Majutsu Gakuin wo Shuseki de Sotsugyoushita Ore ga Boukensha wo Hajimeru no wa sonna ni okashii darouka - Vol. 3 Ch. 12

[wakanana]

@bk3k

Making the best of bad things that have already happened.

That's what justifying the means is.

 

[bk3k]

@wakanana

That's what justifying the means is.

LOL no it isn't. Not even close. Here are some dictionary definitions for you.
Justify - show or prove to be right or reasonable.
Means - something that helps a person to get what he or she wants.
To "justify the means" is to show or prove that the method used in the pursuit of some goal was right or reasonable.

Case in point, I live (as every non-native of the USA does) on land stolen from the native people of North America. I live on land stolen through genocide. That wasn't my choice (I didn't even exist) and I completely condemn was what done. It was wrong. It was evil. Totally non justifiable. But still it has already occurred, and I can do nothing about it. I live my life the best I can. Which is me making the best of a very bad thing which has already happened.

I do not go about committing mass arson, salting the earth, generally trying to destroy this nation, etc. Is that what you'd have me do?! And as a point of fact, no one has a line of ancestry whose hands are entirely clean. Your very existence is one result of this. But none of us can change what was done. We can only try to control what happens moving forward. If you can do good unto others, do good unto others. Attempting to do good now is no justification of the past, but it is absolutely the right thing to do.

I will never value your faux righteousness - based upon symbolism at the core and divorced from real world impact/consequence. It does not and cannot make the world a better place. The world is better off without it.

 

[wakanana]

@bk3k actions prove beliefs more than words do. To use research made by killing people is to justify how that research came into existence. Morality doesn't depend on mere convenience. Destroying the undead research was the right thing to do.

 

[Harvester]

There's an old NOVA program that was basically a point/counter-point about using the records out of WWII... one part basically gave a situation, asked your opinion on if the data obtained should be used, then tried to sway your opinion on the next page: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/experiments.html

But even outside of the extreme example of Holocaust data, there are plenty of other examples that have possibly even longer reaching effects: Some of the tissue from Henrietta Lacks' cancer examination was used, without permission or compensation, for medical research. By some estimates, there are over 100,000 medical research papers derived from that biopsy, and some of the developments directly related include the polio vaccine, HPV vaccine, chemotherapy, and a huge swatch of HIV treatments... to some extent, probably all major medical research performed in the last few decades were impacted by her cells.

“A decision to use the data should not be made without regret or without acknowledging the incomprehensible horror that produced them. We cannot imply any approval of the methods. Nor, however, should we let the inhumanity of the experiments blind us to the possibility that some good may be salvaged from the ashes.”

 

[Karsh]

"Right, rather than thinking about something complicated, Mii prefers doing simple stuff like this" - said while literally burning books.

Freaking Commie-talk, for real.

 

[Goretantath]

@Harvester Ty, saving this(“A decision to use the data should not be made without regret or without acknowledging the incomprehensible horror that produced them. We cannot imply any approval of the methods. Nor, however, should we let the inhumanity of the experiments blind us to the possibility that some good may be salvaged from the ashes.”) for a rainy day. Wise words.

My thoughts on the matter if not obvious is that the burning was a mistake and banning anything from it is just going to make people want to do it again. The attrocieties have already been commited, why not see if theres anything in the papers that DONT require killing someone or bringing back someones soul etc, there might be some usefull information that can be applied to healing magics or golem magics that could only be figured out through such horrible means that could be the only way of saving lives in the future.

If i died from something horrible and my death could help my offspring or friends, fuck yeah spread my corpse/autopsy info around!

TLDR Its a service to the dead and sticks it to the bastard(s) that did the evil(s) to use the knoledge for something other than what had happened and better society.

 

[Arvadiel]

Alice had quite the sad past

 

[Cyro11]

Years of research thrown away.
Decades of magical technology burned away

 

[Psychronia]

It's so fun teasing the princess about her crushes.

 

[Degernase]

Loli
o
l
i

midriff
i
d
r
i
f
f

 

[bejad007]

@Degernase
https://mangadex.org/title/25662/kyou-kara-ore-wa-loli-no-himo

I think you will like this manga

 

[kyself]

We live in a society.

 

[nyaasar]

@bejad007
Thank ye, m'dude.

 

[Joonhas]

The ending of this arc felt really unsatisfactory to me.

They didn't really have to murder her. She should've brought to justice (where she could've even tried to explain the shit she did) among the Goldard guy.. Also, we didn't even get explanation what happened to him eventually..? (if it doesn't happen on the next chapter that is).

Also burning her research material just like that. What a huge waste of countless of hours of research. And what a huge waste of talent. She could've been put into forced labor, researching something useful stuff for the kingdom etc, for X-number of years to earn her freedom.

 

[deathmailrock]

My issue is that this isn't a good example for a "are they really a villain" scenario...

Like if she only did the magic with let's say animal corpses and she didn't kill any of them... would it be right to kill her???

Maybe yes to stopping her, because she's desecrating the dead and she needs to learn to move on and get some help...

But she harmed no living thing nor anything that was once human....

But that isn't what happened... she literally caused the deaths of countless innocents and abused her powers to do horrible things...
______________
If the author doesn't have the ability, they really shouldn't try to force some complexity....

This was a really bad way of trying to think some things aren't black and white...

 

[KajurN]

My issue is that this isn't a good example for a "are they really a villain" scenario...

Like if she only did the magic with let's say animal corpses and she didn't kill any of them... would it be right to kill her???

Maybe yes to stopping her, because she's desecrating the dead and she needs to learn to move on and get some help...

But she harmed no living thing nor anything that was once human....

But that isn't what happened... she literally caused the deaths of countless innocents and abused her powers to do horrible things...
______________
If the author doesn't have the ability, they really shouldn't try to force some complexity....

This was a really bad way of trying to think some things aren't black and white...

It's important that they ask themselves what justice is, because during the quest they murdered all the bandits that raided Filia's village and Alice. Kill for kill they also bloodied their hands and if you equate murder=evil then they also became evil once they killed the bandits and Alice. Is killing bandits a good action or an evil one? Killing someone becomes not evil if said person has commited an evil action? Is Alice more evil for killing the innocents she did than Will and Co for killing evildoers?

These are the questions that too many people reading this arc seemed to have glossed over/not understood, and not understanding how relative and fragile justice and morals are is dangerous, because that's how you end up committing an atrocity, you justify it thinking you are a good person doing a good action. And it is pretty easy to distort someone's sense of morality. Alice had a distorted morality, believing her research was for the good and from that Will questions if she really is evil. That is the whole point of this arc.

For example, the actions of Will and co throughout the arc were questionable by modern society's values, they wiped out the bandits acting as vigilantes looking for revenge for Filia, then killed Alice (but not count goldart), which you can argue was more correct since at that point they were hired by the princess and were acting in behalf of the authorities, in this case Knight Eileen.

In our world the bandits and Alice would have the right for a trial and to be judged guilty and punished according to law. Satsuki stabbing Alice there, would be the equivalent of a cop shooting a murderer, and that would have consequences for the cop (on most places at least). Cyrille and Will at least had the correct attitude to second guess if their actions are right or not, and it's good they did.

Spoiler: From chapter 5

 

[deathmailrock]

It's important that they ask themselves what justice is, because during the quest they murdered all the bandits that raided Filia's village and Alice. Kill for kill they also bloodied their hands and if you equate murder=evil then they also became evil once they killed the bandits and Alice. Is killing bandits a good action or an evil one? Killing someone becomes not evil if said person has commited an evil action? Is Alice more evil for killing the innocents she did than Will and Co for killing evildoers?

These are the questions that too many people reading this arc seemed to have glossed over/not understood, and not understanding how relative and fragile justice and morals are is dangerous, because that's how you end up committing an atrocity, you justify it thinking you are a good person doing a good action. And it is pretty easy to distort someone's sense of morality. Alice had a distorted morality, believing her research was for the good and from that Will questions if she really is evil. That is the whole point of this arc.

For example, the actions of Will and co throughout the arc were questionable by modern society's values, they wiped out the bandits acting as vigilantes looking for revenge for Filia, then killed Alice (but not count goldart), which you can argue was more correct since at that point they were hired by the princess and were acting in behalf of the authorities, in this case Knight Eileen.

In our world the bandits and Alice would have the right for a trial and to be judged guilty and punished according to law. Satsuki stabbing Alice there, would be the equivalent of a cop shooting a murderer, and that would have consequences for the cop (on most places at least). Cyrille and Will at least had the correct attitude to second guess if their actions are right or not, and it's good they did.

The issue is that they are trying to see if it's black and white to stop someone who MURDERED an entire village for her own selfish ideals...

And that idea is dumb. The idea should be that killing INNOCENTS is wrong..

It's not the action but the target of the actions.

Is biting food hard wrong? No. But is biting a baby hard wrong? Yes.

This was way too black and white of a case.

Also, you ignore the fact that they even questioned if the girl was evil or not.

They literally questioned and wondered if a woman who slaughtered an entire village was evil....

 

[KajurN]

The issue is that they are trying to see if it's black and white to stop someone who MURDERED an entire village for her own selfish ideals...

And that idea is dumb. The idea should be that killing INNOCENTS is wrong..

It's not the action but the target of the actions.

Is biting food hard wrong? No. But is biting a baby hard wrong? Yes.

This was way too black and white of a case.

Also, you ignore the fact that they even questioned if the girl was evil or not.

They literally questioned and wondered if a woman who slaughtered an entire village was evil....

Yeah basically you answered one of the questions. To you killing an evildoer is a good act and killing an innocent is an evil act. Some would argue the action of killing another person is evil in itself no matter the reason.

When they were discussing it Satsuki asked if they were against beating Alice up, and they werent. As far as that goes it's fine, but by our modern world's morality they really should've captured and brought her to justice rather than killing her there, and doing so kept relatives of other victims from seeing closure as she was never formally punished for the other murders.

To be clear, the part that is more ambiguous here is Will and co's actions rather than Alice's, and not second guessing your actions is how one ends up like Alice. She believed she was good and doing something for the good of the world and everything was a necessary sacrifice for it.

 

[Machine992]

Yeah basically you answered one of the questions. To you killing an evildoer is a good act and killing an innocent is an evil act. Some would argue the action of killing another person is evil in itself no matter the reason.

When they were discussing it Satsuki asked if they were against beating Alice up, and they werent. As far as that goes it's fine, but by our modern world's morality they really should've captured and brought her to justice rather than killing her there, and doing so kept relatives of other victims from seeing closure as she was never formally punished for the other murders.

To be clear, the part that is more ambiguous here is Will and co's actions rather than Alice's, and not second guessing your actions is how one ends up like Alice. She believed she was good and doing something for the good of the world and everything was a necessary sacrifice for it.

Killing another person is not evil in itself. There is a difference in killing and murdering. Killing for self defense is not wrong, but murdering is always wrong.

and no matter our modern world morallity. What matter is ethic, and they were ethically correct in killing her.

author is just a fucking donkey wanting to put relativism in a act this is clearly wrong

 

[dementati]

"Really makes you question what justice is."
No, it really doesn't. I mean, there are some ethical dilemmas that do. But this was not one of them.