Isekai Yururi Kikou - Vol. 3 Ch. 16 - I'll Always Be By Your Side
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 2,975
I really dislike it when the main character doesn't act with the full decisive power of which he or she is capable in the face of evil.
The decision to hand-over someone to “the” authorities is no more or less than a decision to hand-over that someone to some group; the making of that decision is taking the law into one's own hands. One must therefore ask what makes that decision somehow better than assigning that person's fate to some other party, oneself included amongst the possibilities. Sometimes there is an excellent reason to hand someone over to someone else, but that choice doesn't have a general ethical superiority.
The decision to hand-over someone to “the” authorities is no more or less than a decision to hand-over that someone to some group; the making of that decision is taking the law into one's own hands. One must therefore ask what makes that decision somehow better than assigning that person's fate to some other party, oneself included amongst the possibilities. Sometimes there is an excellent reason to hand someone over to someone else, but that choice doesn't have a general ethical superiority.
@Oeconomist 'Justice' is decided by the majority in society. The majority is represented by the ruling body, which mandates law enforcement. Thus, handing someone over to law enforcement is 'justice', deciding to punish them yourself is not. Also, it's a moot point in this case, since his priority was protecting the kids. Attacking someone on the street with children present is not a good way to raise them, and might endanger them when law enforcement gets involved.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2018
- Messages
- 2,182
@Oeconomist That sort of mindset usually causes problems for everyone around you when your shallow, reactionary sense of justice gets tested by harsh realities and tempered by pragmatism. He happens to be looking after demigods but if they were actually human slaves with markings it wouldn't be resolved so simply.
His own claim to the children would be questionable. He would at least have to prove to the authorities that their lives were threatened by their master illegally. Even in societies that practiced slavery, slaves were given some protection as dependents. His own testimony would mean nothing as a commoner but the knights he's close to may be able to verify his claims. It helps that the slave trader made a very stupid, public confrontation rather than going to the authorities first to prove his own claim.
His own claim to the children would be questionable. He would at least have to prove to the authorities that their lives were threatened by their master illegally. Even in societies that practiced slavery, slaves were given some protection as dependents. His own testimony would mean nothing as a commoner but the knights he's close to may be able to verify his claims. It helps that the slave trader made a very stupid, public confrontation rather than going to the authorities first to prove his own claim.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2019
- Messages
- 3,869
How can this idiot even claim them when there’s no form of identification; as well as the fact he obviously
discarded them which essentially removed their status?
discarded them which essentially removed their status?
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2018
- Messages
- 1,950
@cor3zone
that is only true if the law´s themselfs are just.
if the laws are made by the ruling elite, for the benefit off the ruling elite so they can oppres the rest of the population the laws are not just.
law and justice is not always the same, justice is what the law is meant to represent.
laws however are dynamic and needs to change with times to keep up, something that rarely if ever happens fast enough... a good example off this is copyright law.
so if the laws fail to uphold justice, the laws and preferable the once enforcing it needs to change aswell.
do not blindly accept the status quo for what it is, strive to make it what it ought to be.
that is only true if the law´s themselfs are just.
if the laws are made by the ruling elite, for the benefit off the ruling elite so they can oppres the rest of the population the laws are not just.
law and justice is not always the same, justice is what the law is meant to represent.
laws however are dynamic and needs to change with times to keep up, something that rarely if ever happens fast enough... a good example off this is copyright law.
so if the laws fail to uphold justice, the laws and preferable the once enforcing it needs to change aswell.
do not blindly accept the status quo for what it is, strive to make it what it ought to be.
@Goldenzeal On a societal level, the law is the only useful measure of 'justice'. Most dictionaries include 'conforming to law' as a definition of 'justice'. Any bandit can claim to be 'just', to 'fight oppression', but it doesn't make it true.
The "ruling elite" are just that because the majority allows them to be. History shows what happens when the people dislike their rulers. It's just a slow system, which any system involving huge amounts of individuals always will be. Since law is a function of that system, they change slowly.
Copyright law is interesting, since the tech involved has developed and changed faster than anything before in history. Of course the law can't keep up.
So, how should it be decided who should take over enforcing the law? By whom? If the law needs to be changed quickly the lawmakers, who represent the will of the majority, can't be trusted since they made the laws needing change in the first place. Should the people vote directly? Who should organize, and how? Society is millenia old, and the current system is pretty damn old as well, but we still have no good solutions. Everyone should have a voice, but never do we all agree.
Yes, do not blindly accept the status quo. But also, do not blindly mistake 'personal opinion' for 'common good'.
The "ruling elite" are just that because the majority allows them to be. History shows what happens when the people dislike their rulers. It's just a slow system, which any system involving huge amounts of individuals always will be. Since law is a function of that system, they change slowly.
Copyright law is interesting, since the tech involved has developed and changed faster than anything before in history. Of course the law can't keep up.
So, how should it be decided who should take over enforcing the law? By whom? If the law needs to be changed quickly the lawmakers, who represent the will of the majority, can't be trusted since they made the laws needing change in the first place. Should the people vote directly? Who should organize, and how? Society is millenia old, and the current system is pretty damn old as well, but we still have no good solutions. Everyone should have a voice, but never do we all agree.
Yes, do not blindly accept the status quo. But also, do not blindly mistake 'personal opinion' for 'common good'.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2018
- Messages
- 99
um why are you leaving before it was actually resolved? they only said they were going to search his house and there were rumors he was doing illegal things, things aren't resolved until he is in jail which is what you waited for before you left town in novel
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 2,975
Says, okay, so the responses to me are either to claim that justice is no more than a social construct, or to lash-out at me as a “reactionary”.
Were justice no more than a social construct, then any attempt to defend conforming to it would be circular. That is to say that the idea that one should conform to the social construct would itself be part of the social construct.
Meanwhile, to be a reactionary is no more or less that to seek to restore a prior social order for no better reason than that it were the prior social order. Smearing me as a reactionary makes no more sense than any other insult chosen at random.
Were justice no more than a social construct, then any attempt to defend conforming to it would be circular. That is to say that the idea that one should conform to the social construct would itself be part of the social construct.
Meanwhile, to be a reactionary is no more or less that to seek to restore a prior social order for no better reason than that it were the prior social order. Smearing me as a reactionary makes no more sense than any other insult chosen at random.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2018
- Messages
- 311
Hooray! It's back!
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2019
- Messages
- 3,374
Thank you for bringing it back. :)
And he has to. The world is foreign to him. Slavers are desperate for merchandise and treat people like tools. Send the dude/fatty to a special prison... the ones that are 'pink'.
And he has to. The world is foreign to him. Slavers are desperate for merchandise and treat people like tools. Send the dude/fatty to a special prison... the ones that are 'pink'.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,034
@Drifter Wait... what? A gay-goblin-prison? O_O XD
Wont go into the justice-thingi too much, its a bit more complicated as a topic, so a comment-thread wont solve that
"Justice" in itself is just the merging of several things like moral, ethics, rationality, law, religion ect, so what is justice for one person can be injustice for another, its fluid if you want.
So i would say, "handing someone over" depends on your own views, if they align with the justice of the country you are in it makes sense, because they will be dealt with accordingly and you wont get in trouble, if it dont align than its better to deal with it yourself, but then you need to prepared to defend your view of justice, since it may be against the law to do what you do to that person.
In this case its more of a "deception" i guess? Because it seems that slave trade is allowed in this country and even with children (he wouldnt have claimed they are his merchandise otherwise), wich makes the "justice" of that country injustice for us (all of us here i hope), even if they would convict him for indirect trying to murder the children by using them as bait since slaves have "basic rights", which most likely forbid something like that. (I mean, its still slavery, no matter if you give them "rights" to make yourself feel better about it... disgusting)
Wont go into the justice-thingi too much, its a bit more complicated as a topic, so a comment-thread wont solve that
"Justice" in itself is just the merging of several things like moral, ethics, rationality, law, religion ect, so what is justice for one person can be injustice for another, its fluid if you want. So i would say, "handing someone over" depends on your own views, if they align with the justice of the country you are in it makes sense, because they will be dealt with accordingly and you wont get in trouble, if it dont align than its better to deal with it yourself, but then you need to prepared to defend your view of justice, since it may be against the law to do what you do to that person.
In this case its more of a "deception" i guess? Because it seems that slave trade is allowed in this country and even with children (he wouldnt have claimed they are his merchandise otherwise), wich makes the "justice" of that country injustice for us (all of us here i hope), even if they would convict him for indirect trying to murder the children by using them as bait since slaves have "basic rights", which most likely forbid something like that. (I mean, its still slavery, no matter if you give them "rights" to make yourself feel better about it... disgusting)
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2019
- Messages
- 732
Can we all just agree the kids are adorable?
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,034
@unknownids No argument there... <3
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2018
- Messages
- 1,950
@cor3zone
The law is not the only way to messure justice, you should read up on what the diffrence between law and justice really is.
The law does not dictate what is fair and just, its a means to uphold it.
Justice also can and do mean a lot of different things to different people so its possible that for us what we consider justice is two very different things.
Look up "What Is Justice?: Crash Course Philosophy" it's a pretty interesting youtube video on the topic but i digress...
Also there are multiple ways for a ruling elite to be in control despite ignoring the majority´s wishes, doing so usually ends badly for them in the long run as you said but its far from a quick process.
In the meantime the current law that only benefits the rich and nobles wont be just if you consider justice to be "for the greater good of the people" as the law only benefits the few rich...
But it will if you only consider justice to be" following the rules ".
back in the days a law system run by nobles could last for decades or centuarys before anyone off the commoners got the power to change them.
its true anyone can claim to fight for justice, however that do not make it true and is a moot point in this argument anyway.
as for who should make the rules, yes that is a tricky question with no perfect answer.
Despite the bad reputation monarchs and dictators have gotten for being quick to turn to corruption and its other failings. There are some benefits to a system where one person makes all the decisions.
a system where all people have a voice is almost always considered to be more fair and just as literally everyone can make their voice herd and the rules of society usually shapes to follow the wishes of the public.
But it also always takes a lot longer to make any changes to the system as not everyone is going to agree most of the time if they even know what is best for them in the first place witch is not always the chase....
The law is not the only way to messure justice, you should read up on what the diffrence between law and justice really is.
The law does not dictate what is fair and just, its a means to uphold it.
Justice also can and do mean a lot of different things to different people so its possible that for us what we consider justice is two very different things.
Look up "What Is Justice?: Crash Course Philosophy" it's a pretty interesting youtube video on the topic but i digress...
Also there are multiple ways for a ruling elite to be in control despite ignoring the majority´s wishes, doing so usually ends badly for them in the long run as you said but its far from a quick process.
In the meantime the current law that only benefits the rich and nobles wont be just if you consider justice to be "for the greater good of the people" as the law only benefits the few rich...
But it will if you only consider justice to be" following the rules ".
back in the days a law system run by nobles could last for decades or centuarys before anyone off the commoners got the power to change them.
its true anyone can claim to fight for justice, however that do not make it true and is a moot point in this argument anyway.
as for who should make the rules, yes that is a tricky question with no perfect answer.
Despite the bad reputation monarchs and dictators have gotten for being quick to turn to corruption and its other failings. There are some benefits to a system where one person makes all the decisions.
a system where all people have a voice is almost always considered to be more fair and just as literally everyone can make their voice herd and the rules of society usually shapes to follow the wishes of the public.
But it also always takes a lot longer to make any changes to the system as not everyone is going to agree most of the time if they even know what is best for them in the first place witch is not always the chase....
@Goldenzeal That's my entire point. Since justice is relative to each person, in a society the majority decides what "for the greater good of the people" really entails. It's represented by the law.
All rebels claim to be on the side of 'justice', but only the ones who actually succeded in their rebellion are 'just'. The ones who fail are just traitors, and 'unjust' to the majority. Whether the ruler is a dictator or not, their army (likely the majority since they won) still obeyed. Which would make the ruler 'just' from a societal viewpoint, and a representative of the majority.
I agree that 'law' is not the be-all and end-all of 'justice', but I'm arguing on a society-level. Personally I think the law is fucked-up, but it's slow to change so not much I myself can do. I'm too lazy to start my own political movement.
All of this is irrelevant to MC though, since right now his 'justice' is taking care of the kids. Challenging the 'justice' of an entire country just to punish some raving slave trader would not help, regardless of his party's strength.
All rebels claim to be on the side of 'justice', but only the ones who actually succeded in their rebellion are 'just'. The ones who fail are just traitors, and 'unjust' to the majority. Whether the ruler is a dictator or not, their army (likely the majority since they won) still obeyed. Which would make the ruler 'just' from a societal viewpoint, and a representative of the majority.
I agree that 'law' is not the be-all and end-all of 'justice', but I'm arguing on a society-level. Personally I think the law is fucked-up, but it's slow to change so not much I myself can do. I'm too lazy to start my own political movement.
All of this is irrelevant to MC though, since right now his 'justice' is taking care of the kids. Challenging the 'justice' of an entire country just to punish some raving slave trader would not help, regardless of his party's strength.
