Talk:Re: Chapter 172/@comment-26544002-20180516045100/@comment-27247962-20180518204703

^ I'm gonna answer them chronologically, since you bring up some understandable, but anthropocentric points that I don't completely agree with. So beware that It might sound fragmented & possibly repetitive. And hopefully I don't bore you by making this into a bigger thing than the series.

I don't agree that it should depend on 'IF ghouls are still killing humans', because if there is one certainty in this discussion then it would be that ghouls will still be eating humans. I would say it depends on the gravity of the ghoul threat when looking at it from a human standpoint. Let me give you a debatable threshold: The moment human atrocities/murder on their own species exceeds ghoul cases, the eradication of ghouls becomes an act of willfull 'genocide'. A show of power & dominance, not of desperation or necessitated harmful intent.

I agree that from nature's standpoint there is no recollection of any such thing as morals, but morality is a luxury in the posession of those we call 'the alpha', 'the top-predator', 'the one on top of the foodchain', if they had the ability to reason which leaves us with just 'humans'. And since we have a basic understanding of what morality is, we should (given our dominance) be as morally benevolent as we can be. Killing out of spite or fear on the basis of prevention is simply as animalistic as it gets and no different than 2 weaker chimpanzees killing their tyrannical leader, because the leader has an off-day. My problem is probably that I am too honorable or like to play by a certain set of rules, even though humans are gifted with the ability to deceive and manipulate any set of rules at their behest. So I either am as good as I can be and leave those alone when I don't feel threatened by them anymore or I take the radical opposite role of an animalistic human that kills anything that threatens it's fellow non-threatening human beings, including humans (essentially a never-ending paradox, since then someone else would need to kill me).

Right, but would that same 'neutral observer' accept a being that has the potency to eradicate the entirety of nature, even if that being itself thinks it's rigtheous in it's endeavors? If Earth was a computer and nature it's software, humanity would definitily be recognized as malware and any sensible 'neutral observer' would run a program that cleans the system/software. Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe humanity = malware, we have the capacity to be a positive force, but sadly the capacity to being 'malware' isn't excluded either.

I agree with the first two sentences, essentially the premise of your solution. I don't agree that we need to go as far as to put them behind a fence. You could compare that with colonialism, where the aberrant group is treated the same way animals are, while those same people have the same capacities as us (to an underdeveloped extent) and in this particular case (ghouls) they even exceed our capacities physically (well that was ironically the case with colonials as well). Treat them like you would treat a pet and they'll hold a grudge; treat them like you would treat a friend and that grudge will never manifest.

I'm sure there's plenty of arguments to question a lot of these idealistic standpoints, but I believe humans have the potential to be an entity that doesn't need to be omnipotent (immortal, all-knowing, all-powerful,...) to be merciful, benevolent, forgiving, noble & most of all fearless.