Kusuriya no Hitorigoto - Vol. 8 Ch. 37 - Balsam and Wood Sorrel (Part 1)

[Kuntatooooo]

Wait, so what happened in the end there? I dont think i understand the finger thing there. Or perhaps even the whole situation.

 

[Broken25]

@Kuntatooooo

Ok so

Those two had sex (Mao Mao mother incited it to lower her own price so he could afford to buy her -> that's more clear in the novel than here)

Then before he could buy her, he got sent in a military expedition for several years.

While he was out, Mao Mao was born, and her mother value tanked, so she was forced to start taking costumers

Then she got sifilis and when Rao got back from the army she cursed him sending the cut finger.

 

[Stadenwick]

wait what, why do i get humanization of the villain?

 

[cryum]

@Nep I think you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying about Uncle. Forget it, I'm not going to read spoilers to argue this point.

I don't understand how you can claim those two points for Granny and Rakan at the same time, but:

I emphasized money because that was the most important source of health. Of COURSE it would include a person and/or favors that go with it. Is that the same as personally being there? Technically almost, since they would be able to send a letter to Rakan instead of the stonewalling they got, but yes being there would have been better.

And you're saying it's not fair to expect that of him with his condition, but that's literally what he's doing now with the entire family and Rahan at his disposal. Not all of that required the father dead.

 

[Granitefish]

@Stadenwick he's not really a Villain, just a person the protagonist considers an Antagonist. He just wants to be a part of her life. He's got some mental issues that go about it in not so great ways, but he's not really a bad guy for it just an opposing force.
It explains at some point that

Spoiler

A defining feature of their family is that they are obsessive, possibly autistic, and become focused on their interests above all. In the WN part of the reason he took over the family and kicked out his father and brother is because they didn't have this characteristic and were hurting the family by spurning it. The Nephew does share this in regards to moving money around.

 

[denzith]

This chapter fills in some missing pieces in chapter 29 (Syphilis). Feelsbad. Why did Maomao get her finger damaged tho?

 

[Rohan_sensei]

Oh man kinda sad

 

[Granitefish]

@denzith the mother tried to send Maomao's finger as well, she was stopped but not before she'd done permanent damage to it.

 

[sukaley]

@denzith from the info we have so far, I'm assuming when she cut off her own pinky, Feng Shen also tried cutting off Maomao's, so that she could send both to Rakan.

@Broken25 I just wanna say I agree with you.

I know it's been played for laughs, but the fact that Granny is always trying to sell Maomao off and get her working as a courtesan made me dislike her from the very start. She may be a product of the times/just going along with the established system, but the brothel system is inherently wrong, and she is not a sympathetic character just for being nice to the courtesans who are effectively her cattle. A kind and benevolent slave-owner is still a slave-owner. I mean, you can make me watch The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas all you want, but just because that family was humanized doesn't mean I didn't still hate the Nazi officer father.

 

[24element]

Is Chapter 29's women MaoMao's mom? If that is the case, than its hella sad

 

[Soulwarfare]

Ooh what a twist

 

[goldfish178]

I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS CHAPTER AND IT DIDN'T DISAPPOINT 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

 

[Sirona]

@sukaley Truedaat. Though I could understand why she wanted Maomao to become a courtesan. It's because that the only thing that the old lady knows to survive is to make her a courtesan. Y'know how difficult to live in a red light district and more difficult if you live in that place as a woman. The you gist the intention. For women in the brothels, probably the best way to find happiness is to take a bet to their chosen customer. Well, probably I am romanticizing the old lady but y'know, intentions. (Well, there's greed in her intentions as well.)

 

[Official229]

@Broken25 @Rgal I think the both of you are misunderstanding what @Scrwd was trying to point out to you (do correct me if I'm wrong tho @Scrwd).
The point he's trying to make with

You cannot be evil when your actions during your time and place were not considered evil.

is that, you cannot be evil for doing x, if the society in that time and place does not deem it to be evil.

Furthermore @Rgal, ignoring the obvious point that nobody here is implying what you quoted, the nazis considered themselves to be righteous, while those fighting against them considered them evil. Just with this, you're seeing that what determines evil is the society you are a part of.

Same with you @Broken25

"You cannot be evil when your actions during your time and place were not considered evil."

Lol what

By that logic caribbean plantation owners weren't evil, no matter how many slaves they worked to death.

Exploitation is exploitation no matter the era.

The society back then accepted slaves as a commodity, not as humans. Like you wouldn't care too much about your pencil or something breaking, the people back then wouldn't have cared about a slave dying from being overworked (maybe loss of profit or manpower, but that's probably it). Now is that wrong? Yes, and it's a good thing all of us here realize this (I really hope nobody will argue this). However, was what they were doing considered wrong in their era? No.

For example, imagine if you were taught all your life by your parents and those around you, that each time you left some leftover food on your plate, you were killing some kid in a far away place, and as a result, society would later begin to actively vilify anybody leaving leftover food. In such a society, the act of leaving leftover food, which isn't evil, would be considered evil, and so would anybody doing so.
The opposite would also be true, like for example with slavery. If everyone taught you that slaves were commodities, you would come to think so as well. Society would then reward you for aligning yourself with that thinking, and label you as a villain if you tried to go against it (giving slaves any rights whatsoever was considered controversial when slaves were still widely accepted). The only thing you can label evil in such a case is society itself, since it is the society of that determines what's evil, and what's not. Does that excuse them of what they've done? No, but were they at fault for becoming like that? No, because they were simply sticking to what they believed was right, as they were taught.


I think no matter what position you all take on what is evil, and what isn't evil, you can all agree that what happened to Rakan & family was pretty fucked, and it happened not because one party was evil, but because of a lot of things going wrong at the same time + the norms of that time.
Rakan didn't think what his actions would have resulted in, and the consequences with them, but that's probably because he's a bit on the dumb side (to put it lightly).
As for the granny, I'm not sure whether this was mentioned yet, but the reason Mao Mao's mother was forced to sell herself, wasn't because she wasn't getting any more customers, but because a huge famine struck during the time Rakan was sent away to war (and famine was always accompanied by famine in ancient times. You can also see it by the bad state the building was in on page 21 when he returned). The granny probably wouldn't have cared too much if it wasn't for this famine (except for the loss of revenue), since losing just one of multiple sources of income wouldn't bring down her business. She would have just probably charged Rakan some extra money when he came back to redeem her.
The the only people you can label as evil in this whole scenario would be Rakan's family, since as far as I can remember the web novel (and this should probably be more or less the same for the light novel),

Spoiler

the head of the family opposed Rakan taking in Mao Mao's mother as a wife, and actively tried to separate them by sending Rakan away, and then intercepting letters from the establishment asking about Rakan's situation and when he'd come to redeem her.

 

[Doeugh]

oh my gosh I read this chapter an hour ago and I’m still so sad

 

[nasenbein]

an even tinier MaoMao... my heart...

 

[BroederTrapist]

Welp, that tragedy got my eyes sweating.

 

[Rgal]

@Official229

Furthermore @Rgal, ignoring the obvious point that nobody here is implying what you quoted, the nazis considered themselves to be righteous, while those fighting against them considered them evil. Just with this, you're seeing that what determines evil is the society you are a part of.

No, just with this I am seeing that some people are capable of some impressive mental gymnastics to delude themselves into thinking that something obviously bad isn't bad.

The point he's trying to make with

You cannot be evil when your actions during your time and place were not considered evil.

is that, you cannot be evil for doing x, if the society in that time and place does not deem it to be evil.

The point I am trying to make that this interpretation of morality is dumb and wrong. You obviously can. You'd just be deluding yourself into thinking that you aren't.

The society back then accepted slaves as a commodity, not as humans. Like you wouldn't care too much about your pencil or something breaking, the people back then wouldn't have cared about a slave dying from being overworked (maybe loss of profit or manpower, but that's probably it). Now is that wrong? Yes, and it's a good thing all of us here realize this (I really hope nobody will argue this). However, was what they were doing considered wrong in their era? No.

This interpretation only makes sense for people who still, right now, believe that slaves were a commodity as opposed to, you know, part of the society with their own opinions on the matter. Unless you subscribe to "personhood relativism" in addition to moral relativism? In which case, I'm sorry, but in this day and age society would be justified in calling you evil even by your own definition of "evil".

 

[Broken25]

"is that, you cannot be evil for doing x, if the society in that time and place does not deem it to be evil."

This is exactly the same that saying "You are right as long as nobody stops you" -> it's pure, unadultered might makes right.

 

[Official229]

@Rgal I think you're once again misunderstanding something here. I'm telling you that things the things they did were bad. They aren't excused of the bad things they did. I'm simply trying to tell you, that the reason they became like that, isn't necessarily because they were born like that, or because they one day decided to become like that, but because people in that time and age repeated the same social norms as everyone else. As soon as people started pointing out that the things they were doing were bad, society started changing (for example, slavery no longer being accepted in the modern world).

The point he's trying to make with
You cannot be evil when your actions during your time and place were not considered evil.
is that, you cannot be evil for doing x, if the society in that time and place does not deem it to be evil.

The point I am trying to make that this interpretation of morality is dumb and wrong. You obviously can. You'd just be deluding yourself into thinking that you aren't.

I disagree, and the reason for that is what I stated above.

The society back then accepted slaves as a commodity, not as humans. Like you wouldn't care too much about your pencil or something breaking, the people back then wouldn't have cared about a slave dying from being overworked (maybe loss of profit or manpower, but that's probably it). Now is that wrong? Yes, and it's a good thing all of us here realize this (I really hope nobody will argue this). However, was what they were doing considered wrong in their era? No.

This interpretation only makes sense for people who still, right now, believe that slaves were a commodity as opposed to, you know, part of the society with their own opinions on the matter.

Whoah there, that's a bit of a stretch there. Sure, you can say they were a part of society, but when that society does not listen to your wishes, forces you into doing things (the reason why you became a slave being irrelevant), and treats you as a commodity, can you really call them a part of society? The society back then actively tried to stop them from participating in it.

Unless you subscribe to "personhood relativism" in addition to moral relativism? In which case, I'm sorry, but in this day and age society would be justified in calling you evil even by your own definition of "evil".

What you're trying to say with this goes above my head, explain it again please.