[Sh Ranger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

Two things can be awful at once, even if one of them is more bad than the other. Either all humans perish due to Helheim, or majority of humans killed off due to Project Ark. Not to mention, there's the complicated matter of deciding which people "deserve salvation" and which ones get screwed over, which is usually part of such extreme solutions. Implementing a solution where you have to decide who gets sacrificed, what gives Takatora a right to decide for the rest of humanity?

The problem is flawed from the start, as it means having to assign arbitrary quantitative value to something as inherently qualitative as human life. If Ace is wrong for playing God, then by the same logic, of course Takatora would also be wrong for making detached judgments about people he's never even met. Everybody is important to somebody, even bad people, which means there are no expendable human beings. Game theory is never a substitute for heroism. There is no substitute for heroism, ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

People like Kouta are being like that, to refuse anyone being victimized, be it few, or many, not that few/many lives can be treated like a cattle in the face of many/survival.

Anyone except Yoko, who he was willing to victimize personally. I still think Shinji is a better example of this kind of heroism, with his strong will to fight against the odds to do what's right, even if it ends in failure. Like his refusal to sacrifice Yui allowing monsters to continue hunting humans. There's an attempt to guilt him for this, like Atropos to Rinne, but of course the reality is that Kanzaki is the one facilitating this and only he can be held responsible for the loss of life. Even though Shinji is an idiot, he only ever does his best to protect everybody's interests, even those unworthy of his kindness like Asakura and Kitaoka. That's what makes Shinji a true hero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

Even the criminal or dictator you mentioned as the example of who to oppose, can also make claim like that, where if you'd oppose their actions, they can also claim that you're meddling in other people's (their) business. What to do if the ones who you can act against is the one making claims like that? If it works they'd be free due to them feeling conflicted to intervene or not, it can be also used to gaslight and guilt trip someone.

Like the conflict between Houtarou and Riku's father, with the latter claiming that it's not Houtarou's business, despite Chemy involvement. Some people are too quick to accuse of unnecessary meddling without trying to understand the reason for them getting involved. Everybody lives in the same world after all, so it's a mistake and lack of foresight for someone to assume that what started as their personal business wouldn't eventually become someone else's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

Both are the cases of someone trying to do good but unwittingly cause bad outcomes, doesn't mean they're doing bad stuff. For opposite case, there can be cases when someone ends up causing something good, like if someone bombs a building which explosion radius caught a criminal on the run, knocking him down and allowing him to be arrested. Doesn't mean that the bomber did something good, it's unexpectedly accomplishing good by pure chance of a criminal happening to be nearby.

This reminds me of your comparison between Heure saving Another Ghost's life and Shocker creating their own arch enemy, to make a good point that villains accidentally causing good outcomes doesn't make them good, as the intention to cause bad outcomes was the catalyst and so villains should be judged based on the motivation for their actions. Therefore, the "faux villainy" that Zolda keeps talking about holds no tangible value. Someone who intends to commit severe bad deeds is a villain (antivillain in Takatora's case) and will continue to be a villain until they see the error of their ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

But in the example with food, I am sure that if you bought the food, and a homeless person was poisoned, then the police will have complaints against you until there is evidence that the food was poisonous even before the purchase.

The store would probably recall the line of products to check them for contamination, while the customer should keep their receipt so they can prove the time of purchase.