent dignity, but if the debate switch back to a framework in which the concept exist, then his argument wouldn't be valid
At the end of the day, none of them were really prepared to tackle a debate, and sensei himself was also trying to have others deal with the issue for him, for starters he didn't even bother to establish what would be the context within which the debate should take place in, he just pulled the trigger
It is the same thing those debate channels pull off on YT, one conservative vs 100 first year college kids
That's just bad work ethics on his part
Behind the choice there's also the reality of authority and power, under what right do you get to actually pull the lever and change the outcome of the system? what gives you the backing to interfere other than the random chance of being there? and as thus who will actually bear the brunt of the outcome, this is tied to why there were workers working on active railways with transit on, and it is one of the primary psychological reasons behind why most people when put in practical recreations of the problem, do not actually pull the lever
Inaction and detachment in lieu of an actual lack of direct responsibility, weights way more than an ethical call to action, this is also why, people do use and attach themselves to the concept of "following orders" when they carry out actions that break the law or damage others when they know that their actions come from the pressure of someone above themselves
The idea that people will act or choose while disregarding their own social position is what flaws the original dilemma once experiments are ran, self preservation and the question of being able to get away with your choice then takes precedence to the choice itself, and is what more often dictates the outcome
It would have been really interesting if the student had immediately parried sense with the good old "and why are you against it", but sadly the chapter ended
You have to remember that this particular student is part of a Buddhist cult, so when he denounces the arrogance of humanity to put themselves above nature, he does it from a naturalist point of view, in that sense human life doesn't has any more dignity compared to any other creature, so the argument of euthanasia as a way to preserve dignity would be from the very start irrelevant, because no such dignity exist in the first place, that's also why he denounce murder, chance are very high that his particular branch of Buddhism also denounce the consumption of animals for food
You would then have to argue in favor of euthanasia by using other arguments, you would have to address his objection within his framework, if human life has no inherent dignity, and physical suffering is ever present and inevitable, is euthanasia a valid choice? another student also argued about suffering, but unable to specify which kind he was able to dodge the issue
The opposite is true, in order for him to make an argument against, he had to change the framework into one in which human life has no inherent dignity, but if the debate switch back to a framework in which the concept exist, then his argument wouldn't be valid
At the end of the day, none of them were really prepared to tackle a debate, and sensei himself was also trying to have others deal with the issue for him, for starters he didn't even bother to establish what would be the context within which the debate should take place in, he just pulled the trigger
Last edited:
