World Religions

Recently I began reading a comic series published bi-weekly called Gantz. In it, people who die are given a second chance, and in return they have to follow orders given by a man named Gantz, which usually involve the hunting and killing of aliens. The funny part about this is, Gantz at no point suggests that these aliens are evil, and even though they are ridiculously tough, they don’t seem to have done anything wrong? So why must they kill the aliens? In a battle of survival, it makes sense, but the aliens are never the aggressors, and usually are more like victims. So is it really right for the men and women of this comic to participate in such hunts? They really haven’t much as a choice, seeing as if they refuse they’ll either die or never ever stop participating in such hunts. Given the choice, I guess I would participate. Really, I don’t believe I would hesitate to shoot my target. I could worry about the moral reprecussion later.I believe that in this situation this would be self-interested rather than selfish. If its kill or be killed, and even if the enemy is not the agressor, I will not lie down and expose my soft underbelly to a declared enemy. The aliens in the show were not defensless, and once provoked, were potent and murderous. So I would have no qualms playing Gantz’s little game. But is the overall game moral itself? Because it is just that. A game. Played for the amusement of a seemingly comatose man, who for some reason has tons of futuristic gadgets. Put in that perspective, maybe I wouldn’t play. But protesting something isn’t honestly worth it unless your alive to see the results, so I’d put up with it for the time being until I had the chance to act upon it.

I don’t really have a purpose behind this blog aside from ethical argument. Usually my posts are literature or film inspired, but not today. I just feel argumentative and obstinate today. Thinking back on some of these ethical rules we learned from various philosophers, I never really stopped to realize how vague and general they are. Sure they are supposed to be adaptable to situations, but being unyielding isn’t so bad either. An example I would like to use is Kant’s rule of “ought implies can”. This very well may be true, but does can imply should. This rule assumes that the person is thinking I ought to help that person. But thats really not how most people think. Most are I ought to kill him for that, or thoughts of revenge along those lines. Humans are basically immoral, and most of are thoughts really are not about others, so if ought implies can, we really should hold back whenit comes to this. Rules such as the aforementioned should be limited further, to allow less breathing room for those who would take such phrases and use them to justify less pleasant actions. Same with the Golden Rule, treat others the way you want to be treated. Somethings, rare as they are, like Sado-masochism really ought to be exempt from such all encompassing rules. This rule also implies an ideal society, where everyone follows said rule, not one imperfect as ours what with criminals and the like. Maybe we should just do away with such moral rules and stop listening to others for moral advice.