The boundaries of good and evil

[THM Nindo]

I dunno..in the manga, the line between good and evil has been drawn clearly with the exception of sasuke (to some extent).

Depends... like we were arguing the other day, what is good and what is evil!?

Is Danzou good or evil!?
He's doing what he think is best to bring peace to Konoha, right!?

But then is Pain evil!?
He's doing what he think is best to bring peace in the whole world...
In his heart, he wants peace... he think about the others and want peace for everyone...

So what is being evil!? Thinking only about himself?!
Then the true evil are people like Orochimaru and Kakuzu, who wants power for themselves only.

As for Sasuke, he wants power, by any means, but does he want the power for himself?! Not really, he wants it to avenge his family and his brother...
Is that evil!? Well, not too sure about it...

IMO, the question about Good and Evil is far from being clear in this manga.

Unless you want to go in this way :
Those with Naruto = Good
Those against Naruto = Evil

That's the safest way since Naruto is the Good incarnated :p

[jdw]

This is a great analogy, actually. The arsonist is responsible for the circumstances that caused the firefighters to heroically decide to save people, but I think the firefighters are heroes who sacrificed their lives trying to save would-be victims rather than the victims themselves.


If Madara said "I killed the fourth hokage, how many can say they killed a hokage?" I would think that people would say that he did not and that the fourth sacrificed himself to stop Madara from killing others.

I am going to drop this now in order to get back on topic. Thanks for the exchange Bean.



edit:if you want a better analogy, how about a forest fire caused by arson where people die, including firemen trying to stop the fire...would you say that the people who created the fire had nothing to do with those who died, that they didn't kill them?
.

[Blitzace]

whether naruto is senju or not has yet to be revealed so to claim this is kinda of a stretch

Somehow the thought that naruto is from the senju clan hurts my head on more than one level. I mean he didn't inherit their kekkai genkai (even though we don't know that for sure since he can't use both the earth and water elements yet), wouldn't that make him less special being the main character of the manga ?

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

To me there's a potential testimony of how great Minato really was if Madara fought Minato with the Kyuubi on his side. Though thinking about this I doubt this, because Gamabunta would have been of witness, he could have recognised Madara I'm sure and would report to Jiraiya, or it could be Bunta didn't see or knew Madara was of great importance. Then again to be able to hold your own against a full powered Kyuubi speaks volumes for Minato Namikaze anyway.

[Remy]

Depends... like we were arguing the other day, what is good and what is evil!?

Is Danzou good or evil!?
He's doing what he think is best to bring peace to Konoha, right!?

But then is Pain evil!?
He's doing what he think is best to bring peace in the whole world...
In his heart, he wants peace... he think about the others and want peace for everyone...

So what is being evil!? Thinking only about himself?!
Then the true evil are people like Orochimaru and Kakuzu, who wants power for themselves only.

As for Sasuke, he wants power, by any means, but does he want the power for himself?! Not really, he wants it to avenge his family and his brother...
Is that evil!? Well, not too sure about it...

IMO, the question about Good and Evil is far from being clear in this manga.

Unless you want to go in this way :
Those with Naruto = Good
Those against Naruto = Evil

That's the safest way since Naruto is the Good incarnated :p


Following your logic all the biggest bastard of the universe good be good guy... Hey we killed an entire nation but we tought that was for the best of all...

People are not good because they think they do the right thing.

You would definately be refused in the police academy dude :P

[bean]

Depends... like we were arguing the other day, what is good and what is evil!?

Is Danzou good or evil!?
He's doing what he think is best to bring peace to Konoha, right!?

But then is Pain evil!?
He's doing what he think is best to bring peace in the whole world...
In his heart, he wants peace... he think about the others and want peace for everyone...

So what is being evil!? Thinking only about himself?!
Then the true evil are people like Orochimaru and Kakuzu, who wants power for themselves only.

As for Sasuke, he wants power, by any means, but does he want the power for himself?! Not really, he wants it to avenge his family and his brother...
Is that evil!? Well, not too sure about it...

IMO, the question about Good and Evil is far from being clear in this manga.

Unless you want to go in this way :
Those with Naruto = Good
Those against Naruto = Evil

That's the safest way since Naruto is the Good incarnated :p
doing what you think is best and doing the the best for something are two different things. Hitler could be argued to have been doing what he thought was best for the world, so is he not evil? What pein is doing, is evil. What danzou is doing, not doing, and has done can be considered evil. Evil is not only about intent, but about actions as well. Did pein really have to destroy konoha to reach peace? did he have to take part in the deaths of the hosts? Evil and good, to me, as I said has been clearly drawn in this manga.

edit: as for sasuke, he hasn't really done anything evil to the extent that pein has done, but he has, barely, stepped to the dark side by "capturing" the hachibi (granted he actually didn't, but he doesn't know that he didn't). However, that little flashback to his konoha buddies gives me the feeling that he did it for them...still, do the means justify the end? Up until that point though, he wasn't doing anything evil. He spared people's lives and didn't kill unjustly. Bah...let's move on.

[THM Nindo]

Following your logic all the biggest bastard of the universe good be good guy... Hey we killed an entire nation but we tought that was for the best of all...

People are not good because they think they do the right thing.

You would definately be refused in the police academy dude :P

Yeah, but you know how it is.
A hero for a nation is a tyrant for another.

Good and Evil changes depending on which side you are on.

As I said, since we're following Naruto's story.
The best way to say which one is good or evil is to see if he's with or against Naruto.

[bean]

This is a great analogy, actually. The arsonist is responsible for the circumstances that caused the firefighters to heroically decide to save people, but I think the firefighters are heroes who sacrificed their lives trying to save would-be victims rather than the victims themselves.
still doesn't take the responsibility away from the arsonist. They technically killed all those who died cause of the fire. Their actions caused the deaths, hence, they are responsible for them.

[vejita_sempai]

Of course he is... It<s the remaining bond between naruto and sasuke...

Madara killed both of their family. (speculation)
<hr noshade size="1">


Sasuke killed a lizard... he's evil. :)

loll but is the truth .... this is the evidence

[Remy]

Yeah, but you know how it is.
A hero for a nation is a tyrant for another.

Good and Evil changes depending on which side you are on.

As I said, since we're following Naruto's story.
The best way to say which one is good or evil is to see if he's with or against Naruto.

Like Bean said... That would mean Hitler was a good guy because he thought he was doing the good thing. Does'nt make any sense. We both come from the same place i'd like to agree with you but just can't sorr..

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

Depends on point of view. Hitler was seen as a saviour to many. While those not German begged to differ. While looking at it, it's hard to see who would be in favour for Pain's ideal, which could potentially destroy the world, unless that person was guranteed his or her's safety. However Danzou is more similar to Hitler, where some who are fully Pro-Konoha would support actions taken by Danzou.

[THM Nindo]

doing what you think is best and doing the the best for something are two different things. Hitler could be argued to have been doing what he thought was best for the world, so is he not evil? What pein is doing, is evil. What danzou is doing, not doing, and has done can be considered evil. Evil is not only about intent, but about actions as well. Did pein really have to destroy konoha to reach peace? did he have to take part in the deaths of the hosts? Evil and good, to me, as I said has been clearly drawn in this manga.

Okay, but then is Itachi evil!?

He killed an entire clan because he though that was the best thing to do for the peace.

... I'm not against you guys, I'm just saying that "criminal" and "evil" is not the same thing. Being evil is having a "black heart" and thinking only of himself, wanting to rule the world with chaos and things like that.

IMO, Pain isn't that evil. His quest for peace is the proof that he doesn't have a "black heart".

Danzou is more evil than Pain, because he wants Konoha to be the strongest and that's a quest for power.

[Remy]

To me there's a potential testimony of how great Minato really was if Madara fought Minato with the Kyuubi on his side. Though thinking about this I doubt this, because Gamabunta would have been of witness, he could have recognised Madara I'm sure and would report to Jiraiya, or it could be Bunta didn't see or knew Madara was of great importance. Then again to be able to hold your own against a full powered Kyuubi speaks volumes for Minato Namikaze anyway.

You mean how great Madara was...

He beated Minato... used the Kyubbi and destroy the entire Uchiha clan when manipulating everyone.

He rocks as a villain seriouxly :)

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

Okay, but then is Itachi evil!?

He killed an entire clan because he though that was the best thing to do for the peace.

... I'm not against you guys, I'm just saying that "criminal" and "evil" is not the same thing. Being evil is having a "black heart" and thinking only of himself, wanting to rule the world with chaos and things like that.

IMO, Pain isn't that evil. His quest for peace is the proof that he doesn't have a "black heart".

Danzou is more evil than Pain, because he wants Konoha to be the strongest and that's a quest for power.


It's valid that Pain's point of reasoning is not evil, while to many his actions or means are evil. Murder is often seen as an evil act. Rather I think Pain is more delusional to say the least than actually to be labelled, "evil". :) :amuse

[vejita_sempai]

i'm in agreement with Bean ...in the real life like in this manga "Evil is not only about intent, but about actions as well."

[bean]

Okay, but then is Itachi evil!?

He killed an entire clan because he though that was the best thing to do for the peace.

... I'm not against you guys, I'm just saying that "criminal" and "evil" is not the same thing. Being evil is having a "black heart" and thinking only of himself, wanting to rule the world with chaos and things like that.

IMO, Pain isn't that evil. His quest for peace is the proof that he doesn't have a "black heart".

Danzou is more evil than Pain, because he wants Konoha to be the strongest and that's a quest for power.
kishi did a weird thing by pulling our heart strings in his story, but yes, itachi was evil, and though he may have been good inside, he sacrificed that to protect his brother and chose evil ways. He killed his entire family and some. He took part in killing innocent hosts. Being evil doesn't necessarily mean just having a "black heart" but could be better said as having a "misguided heart". Using the wrong means to achieve goals. Some people are more flamboyantly evil (oro) while others a more subdued (pein). Pein isn't immune to being evil because he wants peace...I mean, he wants people to suffer to achieve it...how is that not evil?

[cgpr4life2]

Okay, but then is Itachi evil!?

He killed an entire clan because he though that was the best thing to do for the peace.

... I'm not against you guys, I'm just saying that "criminal" and "evil" is not the same thing. Being evil is having a "black heart" and thinking only of himself, wanting to rule the world with chaos and things like that.

IMO, Pain isn't that evil. His quest for peace is the proof that he doesn't have a "black heart".

Danzou is more evil than Pain, because he wants Konoha to be the strongest and that's a quest for power. I agree with you pain is not evil he just seeks peace in a very messed up way. A good graphic novel that goes deeply into this topic is "watchmen" i highly recommend it. though the movie is coming out soon anyway thats completely off topic.

[Remy]

Okay, but then is Itachi evil!?

He killed an entire clan because he though that was the best thing to do for the peace.

... I'm not against you guys, I'm just saying that "criminal" and "evil" is not the same thing. Being evil is having a "black heart" and thinking only of himself, wanting to rule the world with chaos and things like that.

IMO, Pain isn't that evil. His quest for peace is the proof that he doesn't have a "black heart".

Danzou is more evil than Pain, because he wants Konoha to be the strongest and that's a quest for power.


Itachi wanted everyone to belive he killed them all... but we know madara was manipulating everything...

Did he really killed them^ I have serious doubt about this. He could<ve may prevent it from happening but I seriously doubt he did anything to his parents on that night.

[THM Nindo]

i'm in agreement with Bean ...in the real life like in this manga "Evil is not only about intent, but about actions as well."

But then, do you consider that Itachi is evil!?
He did wipe out all his clans (including old lady, kids and babies)...

[cgpr4life2]

kishi did a weird thing by pulling our heart strings in his story, but yes, itachi was evil, and though he may have been good inside, he sacrificed that to protect his brother and chose evil ways. He killed his entire family and some. He took part in killing innocent hosts. Being evil doesn't necessarily mean just having a "black heart" but could be better said as having a "misguided heart". Using the wrong means to achieve goals. Some people are more flamboyantly evil (oro) while others a more subdued (pein). Pein isn't immune to being evil because he wants peace...I mean, he wants people to suffer to achieve it...how is that not evil?the question is if itachi is evil or if its the elders of konoha who ordered him to kill his family.

[Remy]

It's valid that Pain's point of reasoning is not evil, while to many his actions or means are evil. Murder is often seen as an evil act. Rather I think Pain is more delusional to say the least than actually to be labelled, "evil". :) :amuse

Now your playing with the words.... he just killed many many innocents people. If this is not eveil what is?
[hr]

But then, do you consider that Itachi is evil!?
He did wipe out all his clans (including old lady, kids and babies)...

Yes if he did it hes evil.. why not? because hes good looking and he save one person while killing many others?

If he really did what madara said then this guy is not just evil, hes stupid as hell also.

[bean]

I agree with you pain is not evil he just seeks peace in a very messed up way. A good graphic novel that goes deeply into this topic is "watchmen" i highly recommend it. though the movie is coming out soon anyway thats completely off topic.
the funny thing about that comic was that the "good heroes" considered that guy to be evil, and kinda stepped into the dark side themselves by not stopping his evil plan and killing the only one with the right morals. Evil prevailed in that story, even though it brought on some good (I guess if you can call it that).
[hr]

the question is if itachi is evil or if its the elders of konoha who ordered him to kill his family.
he is. Like I said, he sacrificed his good nature to become evil to "save" konoha in a shitty fucked up misguided way. The good in that situation (sarutobi) was pushed aside. And even then, he regretted it and knew that he allowed the wrong thing to be done...

[Remy]

the funny thing about that comic was that the "good heroes" considered that guy to be evil, and kinda stepped into the dark side themselves by not stopping his evil plan and killing the only one with the right morals. Evil prevailed in that story, even though it brought on some good (I guess if you can call it that).

yep... and do someone deeply eveil can do few little good things during his lifes? Of course.

But don't tell me killing innocent people is not eveil because it depends if he is on naruto side... I don't buy it

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

Instead of the manga drawing a line between Good and Evil, essentially I think Kishi draws the line between villains and protagonists. That way Kishi can make out Itachi to be a villain rather than an evil person. While yes Itachi did kill the Uchiha clan off, he was following strict ninja orders, now is following orders which is your duty an evil act? Are those soldiers who engage in war evil because they follow "evil" orders?

[vejita_sempai]

But then, do you consider that Itachi is evil!?
He did wipe out all his clans (including old lady, kids and babies)...



omg i love itachi ..... but yes imo ...he was evil like pain is !!!!

and itachi knew that is act as evil !!!! infact he waiting for sasuke revenge....

[Remy]

Instead of the manga drawing a line between Good and Evil, essentially I think Kishi draws the line between villains and protagonists. That way Kishi can make out Itachi to be a villain rather than an evil person. While yes Itachi did kill the Uchiha clan off, he following strict ninja orders, now is following orders which is your duty an evil act? Are those soldiers who engage in war evil because they follow "evil" orders?

Nice point of vue. Make sense to me.

About your soldier orders... if I am working for an army and they told me to kill innocent people for dick... and I do it just because they ordered me to.. Yes im evil... and stupid

[bean]

Instead of the manga drawing a line between Good and Evil, essentially I think Kishi draws the line between villains and protagonists. That way Kishi can make out Itachi to be a villain rather than an evil person. While yes Itachi did kill the Uchiha clan off, he was following strict ninja orders, now is following orders which is your duty an evil act? Are those soldiers who engage in war evil because they follow "evil" orders?
now we're getting into some deep shit...but yeah, itachi had the choice to disobey those orders or to go through with them. He didn't have to turn to evil ways to maintain his image or protection over his brother...

[THM Nindo]

if itachi was evil or good does not belong to the coming chapter. :oh


I agree.
I'm sorry I started that discussion:p

That's pretty interesting and I wish that was not deleted by the mods.
Is there a way to transfer all that discussion into a new thread?
A thread like : "Who is good and who is evil!?"

I'd like to continue that discussion in that thread :D

[Remy]

I agree.
I'm sorry I started that discussion:p

That's pretty interesting and I wish that was not deleted by the mods.
Is there a way to transfer all that discussion into a new thread?
A thread like : "Who is good and who is evil!?"

I'd like to continue that discussion in that thread :D

Yeah me too... that was a discussion where arguments were coming easily I guess...

So next chapter I call that madara is Obito or Danzo :) *kidding*

[cgpr4life2]

the funny thing about that comic was that the "good heroes" considered that guy to be evil, and kinda stepped into the dark side themselves by not stopping his evil plan and killing the only one with the right morals. Evil prevailed in that story, even though it brought on some good (I guess if you can call it that).
<hr noshade size="1">The messed up part is that it all got undone at the very end so no good actually came out of it.



he is. Like I said, he sacrificed his good nature to become evil to "save" konoha in a shitty fucked up misguided way. The good in that situation (sarutobi) was pushed aside. And even then, he regretted it and knew that he allowed the wrong thing to be done... yes but would letting the uchiha clan rage war against konoha been the "good" thing to do? I think the problem is that we r thinking of good as right and evil as wrong. Itachi killing his entire family may have been an evil thing but it was indeed the right thing to do.

[bean]

I agree.
I'm sorry I started that discussion:p

That's pretty interesting and I wish that was not deleted by the mods.
Is there a way to transfer all that discussion into a new thread?
A thread like : "Who is good and who is evil!?"

I'd like to continue that discussion in that thread :D
create that thread and ask them transfer it over (through a PM).

[shinjinjou]

everything is black or white, there is no grey, unless some jerk goes and tries to mix both up. evil and good are only the perceptions that one holds and what society dictates as to be acceptable and not. Naruto is the protagonist, but who's to say what he's doing is 'good'. of course for all the ramen-loving kids he's a super hero that is 'good'. it's all about perception and not the tags that get placed on them. there is in no sense a such thing as good or evil as they can be justified from different views and angles. basically it gets us asking and wondering why.
we say things are bad because we 'believe' they are or have a notion of it being the opposite to what is attributed as being 'good'.
But this is a manga, so let's get back to discussing how Naruto is going to whip Sasuke worse than an S&M party in the final showdown.

Danzou is the greatest and will appear out of nowhere and give a short, sweet, and bitter rant and kill someone with his can...or maybe the hidden eye jutsu under the bandaged eye?????? zazazazazazaza I'm falling into insanity and going back to read OP or Gantz hahaha

[bean]

The messed up part is that it all got undone at the very end so no good actually came out of it.


yes but would letting the uchiha clan rage war against konoha been the "good" thing to do? I think the problem is that we r thinking of good as right and evil as wrong. Itachi killing his entire family may have been an evil thing but it was indeed the right thing to do.
that's right, I forgot about the diary.

[THM Nindo]

create that thread and ask them transfer it over (through a PM).

Who should I PM? Patedecarne?!

[bean]

The messed up part is that it all got undone at the very end so no good actually came out of it.


yes but would letting the uchiha clan rage war against konoha been the "good" thing to do? I think the problem is that we r thinking of good as right and evil as wrong. Itachi killing his entire family may have been an evil thing but it was indeed the right thing to do.
the good thing to have been done, or the right thing, would have been to try to get things hammered out without any violence. Pleading with both sides to find a compromise, or even better, a solution where neither side had to compromise. Instead, both sides chose evil (or wrong, whatever) ways to deal with the situation. So was killing his entire family evil? yeah. Was it the right thing to do? ask all those dead innocent uchihas who probably didn't want anything to do with a revolt...

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

I would be good if a mod could move these posts to a newly created thread. :amuse

On one last note, if we define Pain evil because of his means rather than reasoning, would that make someone who is jealous evil because being jealous can or is seen as an evil act? Kishi wisely doesn't take this route of good and evil, only those opposing the main character is some way and those who are with the main character in some way. Obviously Pain is definitely an opposition to Naruto, making him a villain. :p

On topic: We got a nice cover this chap, only 2 spoiler pics isn't necessarily bad as the released chapter scan would be a better read as a result.

[bean]

Who should I PM? Patedecarne?!
anyone who is around. If their name is green or blue, they should be able to do it.

[THM Nindo]

Hi,

We were having a great discussion about who was good and who was evil in the manga.

That's the place to debate on question regarding character evilness.

For a start, Itachi killed his own clan. That was for the "greater good", but his did kill everyone (including old ladies, kids and babies), does that make him evil?

As for the other characters...

Is Pain truly evil? In the end, he wants peace, but to obtain it, he's killing tons of innocent.

And, of course, that's another good place to discuss if Sasuke is evil or not. :p:p

I asked the Mods to transfer the whole discussion, so join in!

[deeve82]

Instead of the manga drawing a line between Good and Evil, essentially I think Kishi draws the line between villains and protagonists. That way Kishi can make out Itachi to be a villain rather than an evil person. While yes Itachi did kill the Uchiha clan off, he was following strict ninja orders, now is following orders which is your duty an evil act? Are those soldiers who engage in war evil because they follow "evil" orders?

I think as long as following those orders don't comprimise your own beliefs and values then no. Who is to say what the evil order was??? I always got the impression Itachi was protecting the village from his clan. Now if you are following orders that go against what you believe...that just makes you a dumb-ass

[laughing@you]

I think as long as following those orders don't comprimise your own beliefs and values then no. Who is to say what the evil order was??? I always got the impression Itachi was protecting the village from his clan. Now if you are following orders that go against what you believe...that just makes you a dumb-ass

Specially when your plans of protecting your village just went down the drain. The organization you were trying to keep on check, recruited his brother plus destroyed the village.

Way to go genius!!!

Might as well had gone into war back then, the situation might had been handled swiftly, than getting utterly destroyed, night of the leaving dead pein here!!

[kkck]

Your question in particular is one of the most subjective and hardest to answer lol. Even for real life "evil people", the question is hard because in general people dont act thinking "haha I am evil" and give the good guys the james bond special. In general people act according to what they consider right at the moment and justify their decisions that way. Obviously there are true sociopaths which consider themself evil and are proud of it though but I dont think that particular extreme case is going to be discussed.

I believe that rather than pein being evil, he is massively misguided and delusional (given that he believes he is a god)

As for itachi, his particular situation is more complicated. He clearly couldnt spare a single person who was aware of the coup, so old ladies and women had to go... As for other children, we are not even sure on wether there were any more although it is highly posible. Guess itachi could have spared them if he had wanted to(although the plot would have been diferent in several aspects regarding sasuke lol)....

[Darth Executor]

Specially when your plans of protecting your village just went down the drain. The organization you were trying to keep on check, recruited his brother plus destroyed the village.

Way to go genius!!!

Might as well had gone into war back then, the situation might had been handled swiftly, than getting utterly destroyed, night of the leaving dead pein here!!

Not to mention that Itachi's the one who drove Sasuke off the edge. If Itachi had just told Sasuke why he did it from the beginning then maybe Sasuke wouldn't have left the village. At the very least he should've killed Orochimaru before he drove a wedge between sasuke and the village.

[cgpr4life2]

the good thing to have been done, or the right thing, would have been to try to get things hammered out without any violence. Pleading with both sides to find a compromise, or even better, a solution where neither side had to compromise. Instead, both sides chose evil (or wrong, whatever) ways to deal with the situation. So was killing his entire family evil? yeah. Was it the right thing to do? ask all those dead innocent uchihas who probably didn't want anything to do with a revolt...do u really think the uchiha clan would have started a revolt if they couldn't even convince the entire clan to favor it? I mean yea the right thing would have been to come to a better solution but that wasn't for itachi to decide. If he would have spoken out against the elders than they would have treated him like the rest of the uchiha and killed him as well and war would still have broken out.

[laughing@you]

Not to mention that Itachi's the one who drove Sasuke off the edge. If Itachi had just told Sasuke why he did it from the beginning then maybe Sasuke wouldn't have left the village. At the very least he should've killed Orochimaru before he drove a wedge between sasuke and the village.

Nah i would have left with my brother and any other that didn't want part with the war, and teach my brother to be strong. If he was gonna die like he was, leave him his eyes. Find another village to live on. He could taken over the sound village if itachi could owned oro so effortlessly, like oro remembered.

But this is really :offtopic2 lets get back on topic shall we

Since tendou pein regained his abilities naruto has been disarmed. Almost every chapter afterward naruto seems to be on his ass or eating dirt.

I don't get why nagato has the other bodies, this one is the most effective!!!

[cgpr4life2]

Not to mention that Itachi's the one who drove Sasuke off the edge. If Itachi had just told Sasuke why he did it from the beginning then maybe Sasuke wouldn't have left the village. At the very least he should've killed Orochimaru before he drove a wedge between sasuke and the village.I disagree with u he probably would have left earlier if itachi had told him from the beginning. I mean do u really think he would just stay in the village living peacefully knowing that hes living with the people who ordered his families death.

[Alex_1]

Nah i would have left with my brother and any other that didn't want part with the war, and teach my brother to be strong. If he was gonna die like he was, leave him his eyes. Find another village to live on. He could taken over the sound village if owned oro so effortlessly.

But this is really :offtopic2 lets get back on topic shall we

Since tendou pein regained his abilities naruto has been disarmed. Almost every chapter afterward naruto seems to be on his ass or eating dirt.

I don't get why nagato has the other bodies, this one is the most effective!!!

It looks like he just wants to protect it any way that he can. I think it's one of the reasons why he put away God realm and took out the summoning realm vs. Jiraiya. Not just because of what he could summon, but because Jiraiya had a lesser chance to understand exactly what was going on with Nagato/Yahiko and the rinnegan. Just that little time actually made a difference in the fight, otherwise Jiraiya could've fled.

I still think Naruto's plotting against this body and trying to find a way to get to him without the repulsion/expulsion.

[Darth Executor]

I disagree with u he probably would have left earlier if itachi had told him from the beginning. I mean do u really think he would just stay in the village living peacefully knowing that hes living with the people who ordered his families death.

Left for where? He didn't leave until Oro came along, made him think he is and tempted him with power. Early on he could've influenced sasuke a lot easier than with his ridiculous plan.

[cgpr4life2]

But man, jiraiya is the greatest master of all time. Cuz, in his lifetime he has taught some serious mofo's, the 4th, pein, naruto. seriously he out did his own master in training is students i mean pain, fourth, and naruto are way better than tsunade, orochimaru, and jiraiya. just goes to show that this story emphasizes the youth surpassing the older generation.

[cgpr4life2]

Left for where? He didn't leave until Oro came along, made him think he is and tempted him with power. Early on he could've influenced sasuke a lot easier than with his ridiculous plan.its hard to say where he would've gone but i doubt he would have just stayed with the people who killed his family. besides theres always gonna be people who will want the sharingan for themselves so having sasuke leave the village at such a young age would have been even more dangerous for sasuke.

[godaijutsu-no-hito]

Left for where? He didn't leave until Oro came along, made him think he is and tempted him with power. Early on he could've influenced sasuke a lot easier than with his ridiculous plan.

Itachi's plan was ridiculous. I agree with that. But, it is quite obvious that Sasuke would not have stayed in the village which obliterated his clan. That would be reaaaly hard to believe.

[laughing@you]

seriously he out did his own master in training is students i mean pain, fourth, and naruto are way better than tsunade, orochimaru, and jiraiya. just goes to show that this story emphasizes the youth surpassing the older generation.

Well each ones are masters on their own field. Except for tsunade, the rest of the sannin got defeated by their own students. But tsunade got whooped around by kabuto.

But the task of saving as many as she did, is still something to be respected.

[cgpr4life2]

Well each ones are masters on their own field. Except for tsunade, the rest of the sannin got defeated by their own students. But tsunade got whooped around by kabuto.

But the task of saving as many as she did, is still something to be respected.

yes but kabuto is not one to be taken lightly. i cant wait till he makes his return with orochimaru's cells under control.

[Fox666]

There doesn't exist good and evil in Naruto world. It consists of armed nations who use war to gather money. The Akatsuki is one that is only against the nations, they aren't actually truly evil. And Itachi is not a evil entity.

Either, some more specific cases:
- Pein want to give a weapon to humanity that will cause so many fear they will stop fighting, because like the cold war they will realise they must stop. Pein has a notorious evilness, but in the end he want to gather peace.
- Sasuke wants revenge against anyone. He has somehow lost his objective when discovered what his brother do, and now want to accomplishe the "living for killing" at any cost. He is actually evil, he only wants revenge, doesn't?
- Naruto is the most notorious. He is the salvation for the world. From the beggining he said how he would end the Hyuuga clan hierarchy you see how he would be a good entity as a leader for the world.

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

I think Orochimaru is the closer you get to an evil character. His reasoning was based of selfishness and desire for power while his means were most definitely evil. Even then he wasn't 100% evil since he did carry out missions for Konoha and had a sort of strange friendship with Kabuto. He also had a bit of a feminine side if you know what I mean.

[cgpr4life2]

I think Orochimaru is the closer you get to an evil character. His reasoning was based of selfishness and desire for power while his means were most definitely evil. Even then he wasn't 100% evil since he did carry out missions for Konoha and had a sort of strange friendship with Kabuto. He also had a bit of a feminine side if you know what I mean.agreed I believe orochimaru has been a true villain with pure evil seeds but in my opinion the most evil character
in the series would be madara. madara only wants power to carry out revenge upon konoha and the uchihas and why does he want revenge on them because they didn't give him more power and acknowledge him as their leader.

[THM Nindo]

I think Orochimaru is the closer you get to an evil character. His reasoning was based of selfishness and desire for power while his means were most definitely evil. Even then he wasn't 100% evil since he did carry out missions for Konoha and had a sort of strange friendship with Kabuto. He also had a bit of a feminine side if you know what I mean.

Totally agree.
Orochimaru have bad intent, and did bad actions.
His goal was only a quest for power to rule over the weak with fear. That's being truly evil in my opinion.

__

But then, if intent and action are what defined evilness, was Zabuza evil?

He did consider himself as a demon, he killed for fun and his intent was only to kill the Kazekage and have more and more power...

But, in the end, he showed us that he loved... I guess one proof of kindness isn't enough to wash away all the evilness, but still... maybe no one is truly 100% evil.

[nat]

I agree that the lines of good and bad are blurred. What we see is from Konoha's point of view therefor we see them as supreme good.

For me, I believe that they did as much wrong as right. It's human nature and humans are not perfect. But I also believe in retribution ...For the Uchihas that is, they were bastards I'll give you that.
But they got screwed over in ways that any warrior would have wanted to avoid. Sasuke is good, and we will see that in the next arcs to come. There are more ways to being good than just acting good, Itachi played the villain yet he watched over his brother, the village and Naruto in his own way. He was ultimately good.

We move to Pein...> well he is a victim of war and he suffered. He has a legitimate cause but his logic is biased and flawed. Is he bad? I don't think so but his means are bad.

That is for sure, for me it does not count that he killed X and Y to become evil because in Naruto (almost) everyone has killed and they are Ninjas, therefor required to kill. But his big scale eradication of humanity plan is what pisses me off. He is not the only one to suffer, his luck was that he got a divine and infallible bloodline...

That sucks.

[◆ T.D.A ◆]

Wait why is there two of the same threads? :headscratch

[Forever_Melody]

~Merged the threads into one :)~

Yeah I agree that the lines between good and evil aren't clear in Naruto. It's kind of hard to define "good guys" in a world where people assassinate others for money no?

I mean, Kakashi is good, but he has killed before and has probably been paid to carry out various assassination missions.

Same goes for Gaara, he killed many people as well.

In all actuality, the terms "good" and "evil" are really vague and grey even in real life. Both these terms are social constructions based on ideals and beliefs which dare all the way back to religious times. Religions were a very early attempt to classify and govern behavior and whether you are religious or not, those "lines" many religions have put down are very present in society.

Therefore, to really place "good" and "evil" requires social and cultural baggage which will vary from individual to individual. Obviously those norms are more universal nowadays and most people agree on certain things being good bad(ex: murder is considered bad for just about most places in the world). Still, the idea of "good" and "evil" are really dictated by one's prior upbringing and baggage. The very fact that both of them are social constructions is an evident point of this.

Anyways, to relate this to Naruto....lol :p

How we interpret characters is really up to us individuals. All villains in Naruto are in the grey zone IMO and different interpretations can carry different meanings depending on who you are. Let us look at them(hopefully I can make this brief lol :XD)

Orochimaru:
Probably one of the most villainous villains in the series. He's done horrible things to many innocent people all in the name of his quest for becoming the ultimate being. But what lies at the root of this? Is it pure selfishness, does the link to his parents carry any value anymore in Orochimaru's decisions? And another question is important, assuming Oro's intentions aren't totally evil, do his means justify his ends?(take careful note of this question as it will arise many times). Is Orochimaru an evil bastard or a misunderstood child longing for something he cannot have?

Pain:
Another very big grey zone. He supposedly wants to bring peace to the world, but is ready to annihilate many in this quest. So again, do his means justify his ends? And really, many could consider his ends twisted and wrong, but is his ideal wrong? He doesn't mention planning to govern this world(what he mentioned to Akatsuki was different than what he mentioned to Jiraiya) nor to even play a vital part in it. He just wants to bring about world peace he says. So is Pain a true villain or a twisted child?

Madara:
Perhaps another big baddy. So far, he has shown that he yearns for power and domination/supremacy. By his past wants to govern Uchiha and Konoha, we can assume that power is one of his aspirations. Looks pretty selfish no? Well as e-nat said, he and Uchiha were pushed around by Senju after Konoha was founded and Madara could not step himself down in this light. He ended up being outcasted by all those he knew because of his supposed inability to cooperate with Senju. Ina ll accordance, he acted like Naruto. being ignored and cast out, he rebelled and acted against authority, he just did it on a larger and more devastating scale than Naruto because the root of his problem was different than Naruto's. Perhaps this is true and perhaps Madara lacked the ability to properly talk with Hashirama to settle things(and therefore not allow Senju to push Uchiha around)...but...what if this wasn't true? What if Madara has an underlying motivation for what he did? What if his story was true and his brother sacrificed himself for Uchiha? But wait! It's still pretty selfish to want power for your clan no? Well perhaps Uchiha had a higher ideal than simply being the best. Perhaps they wanted some form of peace through domination(like Pain) and the passing of Senju upon Madara's brother's sacrifice signified a disgrace. So is Madara really a dastardly villain or another big kid who can't take "no" for an answer?

Itachi:
Ah the infamous "bad guy turned good" of the story. Well he's also a target for that famed question. Did his means justify his end? Was killing his entire clan worth the cost of the supposed "peace" he gained? Would there have been another outcome which escaped both Itachi and Sandaime? And what of the supposed trauma he made everyone go through by pretending to be evil? He supposedly did it for them, but in the end did it really bear fruit? Well only the ending of the series will truly note that, but the question is to be put out there. Itachi may be good, but everything concerning him and his life turns into the grey area as the situation he was [saddly] put in.

Kabuto/Kabuchimaru:
Well he's kind of pretty dastardly as well. He enjoyed serving Orochimaru and reveled in torturing and experimenting on Orochimaru's subjects. Pretty gruesome no? But then again, did he not pursue knowledge like Oro? What do we know of Kabuto's motivations really? He mentions his lack of an identity and how it affected his behavior and how being under Orochimaru's wing helped alleviate that. After Orochimaru died and he became Kabuchimaru, he found an identity, a reason to live. Is that so bad? He mentions wanting to surpass Orochimaru, the man he most admired. Is that bad? He doesn't mention any dastardly evil plot other than taking revenge on Orochimaru, but is revenge against killing those who killed someone you cared about evil? Is Sasuke evil for wanting revenge? Is Naruto evil for wanting revenge?

Danzou:
And finally, the old crone himself! Well I won't go from one point to another. He has his own vision for how things work and how own vision of a good world. Once again same question, do his means justify his vision?

There, my personal analysis of the current villains in the Naruto series(I won't even attempt the past ones lol :p). As you can see, there are grey areas in each of them really and none can be classified a "good" or "ba" without:
- understanding the psyche/motivation of the character
- having a certain social & cultural background to place a judgment upon the character

[THM Nindo]

~Merged the threads into one :)~

Yeah I agree that the lines between good and evil aren't clear in Naruto. It's kind of hard to define "good guys" in a world where people assassinate others for money no?

I mean, Kakashi is good, but he has killed before and has probably been paid to carry out various assassination missions.

Same goes for Gaara, he killed many people as well.

In all actuality, the terms "good" and "evil" are really vague and grey even in real life. Both these terms are social constructions based on ideals and beliefs which dare all the way back to religious times. Religions were a very early attempt to classify and govern behavior and whether you are religious or not, those "lines" many religions have put down are very present in society.

Therefore, to really place "good" and "evil" requires social and cultural baggage which will vary from individual to individual. Obviously those norms are more universal nowadays and most people agree on certain things being good bad(ex: murder is considered bad for just about most places in the world). Still, the idea of "good" and "evil" are really dictated by one's prior upbringing and baggage. The very fact that both of them are social constructions is an evident point of this.

Anyways, to relate this to Naruto....lol :p

How we interpret characters is really up to us individuals. All villains in Naruto are in the grey zone IMO and different interpretations can carry different meanings depending on who you are. Let us look at them(hopefully I can make this brief lol :XD)

Orochimaru:
Probably one of the most villainous villains in the series. He's done horrible things to many innocent people all in the name of his quest for becoming the ultimate being. But what lies at the root of this? Is it pure selfishness, does the link to his parents carry any value anymore in Orochimaru's decisions? And another question is important, assuming Oro's intentions aren't totally evil, do his means justify his ends?(take careful note of this question as it will arise many times). Is Orochimaru an evil bastard or a misunderstood child longing for something he cannot have?

Pain:
Another very big grey zone. He supposedly wants to bring peace to the world, but is ready to annihilate many in this quest. So again, do his means justify his ends? And really, many could consider his ends twisted and wrong, but is his ideal wrong? He doesn't mention planning to govern this world(what he mentioned to Akatsuki was different than what he mentioned to Jiraiya) nor to even play a vital part in it. He just wants to bring about world peace he says. So is Pain a true villain or a twisted child?

Madara:
Perhaps another big baddy. So far, he has shown that he yearns for power and domination/supremacy. By his past wants to govern Uchiha and Konoha, we can assume that power is one of his aspirations. Looks pretty selfish no? Well as e-nat said, he and Uchiha were pushed around by Senju after Konoha was founded and Madara could not step himself down in this light. He ended up being outcasted by all those he knew because of his supposed inability to cooperate with Senju. Ina ll accordance, he acted like Naruto. being ignored and cast out, he rebelled and acted against authority, he just did it on a larger and more devastating scale than Naruto because the root of his problem was different than Naruto's. Perhaps this is true and perhaps Madara lacked the ability to properly talk with Hashirama to settle things(and therefore not allow Senju to push Uchiha around)...but...what if this wasn't true? What if Madara has an underlying motivation for what he did? What if his story was true and his brother sacrificed himself for Uchiha? But wait! It's still pretty selfish to want power for your clan no? Well perhaps Uchiha had a higher ideal than simply being the best. Perhaps they wanted some form of peace through domination(like Pain) and the passing of Senju upon Madara's brother's sacrifice signified a disgrace. So is Madara really a dastardly villain or another big kid who can't take "no" for an answer?

Itachi:
Ah the infamous "bad guy turned good" of the story. Well he's also a target for that famed question. Did his means justify his end? Was killing his entire clan worth the cost of the supposed "peace" he gained? Would there have been another outcome which escaped both Itachi and Sandaime? And what of the supposed trauma he made everyone go through by pretending to be evil? He supposedly did it for them, but in the end did it really bear fruit? Well only the ending of the series will truly note that, but the question is to be put out there. Itachi may be good, but everything concerning him and his life turns into the grey area as the situation he was [saddly] put in.

Kabuto/Kabuchimaru:
Well he's kind of pretty dastardly as well. He enjoyed serving Orochimaru and reveled in torturing and experimenting on Orochimaru's subjects. Pretty gruesome no? But then again, did he not pursue knowledge like Oro? What do we know of Kabuto's motivations really? He mentions his lack of an identity and how it affected his behavior and how being under Orochimaru's wing helped alleviate that. After Orochimaru died and he became Kabuchimaru, he found an identity, a reason to live. Is that so bad? He mentions wanting to surpass Orochimaru, the man he most admired. Is that bad? He doesn't mention any dastardly evil plot other than taking revenge on Orochimaru, but is revenge against killing those who killed someone you cared about evil? Is Sasuke evil for wanting revenge? Is Naruto evil for wanting revenge?

Danzou:
And finally, the old crone himself! Well I won't go from one point to another. He has his own vision for how things work and how own vision of a good world. Once again same question, do his means justify his vision?

There, my personal analysis of the current villains in the Naruto series(I won't even attempt the past ones lol :p). As you can see, there are grey areas in each of them really and none can be classified a "good" or "ba" without:
- understanding the psyche/motivation of the character
- having a certain social & cultural background to place a judgment upon the character

Thanks.
It's exactly what I've been trying to say from the beginning.

There doesn't seem to have a lot of truly evil character in this manga.
The only one I would go and say that he was really evil is "Orochimaru" because he never showed any rightful action. All he did was for him to get more power.

Everyone else, in a way, are doing the things for the right reason (peace, justice AKA revenge:p).

What I want to say by that is that, except Orochimaru, everyone as a deep "good" side.

Could you see Naruto change Pain's mind and bring him to the good side? Totally.

Could you see Naruto change Orochimaru's mind (if he was still alive)? Impossible.


BTW, Melody, you almost forgot #1 Good/Evil debate : Sasuke.

As mostly everyone think, I think Sasuke is good. He's just driven by revenge (which is kind of like justice, so it's not "evil").
And we still get that "Team 7" and that "He was never alone" thing to make us believe that, deep inside, he still care and his good.

[Forever_Melody]

Actually, even at the root of Orochimaru's evil ways might lie a less evil intention. He may have become twisted to that point, but his beginnings weren't evil. He yearned to overcome death, not necessarily out of evil intentions, but to achieve a higher state of being. He believed that learning all jutsus in the world would transcend him on another level. In a sense, I guess you could say he was a twisted monk looking for enlightenment lol :XD

I doubt Oro wanted power like Madara, ebcause it's pretty clear he yearned for knowledge, not its power. The fact that despite the large arsenal of potentially forbidden jutsus(and regular jutsus) he must've learned up until now, he still chooses to primarily use snake jutsus. This shows that he really doesn't care much for power or application of what he learns.

And I didn't really include Sasuke because he didn't fit to me as a "villain". A naive child perhaps, but not a villain. Really, it's just personal for the guy. he's enough to be an anti-hero, but not a villain.

[Delbi]

Actually, even at the root of Orochimaru's evil ways might lie a less evil intention. He may have become twisted to that point, but his beginnings weren't evil. He yearned to overcome death, not necessarily out of evil intentions, but to achieve a higher state of being. He believed that learning all jutsus in the world would transcend him on another level. In a sense, I guess you could say he was a twisted monk looking for enlightenment lol :XD

I doubt Oro wanted power like Madara, ebcause it's pretty clear he yearned for knowledge, not its power. The fact that despite the large arsenal of potentially forbidden jutsus(and regular jutsus) he must've learned up until now, he still chooses to primarily use snake jutsus. This shows that he really doesn't care much for power or application of what he learns.

And I didn't really include Sasuke because he didn't fit to me as a "villain". A naive child perhaps, but not a villain. Really, it's just personal for the guy. he's enough to be an anti-hero, but not a villain.

Yea I agree with you on most of this. Orochimaru orginally, according to Sarturobi I think, experimented with forbbiden jutsu because his parents died and he wanted to bring them back. His goals became twisted once he realized the power of the jutsu he learned, and thus wanted to achieve immortality so he could learn them all.

As far as him being a villian, I think it's hard to argue that he isn't, I mean just look at all the harm he has caused. He was responsible for the death of the a Hokage, and successfully corrupted one of the main characters of the story.

As far as the "Main Villians" go, Akatasuki takes the cake. They are trying to take over the ninja world, and are the number 1 threat to the protagonist of the series.

And Sasuke, he is the antagonist of the series, yet isn't really a villian. He is the direct opposite of Naruto in many ways, and opposes him in almost everyway, yet hasn't been a true villian until now, and the jury is still out on that as he obviously still has feelings for his old comrades.

[THM Nindo]

Yea I agree with you on most of this. Orochimaru orginally, according to Sarturobi I think, experimented with forbbiden jutsu because his parents died and he wanted to bring them back. His goals became twisted once he realized the power of the jutsu he learned, and thus wanted to achieve immortality so he could learn them all.

As far as him being a villian, I think it's hard to argue that he isn't, I mean just look at all the harm he has caused. He was responsible for the death of the a Hokage, and successfully corrupted one of the main characters of the story.

As far as the "Main Villians" go, Akatasuki takes the cake. They are trying to take over the ninja world, and are the number 1 threat to the protagonist of the series.

And Sasuke, he is the antagonist of the series, yet isn't really a villian. He is the direct opposite of Naruto in many ways, and opposes him in almost everyway, yet hasn't been a true villian until now, and the jury is still out on that as he obviously still has feelings for his old comrades.


Yeah, I remembered about his parent dying when he was young, but I didn't remember that he start doing those research to bring them back to life (was that ever said somewhere?!)

Well, it goes with what I've been saying, that deep inside, no one is truly evil and that mostly every evil act start with a good intention. Of course, once Orochimaru was driven by this appetite for power, he lost it totally and became totally evil.

[Forever_Melody]

Through our eyes someone may look "evil", but evil is undefined by itself. Good & evil need a social & cultural context in order to bloom & take definition.

I'd say that most people we consider "villains" rarely see themselves as so. In fact, those who do usually call themselves psychopaths.

Most villains usually only see things in a more "twisted" way than what is considered acceptable by society. Therefore, they are branded and labelled and this label will never truly wash away.

I doubt that Pain, Madara or any other villain think what they're doing is inherently wrong. They probably know that it isn't considered "good" by their society, but they themselves probably see it as needed/acceptable/correct. I mean, that's the reason they're doing those things no? Because they deem them morally correct according to their own morals(even twisted as those may be).

[ameya730]

if we consider evil as action that harms others without any substantial reasoning behind it then i guess the only person who would prob fit the role is hidan but again he had religion on his side so it is hard to say whether he was twisted from the start or did his religion twist him to become sadistic in which case his religion can be considered pure evil

[Jammin]

Here is how i see the breakdown of the types villains in Naruto.

Psychopaths
In other words enjoying the pain, suffering, and/or death of others without the ability to feel remorse or empathize with their victims. Some examples of this in Naruto would be Hidan, Suigetsu, and Deidara.

Sociopaths
Orochimaru was almost certainly one of these. Good and evil made little difference to him he was driven solely by his own wants and desires without a single thought to right, wrong, or the welfare of those around him. He would save a child if he thought it benefited him and kill the child if he thought it didn't. Kakuzu and Sasori probably also fit into this category.

The cool thing about Naruto villains is so many of them fit into a third more interesting category.

Conscious Choice
Sasuke and Pain are examples of this. This is what happens when someone believes something is more important than their own morality. They know right from wrong and still choose to do things they know to be wrong in order to achieve something they desire or follow their goals. Juugo and Konan are probably in this category as well.

[kkck]

^ Interesting post, I will make sure to consider that in future posts:).
I do want to point out though that the line between a sociopath, psycopaths and someone making a conscious choice is already in itself very thin and very hard to actually define.

[Jammin]

I think the trick to unblurring the proverbial lines is to find a defining feature of each category that the others lack. These are the aspects i used to measure out who belongs in what category.:)


If they go out of their way to do harm and seem to take pleasure in it then they are probably in the "Psychopath" category.

If they haven't shown any desire to do harm when it hasn't been in their best interest, yet still seem to lack morality, they are probably in the "Sociopath" category.

If somebody has even a hint of guilt, regret, or pity they would have to be in the "Conscious Choice" category.


In the case of psychopaths and sociopaths they are both dissociative disorders, meaning they no longer accept themselves as the same as anyone else. Which prevents them from empathizing with others which makes it impossible for them to feel guilt, pity, or remorse. To them it's like the rest of humanity is like another species.

Conscious Choice is the only one in which the character is actually psychologically capable of empathizing with the victims of their actions. To put it into an oversimplified analogy(and who doesn't love those:p)


A psychopath's moral compass points that person toward destructive actions.

A sociopath has no moral compass.

In the case of these "Conscious Choice characters" the moral compass is intact and working fine, but for some reason the person decides not to follow it's direction.

[elitefox]

This comes down where you will side...

if you side with sasuke, revenge is good and anything that will hold you back is evil

if you side with naruto, revenge is bad and anything that does revenge is evil

[Delbi]

This comes down where you will side...

if you side with sasuke, revenge is good and anything that will hold you back is evil

if you side with naruto, revenge is bad and anything that does revenge is evil

Not everything is black and white, which I think Naruto may one day understand.

Naruto's role model, should be Itachi IMO. If Naruto wants to change the ninja world, he needs to act like Itachi, and with his power to change people, he will never have to kill an entire clan.

[digitaldude]

Here is how i see the breakdown of the types villains in Naruto.

Psychopaths
In other words enjoying the pain, suffering, and/or death of others without the ability to feel remorse or empathize with their victims. Some examples of this in Naruto would be Hidan, Suigetsu, and Deidara.

Sociopaths
Orochimaru was almost certainly one of these. Good and evil made little difference to him he was driven solely by his own wants and desires without a single thought to right, wrong, or the welfare of those around him. He would save a child if he thought it benefited him and kill the child if he thought it didn't. Kakuzu and Sasori probably also fit into this category.

The cool thing about Naruto villains is so many of them fit into a third more interesting category.

Conscious Choice
Sasuke and Pain are examples of this. This is what happens when someone believes something is more important than their own morality. They know right from wrong and still choose to do things they know to be wrong in order to achieve something they desire or follow their goals. Juugo and Konan are probably in this category as well.

Well, wouldn't Itachi fall into the Conscious Choice bracket as well, he did kill the nearly all the uchiha clan, but he did it because he had too and also joined Akatsuki to keep tabs on them, so I guess he is a prime example of Conscious Choice. I wonder which part Zetsu is under.

[ashher]

homemadenindo:that's the safest way since Naruto is the Good incarnated

Ehh did u forget his evil oiraku no jutsu....
[hr]
I think Naruto has got the strongest moral.....but the parts i liked most is that unlike most shonen heros who r born with such morals,Naruto had faltered and learned to choose good over evil....just compare how he started against Pain with how he ended the business.

[zerocooldx]

At the end of the day it's all perception. And if the majority backs that perception then is becomes "good". Because "good" and "bad" are both mainly defined by the majority opinion. Yes there are certain exceptions, but it mainly perception. Even genocides could be perfectly "good" if the majority supported it. Danzo is a perfect example, he has done some pretty "iffy" things to say the very least. And i'm sure a lot of people know about it yet they all back him and see his methods as leading towards a "good". Danzo is a "good" guy in some people's eyes and a "bad" guy is other people's eyes. But whichever side is the majority they define what Danzo really is. Like it or not it's all perception.

[nat]

Indeed, as soon as a new regime comes to Konoha, Danzou will be labeled as evil...While the new one will be 'good' regardless of how many mistake the make.

I'm happy that there are characters who don't care about righteous classifications of good and evil; Oro, Kabuchimaru, Madara....

[The Closet Pervert]

Every single human on this planet acts for his own benefit. How we do it is different. Some get the fuzzy good feelings from marrying and raising a family. Some get the fuzzy good feelings from gaining better status in the society. And some get the fuzzy good feelings from simply killing people.

No thing is universally "good" or "evil". If one needs a definition of "good", it's "things that fit or agree with your views and goals", and "evil" things are "things that go against your views and goals". These views and goals are very different from every person.

Basically, anything that defies your society is evil. So in extremely religious countries, if an atheist comes to preach things that go against their religion, the community might feel that "heretic" is a threath that needs to be disposed of. In same way an atheist community might feel threathened by these "religious lunatics" might be a threath for their community. So that's why western community may feel that middle-eastern people are "evil", and that's why middle-eastern people might feel western people are "evil". (Sorry for using real life example)

Thing is, the people in the community are dependant on the community they live in: Thus they adapt the views of the community they live in. However then come the people who are not dependant on the community, but leech on the community. People who use the community. These are what we call "criminals".

The "criminals" or people from the "other community" are not evil by default. They are living best they can, just like you. The thing is, their way of doing thing clashes with yours, and that's why you have to "dispose" them.

Good? Evil? Hah, it's all matter of perspective. "The boundaries of good and evil" are exacly where you set them. And "the boundaries" are different with every person.

[TeAm#7FoReVer]

Itachi couldn't have said better, he was so wise:

All men rely on their own knowledge, their own perceptions, and live bound by those cords. That is what men call "reality". But knowledge and perceptions are essentially ambiguous. This "reality" may be a mere illusion. All men live within a world forged of their own preconceptions.

[Jammin]

Good ol' simplified Meta-ethics.

Well, the subject of good and evil is not so simple as to be dismissed as "perception establishes all". If you want to know why i say that read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil. Very complicated.

You see "perception" by nature can only be a single person's but good and evil are established by a whole culture. Cultures establish the rules and punishments, as well general morality. So, whatever your personal beliefs may be, good and evil do exist in a very real sense.

I'll try and give an example.

Think of a ball. If you one day decided to stop calling a "ball" a "ball" and instead decide to switch it's name with that of a "cube". Your perception would have been altered so that a "ball" would now be called a "cube". However, if you go to a store and ask for a "cube" they will not give you a round thing regardless of your own perception until you tell them you want a "ball". Your culture's label of that object trumps your personal perception of it.

Good and Evil are much the same. Culture matters more than personal perception.

The reason i highlighted the stuff i did about Psychopaths, Sociopaths, and those who have chosen to do "evil" is because that is quite separate from the specifics of which actions are good and evil. It's more about where they stand in their own culture and it's moral boundaries.

[jdw]

In the Narutoverse, I believe that there are a few reliable spheres in which acts/deeds fall:

Good
Perspective (grey area)
Evil

In an old interview (http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1672641#post1672641), Kishi pretty much establishes that true evil exists in the Narutoverse. Perspective is not an issue in the case of true evil, because by nature of being true evil, anyone who does not recognize it as true evil is basically irrational and not worth considering. In a SJ interview given in 2006, Kishi says the following when asked a question:

SJ: Is there any good left in Orochimaru? Or is he truly evil?
KM: I think he's truly evil. There are hopelessly evil characters out in the world, and he's one of them.
IOM, this unequivocally establishes that true evil exists in the Narutoverse, perspective aside. While I do think perspective matters, clearly it is not an escape hatch through which any act can be explained away.

[zerocooldx]

"True Evil" is still about perception. Because characters support even someone like Orochimaru. Kabuto risks his life to protect Orochimaru just like Kimimaro did before he died and so on. Kishi can obviously simplify the concept in his manga so that it's pretty easy to tell evil from good, which he should do. But anyone who understands that people have different views, even in a manga, can easily say it's perception. Because even the worst of criminals still have support. And the only reason they are "evil" is because the majority opposes their perceptions and views. If the majority of the people in Naruto supported Orochimaru then he wouldn't be "evil", at least not to that majority. And the tables would be turned, and all because of perception. I understand story wise Kishi has to create a clear line between the two, but that line only exists because of perception. It can just as easily be flipped the other way if enough people supported a particular cause.

[jdw]

"True Evil" is still about perception. Because characters support even someone like Orochimaru. Kabuto risks his life to protect Orochimaru just like Kimimaro did before he died and so on. Kishi can obviously simplify the concept in his manga so that it's pretty easy to tell evil from good, which he should do. But anyone who understands that people have different views, even in a manga, can easily say it's perception. Because even the worst of criminals still have support. And the only reason they are "evil" is because the majority opposes their perceptions and views. If the majority of the people in Naruto supported Orochimaru then he wouldn't be "evil", at least not to that majority. And the tables would be turned, and all because of perception. I understand story wise Kishi has to create a clear line between the two, but that line only exists because of perception. It can just as easily be flipped the other way if enough people supported a particular cause.

This is only true if you assume that the Narutoverse does not have any fundamental truths about things that may land one on either side of good or evil depending how they proceed through life, irrespective of how many people take their side., as if majority decides the issue. Here, I think Kishi has declared firmly that evil exists outside of mere perception. So, if someone wishes to follow Orochimaru thinking that Oro is on the side of "good," the individual is basically deluded because Oro is "True evil."

There are definite philosophical differences in the schools of moral absolutism (which I feel has a presence in Naruto and in Kishi's interview) and moral relativism (which is what I think you are representing), so I am not going to say that I don't agree with you about matters outside of Naruto, but inside Naruto I think the issue is decided.

[Jammin]

I think you may be confusing good and evil with personal ethics.

What people consider to be ethical and moral changes as they perceive it to but good and evil have more to do with the surrounding culture and it's values.

As an interesting side-note, due to the similarities between almost all cultures with respect to what is considered good and what is considered evil, some say it goes even deeper than cultural and that all humans are born with and inherent sense of good and evil but that gets into the nature vs nurture debate.:p

[zerocooldx]

This is only true if you assume that the Narutoverse does not have any fundamental truths about things that may land one on either side of good or evil depending how they proceed through life, irrespective of how many people take their side., as if majority decides the issue. Here, I think Kishi has declared firmly that evil exists outside of mere perception. So, if someone wishes to follow Orochimaru thinking that Oro is on the side of "good," the individual is basically deluded because Oro is "True evil."

There are definite philosophical differences in the schools of moral absolutism (which I feel has a presence in Naruto and in Kishi's interview) and moral relativism (which is what I think you are representing), so I am not going to say that I don't agree with you about matters outside of Naruto, but inside Naruto I think the issue is decided.

I said i agree that Kishi should and needs to clearly define the line between good and evil. And he only gives the PG middle school version of it. As he should, mainly due to the majority of his target audience. But no matter how hard Kishi or anyone tries to, they can't escape the fact that for the most part perception and majority opinion define good and evil. That is something that is deeply rooted within even the most basic and simple good and evil examples. And it is nearly impossibly to say or show anything otherwise. Because it can all be traced back to perception and majority opinion in one way or another.

[Jammin]

zerocooldx you may say Good and Evil are inescapably the perception of the majority but can you really prove that? Can you prove it is not something instinctual which helps humans to work and exist together?

If so there are a lot of philosophy professors who will want to talk to you.:amuse

[zerocooldx]

zerocooldx you may say Good and Evil are inescapably the perception of the majority but can you really prove that? Can you prove it is not something instinctual which helps humans to work and exist together?

If so there are a lot of philosophy professors who will want to talk to you.:amuse

Sure i can prove that, it is rather easy. It's all over the real wold. If everyone cared for abolishing "evil" or "bad" things then why do tens of thousands of people die in genocides in African every year? If this was an "instinct" or an "absolute fact/truth" then why do we not act upon it and prevent these evils? If evil and bad are void if perception then why was slavery abolished in the US after the majority said it was wrong? And why do millions of people starve to death ever year? According to most of those "philosophy professor" us allowing those people to die is just slight below us committing those evils and bad things ourselves. Because we choose your own selfish pleasures over saving innocent and helpless lives. We chose a $300 gaming system and $50 games over donating to charity. When $400-$500 can provide a child in African with life long medical care.

Why do we do that? Because our perception of those people dying is deluded by the perception of the majority. Thus the majority of the world does not deem millions of people dying a priority. We allow these bad and evil things to occur all the time all over the world. Mankind is the worst thing that ever happened to this word. Because for the most part we allow ourselves to be ruled by the beliefs and perceptions of the majority. A great example of that is a little thing called religion. Also if the important majority perceives that having more than 1 child per family promotes bad and evil things, such as the loss of valuable and life sustaining resources, then having more than 1 child is indeed bad and evil within that society. If humans are suppose to work and exist together why do we allow evils and bad things to happen to people? Is it "instinct" or established "fact/truth" known to all? Or simplly perception pressed upon us by the majority?

[THM Nindo]

In the Narutoverse, I believe that there are a few reliable spheres in which acts/deeds fall:

Good
Perspective (grey area)
Evil

In an old interview (http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1672641#post1672641), Kishi pretty much establishes that true evil exists in the Narutoverse. Perspective is not an issue in the case of true evil, because by nature of being true evil, anyone who does not recognize it as true evil is basically irrational and not worth considering. In a SJ interview given in 2006, Kishi says the following when asked a question:

IOM, this unequivocally establishes that true evil exists in the Narutoverse, perspective aside. While I do think perspective matters, clearly it is not an escape hatch through which any act can be explained away.


Exactly.
And if you look back to the beginning of this thread, my point was exactly (I think) that most of people are in the grey area.
Nagato, for example, wanted peace, but in a twisted way.

But, there are some that are actually really evil.
Orochimaru is the best example.

Madara, even if he's the biggest villains, says that he's doing that to get order, and a fake peace. (Like Tsuchikage said, it looks more like he want to control the world :p)

Orochimaru on the other side, never seeked anything except power and immortality.
He never said what he wanted to do once he got them, but I don't think he wanted peace.

Orochimaru is truly evil.

---

There are others like him that were shown to be evil, without any purpose other then selfish reason (making money, having power, etc).
Examples, like Kakuzu, Hidan, Sasori...
Those guys were evil.

[Jammin]

@zerocooldx
What your discussing now is ethics.

Good and evil are ways of characterizing things. You yourself did it just now by referring to evil acts. How many if faced with the events you talk about would call them good. Just because something is considered evil and wrong does not mean that people are compelled to stop it.

How one deals with good and evil is a matter of ethics and morals which is different subject than good and evil.

[zerocooldx]

@zerocooldx
What your discussing now is ethics.

Good and evil are ways of characterizing things. You yourself did it just now by referring to evil acts. How many if faced with the events you talk about would call them good. Just because something is considered evil and wrong does not mean that people are compelled to stop it.

How one deals with good and evil is a matter of ethics and morals which is different subject than good and evil.

Ethics and morals together define what is good and evil. Good and evil is not an independent thing. It relies upon the ethics and morals of actions. Those ethics and morals are decided upon by a society based off of what the majority wants. So if that majority supports someone who condones human experiments, like Orochimaru, then it is ethical and moral within that society to do those things. Which means that those actions are not deemed to be evil within that society, they are actually seen as good for whatever reason or benefit. You can't talk about good or evil without talking about ethics and morals, they are intertwined. If it's ethically and morally permissible to enslave and experiment upon people then that is a perception that is accepted and not seen as evil. Yet another society can oppose all of that and call such actions evil. Now why can they do that? It's because the perception within the other society deems such ethical and moral practices as being evil. Good and evil is perception, because you may call someone evil and a monster yet someone else may call him good and a hero. Happens all the time.

[maaghms]

It's funny reading many posts on why being right or wrong is relative and depends on the viewpoints, in Naruto Manga as well as in real life. If you read their posts, none of them offer a convincing argument.
Especially I find it totally unconvincing when people argue like the following:

"Values differ from culture to culture. What is right in one culture is not right for another. Since they differ from culture to culture, we can conclude that values are relative."

:facepalm

Let me just quote something which counters that silly argument:


This argument assumes what it is supposed to be proving; that is, values differ from culture to culture. It doesn’t. What they differ about is what they think value is or their opinions on values. Opinions can be wrong. If one culture believes that murdering six million Jews is morally right, it doesn’t make it so. Also, if this is true, then how can we condemn the Nazis? If there is no objective standard to apply to, then we ought not to condemn them because it would be meaningless. The only reason why we can condemn some things such as the holocaust is that we presuppose an objective or absolute standard that everyone ought to apply to. Second, this argument presupposes that one should always obey the culture in which he lives in. If my culture says that slavery is okay, does it make it so? Slavery was once permitted by the Supreme Court in the United States. However, we all know that slavery is wrong. So what made us overturn that decision? The answer is that there is a higher law than the civil law in which the government ought to apply to. This is what we call the natural law or moral law. Morality is not dependent on the government, but the government is dependent on the morality.
In the same token, being right/wrong does not depend on perception. Your perception is your own interpretation. Your perception can be wrong. Even if you think you are right, you may be wrong. That does not mean that there are no such things as absolute truths. People who support relativism are just chasing their own tails. There is no end to it. They can make up whatever stuff they want and commit whatever sins they like and they will always be justified in their own opinions. :facepalm


Another quote to share:


Relativism has never produced a good society, only a bad one. Compare the stability, longevity, and happiness of societies founded on the principles of moral relativists like Mussolini, and Mau Tse Tung, with societies founded on the principles of moral absolutists like Moses and Confucius. A society of moral relativists usually lasts one generation. Hitler's thousand-year Reich lasted not even that long.

I think the following quotation should be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ACLU, the National Teacher's Association, Hollywood, and all network TV executives:


Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism. —Benito Mussolini



Furthermore, I can argue against relativism all day/week/year long. But, I will stop here due to time constraints and also because those arguments might all go off topic.

Cheers.

[The Closet Pervert]

being right/wrong does not depend on perception. You perception is your own interpretation. Your perception can be wrong. Even if you think you are right, you may be wrong.

Only way that is not hypocrisy is that you'll admit that statement applies to everything you say yourself too.

But actually, being right/wrong DOES depend on ones perception. But I think this needs some clarifaction. By this I mean, every single person out there thinks that his own moral compass is the right one. I understand that. What I also understand is that, because of this there is no "evil" or "good" persons, only persons that act in their own self-interest. When I say "I understand" I do not mean "I will accept everyone elses views".

No, I do not accept. I will defend my own views to the last breath, and so I will defend anyone who agrees (at least mostly) with them. In war, I'd defend my country, for example. So when that robber comes, I will fight him, run after him and call police after him. But I do not do this because of hate, I don't think I am "good" and he is "evil".

"Being right/wrong does not depend on perception"? Yes, it does depend on perception. By this I mean, every single person out there thinks he himself is right. In the end the one whose view will become the ruling is determined by only one thing: his/hers/their ability to enforce that view on others, or convert others to their cause.

The whole point of me writing all this is that every person out there is a thinking human being. Saying someone is "evil" is basically branding him with a "he can't be reasoned with" -sign. I would negotiate with "the most evil" dictators, if I believed and had reasons to believe they would hold to their ends of the deals.

To brings this to more "down to earth" level of example: I believe me, western atheist/agnostic, would be able to be friends with a religious member of middle-eastern community. I believe I could be friends with someone from an infamous country of WW2-age. I believe I could be friends with someone who practiced slavery a couple of hundred years ago, if he/she was a member of modern community.

NOT in all conditions and situations of course! But I think the possibility is there.

[maaghms]

But actually, being right/wrong DOES depend on ones perception. But I think this needs some clarifaction. By this I mean, every single person out there thinks that his own moral compass is the right one.



No, not true. May be for you only. I have witnessed many people saying themselves that their own moral compass is not the right one. Even regarding my own moral compass, I won't claim that it is 100% perfect. But I'm trying to improve it everyday.

The rest of the post, I'm not going to answer because you're just mumbling without making much sense.

I'm going to end my post with some quotations:




Relativism may be fashionable, but it's not livable. It's self-refuting and leads to bizarre conclusions. Moreover, our reactions and judgments about the mistreatment of others and ourselves betray our real position on morality. We do not act as if morality is relative to individuals or cultures. We act as if there are objective moral principles that are obligatory and binding on all people. The Roman philosopher Cicero succinctly summarizes what we have found: "Only a madman could maintain that the distinction between honourable and dishonourable, between virtue and vice, is only a matter of opinion."




In conclusion, Moral Relativism turns out not to be a moral system at all, but merely a set of opinions. Opinions that carry no oughtness, or authority, and could change at any time. It seems clear that though many people give lip service to this philosophy, no one lives it. Relativism is hidden in when it is convenient, but as soon as a person is wronged they instantly becomes an absolutist.

[The Closet Pervert]

Even regarding my own moral compass, I won't claim that it is 100% perfect. But I'm trying to improve it everyday.

First of all, I have to say: that is an attitude I admire. Blind zealotry is never good thing, and I'm glad you do not part of that.


No, not true. May be for you only. I have witnessed many people saying themselves that their own moral compass is not the right one.

The rest of the post, I'm not going to answer because you're just mumbling without making much sense.

I'm going to end my post with some quotations:

I think you are confused about the meaning of my statements. When I say "it's in the eyes of the beholder", I do not mean that criminals should be let out of prison "because it's matter of perception", for example.

When I say "there is no good or evil", I say every single action out there has a rational reason behind it. For example: a serial killer might kill people because it makes him feel good. Not because "he is evil", not because "it's his nature". Saying "he is evil" would imply that "nothing can be done about it". Either it's his genes (in which case serial killing can be "cured"), or in some part of his life the pattern of thoughts went wrong (in which case they can be reversed too, or at least prevented beforehand). But me saying this does not mean we should let this serial killer go loose. We should apprehend him, put into trial and jail.

Someone robs a store to get medicine for his dying mother, or to get some food to eat (or some indirect version of this, like robbing something and then selling it). It's clear to see the reasons for this behaviour. He is out of options for surviving, and so only thing left that he can or knows to do is to do criminal activities. I'm not saying he should go free, or that he should be allowed to continue criminal activities. The robber should be apprehended and convicted. What I'm saying is, if you want to solve the core problem, you have to give people like these some alternative, better ways to survive in the world (ones that do not hurt "the honest working people", of course. I'm not saying "we should carry him with us", I'm saying "teach him to build himself a walking stick to help with the limping foot").

See what I'm getting at? In my opinion saying someone is "good" or "evil" would be implying that their actions are laws of nature, like gravity. When I say "it's all about perception" I mean that behind every action there is a rational reason, or some kind of logic. Saying it's "good" or "evil" is like saying "nothing can be done about it". So when I say there is no "good" or "evil", and that "it's all matter of perspective", I do not mean everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Oh, and I do not blindly follow/believe/bow to some quotes from persons. I want reason and logic to back up claims. I know for example the reasons and logics why I should follow and obey the laws of my country.

[maaghms]

Just one last extension before I sign off:

I think some people are confused between beliefs and truths. There are differences between the two. One needs to recognize the difference between beliefs and truths. What people believe is not what is important.

People have different beliefs about things all the time, but what matters is which beliefs are true. Take an example about two people who believed different things about there being life on Mars. Both people cannot be right. Either there is life on Mars or there is not. Those are two different beliefs, but only one is true. The same argument applies to cultural and moral relativism. While different cultures believe different things, the fact that they have these beliefs does not result in truth. Either one is and the other is not, or they both are not true.

We cannot simply say that truths (about right and wrong) are relative to our own perceptions and they are subjective to the opinions of everybody.

There are universal truths about right and wrong. People's perceptions cannot change them. That's why there is such a thing as 'seeking the truth'.

Edit:

Of course, everybody makes mistakes. If somebody steals something, he can still repent his actions. If he does that, then it's good. I think a person has chances to atone his/her mistakes until his death. Just because of one single evil action/mistake, a person cannot be condemned as somebody 'evil' forever. The feelings of 'guilt' and 'repentance' show that there are such things as absolute/universal right and wrong.

[The Closet Pervert]

I think some people are confused between beliefs and truths. There are differences between the two.

Take an example about two people who believed different things about there being life on Mars. Both people cannot be right

What? Huh? :blink

When was this argument about whether there can be several truths or not. Yes there can be only one truth.

You are the one who confuses "being right or wrong" with "facts". One hour has 60 minutes. That is a fact (when following our definition of time). One minute has 60 seconds. That is a fact (when following our definition of time). A person committing a robbery violates the current laws of this country. That is a fact (if the laws of the country support it).

"He is evil" is NOT a fact. "He is good" is NOT a fact. For example, these "big brother" systems that bigger countries have. These systems being "right" is NOT a fact. The systems are tools that anyone can use. "Slavery is wrong". That is NOT a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

are considered to be the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation
That sounds awfully like pet animals people have, or animals people use for work. Why is this form of slavery NOT wrong? "Because the animals can't think, they are lesser beings".
See? Slavery being "wrong" is not a FACT. Slavery being "wrong" highly depends on the situation and place. Is it against laws to hold someone captive against their will? Yes. Do I agree with this law? Yes. But that does not mean that the concept of "slavery" being "wrong" is a FACT. Because it isn't.

So yes, I say do not confuse personal beliefs with FACTS or TRUTHS.

So yes, I say do not confuse personal beliefs of the general community with FACTS or TRUTHS

[maaghms]

What? Huh? :blink

When was this argument about whether there can be several truths or not. Yes there can be only one truth.

You are the one who confuses "being right or wrong" with "facts".



Did I ever mention about 'facts' in my posts? Where did you get the term 'facts'? You are confusing the terms 'truths' and 'facts'!

'Truths' are not the same as 'facts'. Facts are theories that have been consistently and systematically proven by observations.

So facts are based on perception.

TRUTH is not.

For example, it is fact (according to scientists) that UFO's don't exist...but is that really the TRUTH? Even the so-called 'facts' can be changed. In the old days, people believed that it was a fact that the Earth was flat. Yes, according to them, it was a fact. But that fact is not the truth. Now, we have the new fact that Earth is not flat. Get it?






One hour has 60 minutes. That is a fact (when following our definition of time). One minute has 60 seconds. That is a fact (when following our definition of time). A person committing a robbery violates the current laws of this country. That is a fact (if the laws of the country support it).

"He is evil" is NOT a fact. "He is good" is NOT a fact. For example, these "big brother" systems that bigger countries have. These systems being "right" is NOT a fact. The systems are tools that anyone can use. "Slavery is wrong". That is NOT a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

That sounds awfully like pet animals people have, or animals people use for work. Why is this form of slavery NOT wrong? "Because the animals can't think, they are lesser beings".
See? Slavery being "wrong" is not a FACT. Slavery being "wrong" highly depends on the situation and place. Is it against laws to hold someone captive against their will? Yes. Do I agree with this law? Yes. But that does not mean that the concept of "slavery" being "wrong" is a FACT. Because it isn't.

So yes, I say do not confuse personal beliefs with FACTS or TRUTHS. I disagree with your views. Does that mean me being wrong is a FACT? a TRUTH?

So yes, I say do not confuse personal beliefs of the general community with FACTS or TRUTHS
In the rest of your post, you were talking about facts. Thus, everything you said is irrelevant to the current discussion due to your misunderstanding of the difference between 'truths' and 'facts'.

And yes there is a relationship between 'truths' and 'being right and wrong'. You brought the term 'facts' from nowhere and started this senseless discussion.



Yes there can be only one truth.



Thank you. You have concluded the whole discussion. Truth is not based on perception. Being 'right or wrong' is not relative and not based on perception.


Edit:

Truth and facts are not the same thing. We speak of whether a fact is true or not. If they were the same thing, we wouldn't speak that way. There can be true facts and there can be false facts.

[The Closet Pervert]

'Truths' are not the same as 'facts'.

Actually, they are pretty much the same. "Truth" is something that is made true based on facts. If facts are wrong, or if they don't actually support the "truth", then the "truth" is not actually "truth".

Also we must be very careful to not make baseless claims of "truth" based on other claims of "truth".


Facts are theories that have been consistently and systematically proven by observations.

So facts are based on perception.

If we assume that our current knowledge is the absolute. When it was proven that earth is not flat, we found out that "earth is flat" wasn't a fact after all. It was a false assumption.

So when we observe something we make assumptions of how things work. Even if our assumptions seem to be right and general public accepts them, it doesn't make those assumptions facts.


TRUTH is not.

Neither is based on perception. When something is a fact, it's a fact, and there can be only one fact just like there can be only one truth. If there are two conflicting "facts" then we are not talking about facts at all, but about two conflicting ASSUMPTIONS. Well one of them may be a fact, but one of them is not.


For example, it is fact (according to scientists) that UFO's don't exist...

No, it's not a fact. We just assume that the statement "UFO's don't exist" is the truth. That does not make it the truth.


but is that really the TRUTH? Even the so-called 'facts' can be changed. In the old days, people believed that it was a fact that the Earth was flat. Yes, according to them, it was a fact. But that fact is not the truth. Now, we have the new fact that Earth is not flat. Get it?

"According to them it was a fact". Well then THEY were wrong and it never was a fact, just a false assumption.



In the rest of your post, you were talking about facts. Thus, everything you said is irrelevant to the current discussion due to your misunderstanding of the difference between 'truths' and 'facts'.

You are the one with misunderstanding. Just because someone claims it works so does not mean it's a fact or truth. People may be wrong.


And yes there is a relationship between 'truths' and 'being right and wrong'. You brought the term 'facts' from nowhere and started this senseless discussion.

Read my posts again. You brought up "facts" or "truths". Don't try to put this on me.

*edit* Well I don't think you directly quoted me for first time but your post did indicate it was directed at me (among others) */edit*


Thank you. You have concluded the whole discussion. Truth is not based on perception. Being 'right or wrong' is not relative and not based on perception.

When someone says "sky is blue", he is right. When someone says "you feel bad", he may believe he is right, but is actually not.

But I still do not see how this all relates to things being "good" or "evil". Being wrong is something that can be fixed, and being wrong is a natural part of every single human being. Being "evil" is a law of nature, just like is being "good".

If we talk about moral right and wrong then those are not FACTS either. They are self-imposed rules humans live by to ensure survivability. The things is...every living thing has a right to defend itself, to ensure its own survival. Yes, that applies to you and me too. And if something threathens your community, it has the right to defend itself. But that applies to my community too, if your community attacks my community.

When everything centers around self-survival, the moral standards people impose are not FACTS or TRUTHS. They are made by people, and I have every right to make my own rules. However I also have live with the concequences of me following my own rules. I may be exterminated if a stronger force disagrees with me.


Truth and facts are not the same thing. We speak of whether a fact is true or not. If they were the same thing, we wouldn't speak that way. There can be true facts and there can be false facts.

If a "fact" was false, then it wasn't a fact at all. It was a false assumption.

[SketchyPhoenix]

Good and evil, right and wrong, are perspectives. They are defined by the ruling standard in the society you live in. They are also used to control the masses with guidelines that inspire fear out of swift retaliation. We call these laws. Most of us, if not all, are raised to with preconcieved notions about how we should live and our way is the only way. There is no universal good or evil, as perspective will allow any act to be justified in the eyes of the doer. To say there is would be acknowledging that the base of our society and every individual is a lie and that we all live in a raging circus of hypocrisy.

[zerocooldx]

Well one thing for sure is that Danzou just triple jumped across that "line" between good and evil.

[DarkRyan75]

I shouldn't get caught up in this discussion, but...

Good and evil are truly perspective views.

Some may think of Itachi as evil for killing his clan. He slaughtered possible innocents, so he's evil. The US, in order to end WWII, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Japan. Does that make the US evil? Every country has gone to war at least a few times and has had their fair share of blood. Does that make the entire world evil? No. It doesn't.

Good and evil are what the individual perceives it to be. Because Naruto is the protagonist, we see Konoha as mostly good and things like the Akatsuki as mostly evil. Minato murdered many soldiers in the war, and is viewed as a hero to the readers thanks to Naruto's perspective. How about to those countless Iwa families who lost their family?

Intentions are something to think about, but as it was said earlier, so are actions. And yet even those can be questioned. A holy person can live a life according to his religion, an honest, truthful man without sin whatsoever. And yet, to another person from a different religion, he could be seen as a heretic for performing feats that are frowned upon in that person's religion.

Sorry for bringing things like WWII and religion into this, but I felt it was a necessary example.

It's the unfortunate paradox of life, I'm afraid.

[MegaX]

I'm only willing to accept that so far. As long as we're on the subject of WWII, is anyone seriously going to defend the Holocaust as good? If not, then we've accepted limits to subjective views of good and evil.