Author: Bruna Santos da Luz
Death Note became one of the most popular animes in the world and gained many fans in the West, known as an introduction to the Japanese animated universe. With most of its plot comprising a rivalry between the characters Light, aka Kira, and L,a competition between fans to decide which was the best was expected.
Death Note tells the story of a supernatural notebook that has the power to take the lives of those whose names are written on its pages, giving the writer the ability to specify some particularities of death, such as method and timing. Light Yagami is an extremely intelligent 17-year-old student with impressive deductive ability, but he finds himself frustrated by the injustices of the world and the growing violence in society. In the first episode of the anime, Light finds the Death Note and starts causing several deaths of criminals around the world who, in his perspective, were not properly punished for their crimes. From these murders, Light intends to create a world free of injustice and violence, in which he would be venerated as a god.
In opposition to Light’s behavior, L appears. A freelance investigator collaborating with the police to find the serial killer, Light, who became known as Kira. L Lawliet is a 24-year-old with admirable deduction, reasoning, and guessing skills, and it is these talents that make him an opponent worthy of Light’s strategies to avoid being discovered as Kira. For much of the anime, the constant competition between Light’s strategies and L’s investigative skills is the focus of the plot.
However, despite initially seeming to be just a dispute between IQs, each character can be analyzed as the personification of conflicting philosophical ideologies, which are raised because of Light’s actions through the following question: is it valid to reduce crime by violence? In short, “does the end justify the means?[1]“. This question was first proposed by the Roman poet Ovid, in his work Heroides, and erroneously attributed to Machiavelli. The answers given throughout history to the present day allowed the origin of various moral doctrines and, with them, different ways of understanding what justice is.
Light believes that the answer to this question is yes, the end justifies the means because by murdering criminals; he believes he is ridding the world of criminality, making it a better place, ensuring the common good. Its logic has roots in utilitarianism, an ideology proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill [2].
Utilitarianism is a philosophical doctrine based on the search for pleasure and the avoidance of pain, which can be summarized in the Greatest Happiness Principle, expressed in the phrase: “The greatest good for the greatest number” [3]. From this sentence, it is possible to conclude that utilitarian logic bases the value of an action on the consequences it generates, and does not have its own morality. If the result is positive, the action itself is valid, and the reverse is true.
Such schematization of thought is called consequentialism[4] and may meet individual morality or the principle of public justice, both being used as an argument by Light when guaranteeing his own pleasure, calling himself a god of his new world, and ensuring the well-be common to those considered a relevant part of society. Therefore, Light is the representation of utilitarianism. It is important to understand that, by using utilitarian logic, Light disregards criminals as part of the group, so the numbering presented by these individuals is irrelevant in his calculation of pleasure maximization.
L is guided by the judicial system, which believes that no, the ends do not justify the means, since if to end the world’s criminality, there is the use of violence, there will be a corruption of human moral values. The ideologies used by L are based on Kant’s ethics, a philosophical doctrine that believes that an action has intrinsic and not just instrumental value, as established by Bentham and Mill.
The categorical imperativeis the base of Kantian ethics, which understands morality as constant, immutable, and inter-temporal [5]. Moreover, Kant’s ethics understands that each action has a moral value regardless of the result it will cause [6]. That said, even if the result of the action guarantees positive consequences for a group, it is not possible automatically conclude that the action itself is positive and graduated from moral values. From this principle and the Kantian perspective, only the reduction of crime as a result of the murders of criminals does not validate the action of killing.
Furthermore, Kant bases part of his philosophy on the Principle of Humanity [7], which comprises human beings dealing with others always as an end, and not merely means. Therefore, in his view, it would not be correct to use people to achieve a greater goal without considering their awareness and consent. Light directly conflicts with this principle since it establishes criminals (people) as a means of reducing crime and becoming a god through their deaths, without considering their consent, in this case, the lack of it. Thereby, Light not only represents the utilitarian doctrine but also highlights its conflict with Kantian morality.
Finally, analyzing the contrapositions between consequentialist and categorical morals, it can be said that the conflict is based on what actions people should take versus what kind of human beings they want to be. Raised by Aristotle [8], the question was taken up again during the 20th century, based on contemporary moral philosophy, giving rise to Deontology [9]. It consists in analyzing a society’s set of values and conjugate them to the immutable obligations that exist before an action. This investigative process differentiates morality from ethics, as the first characterize the reasons for human beings’ attitudes and the second examines and discusses such reasons.
Deontology is more familiar with Kant’s categorical morality compared to the values of utilitarianism [10]. This is due to the various criticisms made to consequentialist morality, which can often be seen as a means of tolerance to authoritarian attitudes and assumes the value of human beings as only numerical, disregarding their individuality. It is a valid and precise observation, clearly showed through Light’s attitudes, that performs actions, in this case, murders, that affect the group (society) without consulting third parties and disregarding different aspects of criminals other than the disobedience to the law showed by them. However, assuming that morality must guide all actions of human beings, regardless of their results, can have harmful consequences for a group or even just an individual.
To better understand this scenario, one can take, as an example, Soichiro Yagami’s character, Light’s father and head of the Japanese Task Force. After L’s death, one of his pupils, Mello, now a member of the Japanese mafia, offers Soichiro an exchange: the notebook, which is currently in the possession of the NPA (National Police Agency), in exchange for his daughter, Sayu Yagami, who had been kidnapped. Soichiro wonders whether he should follow his wishes and trade the Death Note for his daughter to be freed or not.
His dilemma stems from the choice between his duty as an officer and as a father. As a police officer and head of the NPA, he believes that handing over the notebook to the mob is morally wrong and risky for the group (society). However, he, as a father, could not afford endanger his daughter’s life for the sake of moral worth. So, he decides to make the switch, not as an officer, but as Sayu’s father. If considering the maximization of pleasure proposed by utilitarianism, it maybe be said that Soichiro also contradicted consequentialism, but resorting to the individual morality foreseen by Betham, Mr. Yagami acted to satisfy his pleasure and avoid his pain by ensuring his daughter’s safety.
From this example, it is possible to conceive situations in which acting under the exclusive guidance of moralityis not always a viable solution for human beings, because people would have to abandon thefeelings’ irrationality and become impartial to situations, which is impossible. This conclusion enabled a new line of thought that is explained by reformulating Ovoid’s philosophical catchphrase: “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end” [11]. This adaptation was made by Leon Trotsky, whose ideas prevents authoritarian actions based on consequentialism, since, even if the result of an action generates a common good, it must be justified and its means as well. Through this philosophical thought, Soichiro Yagami’s behavior becomes more acceptable and Light’s more reprehensible.
It is apparent that Deontology and Trotskyism are contemporary doctrines, more flexible in their foundations and have made an effort to explain the moral principles that guide, or should guide human behavior, using the Aristotle’s questioning. Finally, when analyzing the morals of Light and L, some divergences would raise about which is the most correct and the best one. However, both have flaws when, hypothetically, universalized, andstill undergo reformulations to guarantee the best possible way of decision-making by human beings. It is always important to emphasize that ethics is a timeless discussion and that it has changed its validity and definition several times throughout history, and there is no reason to become static in a society as metamorphic as the contemporary one.
[1]Original quote: exitus ācta probat. Ovid, Heroides (n.p., ca. 10 BC), n.p.
[2]Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, (Dover Publications, 2007).
[3]“1. Classic Consequentialism” Consequentialism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified June 3, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/.
[4]“2. What is Consequentialism?” Consequentialism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified June 3, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/.
[5]Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, (n.p., 1788).
[6]Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason.
[7]Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, (n.p., 1785).
[8]Doxa e Episteme, “Os fins justificam os meios ?”YouTube video, 09:08, posted October 23, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZWj5vnieGU.
[9] “Ethics Explainer: Deontology” The Ethics Center, last modified February 16, 2016. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-deontology/
[10]“2.4 Deontological Theories and Kant” Deontological Ethics, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified October 30, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoTheKan.
[11]Leon Trotsky. Their Morals and Ours: The Class Foundations of Moral Practice. (Pathfinder Press, 1973), n.p.
