Board Thread:Spoilers!/@comment-26196542-20150930211355/@comment-1916997-20151012151914

Arctucrus wrote: CoolDudeAl wrote: Arthur is a "greater good" person. While this doesn't make him a villain per say, once he starts having people kill themselves, becasue it is for the greater good, I can't really classify him as a hero. You know

While I'm not sure that going to the extent of having someone kill themselves "for the greater good" is quite the point, but I've never understood people who pin villainness on those who stand for the greater good.

And I'm not talking Grindelwald here -- He pulled a Hitler and construed the meaning of the phrase (like Hitler did the swastika), I'm talking people who actually act for the greater good.

If there is no greater good, there is also no good. However, if there is no good, there can still be a greater good.

Or, better put: "There can be a world without an individual, but there cannot be an individual without a world."

Not to start a whole philosophical debate here or anything, but I just thought it'd be interesting to point out that people who act for the greater good aren't necessarily bad people or "villains." There is a limit of course and generally I'd say that having someone kill themselves is beyond it, but within those limitations, those are the best kind of people, in my eyes.

And, to tie this back all together with Arthur and the topic at hand, all this personal reasoning and opinion is why I'm hesitant to call Arthur a villain in my own book (I'm aware A&E don't consider him one -- but everyone sees things differently...). Even if he DID have somone kill themselves "for the greater good," I'd rather that reason than most others. I just dislike "greater good" thinking because it can so easily take us down the slippery slope of justifing just about anything. Things like: "Sure there may be inoccent people living in that country, but there are also terriorists, so let's just bomb the whole place, because it will make the rest of the world safer" would be a totally justified thought for someone with a true "greater good" stance. It also has a majority rules aspect that I dislike, because everything always has a majority, but that doesn't mean we just get to disregard the minority. Like if we just did things for the majority in the USA, the only people with any power would be straight, white people, and everyone else would be screwed over. And all because they are justifiing they are doing things for a "greater good". That's my thoughts anyway, but philosophy is a tricky subject, which is why it's so interesting.