[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zolda

Of course I will help those who can't help themselves.
Of course I will help my families or friends when their rights are violated by criminals.
Of course I will do everything I can possibly, humanly do to help the society oppose a totalitarian dictator.
How did you come to the conclusion that I would let bad things happen to people and just stand here and do nothing? Smh. What a faulty reasoning.

Well obviously these are good things to do, though these seem to be all something reactive to visible bad. Other than stopping what's already bad, trying to prevent bad things to happen again is also important though, what causes those criminals to emerge, or the creation of that totalitarian dictator. Examining and addressing the root cause in a flawed system where society may create its own monsters. Though of course the method used to do this shouldn't be an extreme one.

Also about a visible bad, there may be bad things which is subtle and perpetuated because it's normalized over time by people who do not think about things from the standpoint of others - evil becomes commonplace; it becomes the everyday. Ordinary people going about their everyday lives become complicit actors in systems that perpetuate evil. Such as for example, abusive parents, teachers, or other authoritarian figures who excuse their actions as giving "tough love" and have the public buy their words, or undermining bullying and depicting it as "passage of life", or getting mental issues like depression stigmatized, making those bad actions swept under the rug.

Dealing with kinds of above one may need to have someone challenge the principles those people have inherited, to ensure they stand up to their individual scrutiny, becoming more aware of biases and learned behaviors? But this may be what's seen as "moral policing", unless this is also what you also have in mind and maybe have other ideas to deal with. There are also people who'd dismiss and shut up those who bring up about something terrible being normalized, which'd further let these f*cked up stuff perpetuated as the one who brought that point up is the one who takes blame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zolda

I believe every person has the strength to fight for themselves. I will give help to those who do need help. I will give help to those who can't help themselves. I will give help when it's actually needed. If I give help to those who don't even need help, then it means I'm insulting their ability to stand for themselves. It means I'm treating them like I'm treating weak toddlers who can't defend themselves. An unneeded, unsolicited "help" is the ultimate insult to a person's agency. Normal, decent people have a high standard of ethics, thus they need to consider the whole context before intervening in other people's problems. Normal, decent people don't intervene in other people's petty, mundane problems.

A help being "needed" or not can really vary between person, circumstances, etc. Like one may excel through a quiz while someone else struggles with it. It can't be known if a help is needed (including their response afterwards) or not unless someone shows concern and tries to offer help. I'm also someone who don't like being helped and want for my abilities to be acknowledged, but then again, still I can't really hold it against those who display concern on me, and I shouldn't discourage that good deed even if I personally don't like it. If one don't want help, I think it's fine if they relent their offer and acknowledge it, but that can be known by offering them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zolda

Humanity already has laws to deal with and punish its members who cause problems. Humanity is strong. Humanity can regulate itself. Humanity doesn't need a divine, all-powerful, yet nosy, moralistic, self-righteous busybody like Ace Ukiyo to regulate their behavior and solve all their problems. See the difference? See the stark difference between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying?

Regulating and solving all their problems... actually there can be complaints that feel Ace does too little to utilize his powers to make everything better, such as only providing some assistance (e.g. to Kousei) while watching over rather than directly intervening to save Neon and eliminate Beroba, describing that as being cold and unfeeling. Dunno if regulating behavior is exaggeration here, as it seems that what he did other than fighting parts, was only to return the memories of each person deprived by the DGP, because brainwashing is wrong, and the 'policing' was only done once to Keiwa who lost his way, not others like Michinaga or Win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

Sugarcoating implies that sugar is only on the outside, like the garnish on a dish. However, a dish needs to be delicious in both taste and presentation. The opposite problem is also true, that a dish with good taste will be dismissed if the presentation is weak or lacking. While there's some truth to the phrase, "don't judge a book by its cover", I also believe that the book has an obligation to itself to have a cover that properly represents the quality of its content. Ideally, constructive criticism should give advice for improvement, while using tact to make the person more receptive and likely to act upon it. Unfortunately, Kugimiya decided to serve Houtarou a dish with neither taste nor presentation, so it's totally worthless. Malnutritious even, as he expresses no actual intent to make Houtarou a "better" Gotchard, like Mesnick said above.

As you said, the sugar is on the outside, and sugarcoating term is usually used to refer when someone lies about something a person have being bad to prevent hurting their feelings, praising them (sugar/garnish) instead of addressing their problems (bad taste), which leads to them being stagnant in doing those mistakes. And by this it's common for people to elevate rude assholes, particularly if they're "proven", as being just "brutally honest" and "speaks their mind" without mincing words, which seems to just practically encourage people to be toxic to others with aformentioned excuses. I've brought up "honesty without tact is cruelty" in this website but it got shot down. There are also cases when the book's cover is something outside their control though, like for instance, a person's physical looks, like them being "ugly" or short, which can get people to look down on them if they're shallow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

So an anti-hero is someone who does mostly good deeds for malicious reasons?What are the names of those who have equal amounts of good and evil at the end of the work? I think the individualistic approach is to blame here. In the Soviet Union after World War II, the realization came that the enemies in the Civil War were not so bad and this resulted in the creation of books and films where the White Guards were portrayed as likable. And then for ambiguous heroes the terms were used: "one of our own among strangers" and "a stranger among our own" emphasizing that their was an exception to the rule. In general, Lewis spoke about this even earlier in the last book about Narnia: ?If you do good in the name of evil, then you serve good. If you do evil in the name of good, then you serve evil.

There can be characters with equal amount of good and evil and they may be those who constantly change alignments, but I'm just being wary of these assessments because many just cherry pick and/or exaggerate good or evil stuff in each character depending on who they're and treat both sides as equal when they're not, typically to make a hero look bad or a villain look good. Otherwise, being heroic or villainous is determined by action first, then characterization afterwards (not that they're unimportant though), which is why doing evil in the name of good is still being (anti-)villainous, because as said there, your actions are evil, regardless if people'd support "good intentions" more, and many can't differentiate between good intentions or good actions, likely thinking that for those having good intentions, anything they do is good by default. And organizations shouldn't be valued over people (as shows like Saber teaches), it really varies between each person, there can be those who are not so bad, but there also can be those who truly believed in twisted, sickening ideologies and propaganda, not merely following orders while being conscience-stricken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

A character who commits mostly bad deeds for non-malicious reasons is called an antivillain. They may see themselves as heroes and appear sympathetic in their motivations, but their actions still align them with the villain side of the morality axis. Whether they can be swayed to the side of heroism depends on how conflicted they feel concerning their moral beliefs. In Gentoku's case, he was originally a total villain, until the increasing Hazard Level dispelled the brainwashing effect of nebula gas and he turned antivillain then hero. Moral alignment exists in a state of flux, with many variables mixing to encourage or force change.

Well yeah, an antihero's reasons are malicious at worst, opportunistic at best. For people with equal amounts of good and evil actions, I think they'd either be an extreme antihero or an extreme antivillain, defaulting to the side that's closer to their motivation. It's true that sometimes there's a difference of perception, as evil people who rely on good publicity will depict themselves as good and their enemies as evil, which is of course called propaganda. This can be seen from Lyon Arkland in 01hers, where he points out that "malice" isn't hip and that "justice" is a more sympathetic word and thus more successful in manipulating the good-identifying civilian majority to support an evil cause. A euphemism is a powerful weapon.

A hero or villain fitting anti category isn't necessarily about reasons though. Anti-hero is a hero with unheroic traits, and anti-villain is a villain with redeeming traits, and what fits those can be more than reasons. Being overly violent, doing pay evil unto evil stuff in dealing with villains would also count as unheroic traits in a hero that makes them anti-hero even if their intention is altruistic. A villain can be anti-villainous if they have honorable traits or lines they won't cross even if their goal is self-serving such as to satisfy bloodlust in fighting. Dunno what kind of 'malicious' reason you refer here, because fighting a bad guy doesn't make someone good, there can be cases of evil vs evil like Eternal vs Eyes Dopant, bad guys can fight each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zolda

IEthical alignment can also be static. In this case, the antiheroes' and antivillains' true selves, motivations, and ethical alignments are often masked by their actions. A person's ethical alignment can be anywhere within the ethical axis (completely benevolent or completely malevolent), yet when put into context, his actions often result in outcomes that don't necessarily align with his ethical alignment, or even result in outcomes that are the complete opposite. A person with good intention can create a bad outcome, and vice versa. A text should be interpreted within a context. Very often, the context matters more than the text itself.

Like I stated in the previous paragraph, the age-old adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" doesn't exist for no reason. I strongly believe that the true direction of a person's moral compass is mainly determined not by what he thinks is right or wrong, but what is right or wrong in a particular context. Outcome must also be taken into account to determine the direction of a person's moral compass. In other words, risk is an inherent, inseparable component of ethics.

While it's important for someone to think about long-term consequences in how their actions may impact others, outcome is still a circumstance out of your control. Sometimes good things can come out of a bad situation or a bad thing, or even due to someone doing something knowing full well it's wrong and will cause harm. However, people should not misconstrue that just because something good was born out of something bad/evil, does not make that something good, just because the end result was good does not mean that the bad guys did something good. The opposite is also true- you can act with the intention of trying to make things better but because of things you cannot change, what you did actually make things worse, that does not make you a bad person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zolda

Another character with static ethical alignment is Takatora Kureshima/KR Zangetsu from KR Gaim, who was initially shown as a ruthless villain/manipulator, then was gradually revealed as anti-villain, then anti-hero, then hero. His motivation was actually as heroic as Kouta's, yet when its put into the context of his limited knowledge about Helheim, he was forced by situation to take extreme measures that to an outside observer did look villainous.

People's alignment can change, not that they're always "misunderstood" if they have good traits and aren't all bad. Takatora is one of the redeemed (anti-)villains. Regardless of his intentions, his planned action is to commit genocide the rest of 6 billion human race (other than 1 billion saved with Sengoku Driver) with Scalar System in the name of 'saving them', though better than Helheim, it's still the lesser evil to it to kill most vs Helheim's kill all. He stops being villainous when he abandons that and agrees to work with Kouta in negotiating with Overlords instead and cleaning up what Yggdrasill has done in the end.