I don't find this "soul-crushingly depressing", actually. Sins can't be bribed. When a human sins, the record will be there in God's record for eternity until they redeem them in hell. Call me cruel or whatever, but I think this man deserve the judgement.
When I saw this, I think the idea is that things aren't black and white but Shiki is forced to think that way. While the guy, being a rapist, murderer, and a criminal, should be completely full of sin, he was a good father, or at least, his children loved him like he was a good father.
This means that Shiki is more sympathetic to his children not because children are unable to sin, but because this is their father and even if he was a murderer, they still love him and wish him the best. I'm not sure if she literally means a child, or the referring to all children to all their parents. Also the naivety of the gift might affect her, rather than offering the judge of your father's soul great tribute, they offer something mundane, but the idea is that its all they have, or all they can think of giving. We don't see the man himself, but he appears to be rather devout unless that is how all people have to stand before the Yamaxanadu.
Also important, at least to me it was, is that it mentioned that he was doing good things in the afterlife and seemed penitent. The twist is that with something like Black and White, there is no gray, so unless you are completely redeemed, you go to hell, regardless of all the work and belief you have in redemption. The problem being that an eternity in hell is punishment for a mortal lifetime, or even a single mortal act, of sin. But the concept of the great sins is that they are actions that completely destroy the moral character, which I personally don't think is the case here.
I guess the moral is not to sin because of the pain your children will be put through because regardless of what you do, there is that love and heartbreak.
I don't see why this is in Told you not to that Pool, other than in a very loose sense.
Heparine has an interesting idea, but the game of souls is all or nothing.
The thing is, it ultimately depends on what belief you consider to be "true". Even if a person truly wants to believe and work his entire life towards redemption, if the situation doesn't allow it, should he still be punished? Its moral absolutism and its not practical for judgmental purposes.
If a kid steals money, but only to buy food, should he go to hell? If a man gets a job as a security guard, and is forced to shoot and kill a madman with a bomb, should he go to hell?
Condemning people to hell because they were born into a impoverished family or saved people's lives is sadistic to say the least. Maybe the game of souls is all or nothing, as Anelaid calls it, we don't know. But if it is God, or whatever pantheon of deities you believe in, is a heartless, merciless monster.
Regardless of what it is, Shiki is bound by the rules of all or nothing, I don't know enough about here other than the Yama was a Chinese divine judge, I'm unsure of any other details.
However, almost every religion and code of ethics has certain actions that cannot be defended or right under any circumstance, minus the hypothetical, "Kill/rape this person, or I will kill/rape ten more" but even that is the subject of spirited debate.
Christianity, at least in the days of the Crusade, still required Soldiers to repent for all the people they've killed in the name of King and Country. The idea being that they are killing in the name of the King, not God, but even the latter case a death is a still a death. It changed its tune later on, but some religions separate killing as part of duty to other kinds. Even in the example above, its not a moral question, it his duty as a security guard, or a police officer, to protect citizens, or those he is assigned to protect, from harm using the proper amount of force. If he is forced to shoot, its out of his hands.
The idea of the afterlife here I imagine is similar to Purgatory, where someone is giving a final chance, the question I have is whether or not he really had a chance.
I don't believe in absolutism, but Shiki is forced too. Whether or not she is personally bothered by it according to this story, I don't know, but canon-wise she tries to help the different play characters by telling them their faults in life. I thought that she did the "you will go to hell" as part of a tactic to scare them.
The idea in more puritanical views of God, he is a monster, but only to sinners and the damned. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" outright states that God does not love all people, and will come to hate most, but don't forget the entire purpose of the movement that sermon began was scare-mongering and examining how they did it, they certainly knew how to play off psychological and theological fears and uncertainties. Perhaps Shiki hopes for the same effect, by punishing one man severely, others will wish not to punished and will act better.
OK, what's up with Danbooru having religious conversations all of a sudden? I thought it was a fluke with that Yukari on the cross thing...
It's really important, though, to note that in the eastern traditions of the cosmos that Shiki is a Judge of the Dead for, there are more than just "Heaven" and "Hell" as options. You can reincarnate as a human if you're fairly good. You can reincarnate as a celestial if you are very good. You can reincarnate as an animal and/or youkai if you are a little bad. The netherworld or the hells are for the really bad...
And even then, there's more than a few hells or netherworlds to get sent to, and on top of that, you can in some cases literally walk out of places like the Netherworld (say hi to Yuyuko for me!) or hells like the Hell of Blazing Fires (Orin) or the makai that Shinki governs, which wasn't exactly a fire-and-brimstone hell, either. (Plus, if you are reincarnated as a human, you can be reincarnated as a wealthy person with few worries in life or an impovrished and ill child who will suffer with a terrible disease for the whole of your fairly short life...) Basically, Shiki could tweak things a little in one direction or another without making a major change in her ruling based upon her own personal judgement of the case that wouldn't be an all-or-nothing judgement the way you seem to claim, in a similar manner to how a real-life judge often setences criminals based upon a window of, for example, 12 to 16 months that would be the recommended sentence for a certain class of crime, and give lesser or greater sentences based upon their personal judgement of the guilty.
Before calling Shiki cruel for sending the guy to Hell (well, A hell, whichever one he went to), though, it's worth keeping in mind that we only saw this guy through the eyes of his children. If the rape victim or the murder victim's children had talked to Shiki, what would they have said about this guy? You can't get emotionally attached to just one side of the story, which is exactly what Shiki was struggling with, because she probably had the ability to look at and KNOW what this guy had done, and could see for herself how much suffering had been inflicted by the guy she was judging.
Also, to respond to the "Jesus would be painted black" comment, it was said in the description of Shiki by ZUN that Shiki just has the sort of personality where she worries for people (or their souls, as it were), and shows it by relentless nagging, although she really means well. In the case of people like Reimu, it's obvious what she is talking about. However, I think that if you look at the conversations that Reisen has with Shiki, for example, where she says that Reisen should show more regret for abandoning her friends on the moon, that Shiki doesn't really think that Reisen is a bad person, but that she should be more mindful and humble. Youmu is the same, all Shiki says is that she should respect the boundaries of the Netherworld and Gensokyou/the world of the living more (because leaving the gates to the netherworld open and letting the damned out kind of defeats the purpose of the system). She just uses threatening language to try to "scare 'em straight".
As for "punishing harshly to scare others", that would be completely useless if you didn't advertise how that person went to Hell. Medieval justice involved very public, bloody, painful executions for just this reason - to scare people away from crime... but instead, it just made for a spectacle where people would make charms out of handkerchiefs dipped in the blood of the condemned. Excessively harsh punishments as a deterrant have been used since the dawn of civilization, and there has basically never been evidence that they ever worked, and there is a case to be made that a public acceptance of violence in retribution for being wronged may even increase violence in the society as a whole.
With that said, it's obviously not a bad thing to empathize with the children in this story, it's empathy for others, even in the abstract that specifically keeps us from doing this kind of harm to others, so it can still certainly be "depressing", but it need not be for pity for the damned, but pity that the events took place that would lead to him being damned.
There is, finally, also the idea that Shiki is ultimately responsible for trying to do her best to reform that man, and a life in a worse place where he regrets his crimes is really the only tool she has for intervening. Otherwise, the "merciful" path of letting everyone into the higher planes, regardless of their actions, makes the whole system break down. Like an intervention with a alcoholic, sometimes a rude awakening is called for. Of course, in reincarnation hell, you only go there temporarily, and are eventually reborn a better person.
MMaestro said: Condemning people to hell because they were born into a impoverished family or saved people's lives is sadistic to say the least. Maybe the game of souls is all or nothing, as Anelaid calls it, we don't know. But if it is God, or whatever pantheon of deities you believe in, is a heartless, merciless monster.
I say again: Play PoFV. Read all Shikieiki's dialogues. She is the "absolute" form of justice, the "lawful neutral". There can be no subjectivity or sympathy in her work, that's even the whole point of this story - she's sorry for the kids, but can't let that interfere with her job as the Enma. The sweets still remain, though, and remind her of the conflict. That's where Komachi comes in and eats the sweets; takes the burden off Eiki's shoulders.
Let's say, the kid you talked about - he steals some food because he's hungry. If he didn't do any good deeds to equilibrate the sin of theft, he will go to hell regardless of his social position. Don't confuse absolute justice with socialism. The fact the kid is hungry doesn't give him the right to steal, let's say, a bread - a bread the baker put his effort and money into. Yes, it's morally excusable, but in the face of absolute, posthumous justice Shikieiki represents, he *will* be judged for this. If his good deeds prevail, he may be redeemed, but if he lives his life meaninglessly, there won't be enough good to compensate even for the little sins and he *will* go to hell.
For the security guy shooting the bomb attacker - he already saved more lives by stopping him. The sin of manslaughter persists, but it's overbalanced by saving several other lives.
Heh, now you're talking about two conflicting views on morality.
On the one hand, there is a sort of black-and-white view of morality (Deontology, in some ways, it's the "Lawful Good" view of morality), which says that certain actions are wrong, period. Killing someone, for example, is wrong. Always. Even if they are serial killers, and killing them is the only way to stop them. Killing is just plain always wrong. (See this "Three Minute Philsophy" clip on Kant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw&feature=channel )
On the other hand, there is the view (Consequentialism, "Chaotic Good" view,) that morality is based upon the consequences of the actions, not a categorical opposition to certain types of actions. This is often derided as "the ends justify the means" by those opposed to it, but it also means that you have to take into account all the consequences. The right action is the action that either benefits the most people, or at least mitigates harm as much as posible.
People tend to fall in a spectrum between these two opposing sides, only very rarely taking one extreme (and those that do are often heavily philosophical and spend a good deal of time thinking about such things), but it is often a point of disconnect because people only rarely talk about these opposing philosophies.
Take, for example, the "trolly problem", where a trolly is running unstoppably down a train track, and will kill ten people who are in the station, however, you, at the switch, can instead change the tracks to send the trolly down a different track where only one person who is doing maintainance on that other track will be in the way and will be killed by the trolly. Deontilogically, you should do nothing, because you are not responsible for the trolly's killing people, only your own decision, and it would be immoral to kill someone, even to save ten others. You are only responsible for the person that you, directly, kill.
Consequentially, however, taking the action that would kill one person to save ten others is the ONLY moral action to take. This is because by your INaction, you are actually deciding to make ten people die just so that you don't have to take action to save those ten people, even if it means taking the action that would directly result in the death of another person. You are morally responsible for whatever happens to those eleven people simply by virtue of having the power to change the outcome, and must therefore always be searching for the best outcome for everyone in every situation you have any control over.
Obviously, this is a place where a massive amount of misunderstanding about morality can take place because it's based entirely upon what moral viewpoint you start out from.
Now, Heparine, I go back to why I say you seem to be confused, here... If someone steals food from a reasonably well-off merchant who is not significantly harmed from the theft in order to mitigate the extreme harm caused by starving to death (consider if this is to feed a family member instead of "selfishly" only to feed oneself, if you must), but you declare that immoral, simply because "stealing is always wrong", then you are taking a strong Deontological stance. When you then, in the next paragraph, state that a security guard shooting a terrorist is "overbalanced by saving several other lives", then you're taking a nuanced Consequentialist stance.
You're making a statement that Shiki is being "absolute", but you're not really making a consistant definition of what "absolute" is, here.
Still, Shiki was being harsh in PoFV to try to make the people she talked to reflect more upon their own actions, not simply condemning people because she's just a judgemental bitch.
Incidentally, Jeebus, what a tl;dr mess this is making.
I hate it when people complain about elongated comments and discussions. I loved reading this one particularly because there was a very healthy exchange of ideas and no one went overboard in expressing his/her emotions and beliefs.
It's almost as if they believe Danbooru should be free from intelligent comments. Of course they'll come up with theories about "how Danbooru should be".
And I'd rather be talking to an outright troll than people with zero tolerance with things that differ from themselves.
This isn't depressing in the least. This is justice. Should I feel bad because those stupid kids don't understand that their father is the kind of sick bastard that deserves to rot away in hell? Well, I don't! Teach them, and they'll probably think the same thing. This brings feelings of happiness, not depression. I wonder why it's in this pool at all.
The comic sure was super effective when it comes to being thought-provoking and emotionally effective. If these comments don't prove that, nothing does. The moral conflict was meaningful and satisfyingly resolved and the actions were in character. This is almost the kind of comic one would analyze on literature courses were it not so short and a derivative work for a series of shoot-'em-up games.