>Can't you just... not do evil things?>I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. I'm ontologically evil – which is to say, I'm made of evil substance. My intentions don't matter; everything I do is evil by definition. Were I to pet a kitten, the chain of causality would conspire to wound the world thereby.>Then what's the point of all this? It sounds like you could do just as much harm staying home, if it all amounts to the same thing.>Ah, there's the trick. Just as everything I do is by definition evil, all things done against me are by definition good. Any harm done to me makes the world a better place, even if it seems it shouldn't.>So, like, if I punched you in the face right now, that would be good?>Not with the knowledge you now possess, I'm afraid. If you do it because I asked you to, the act remains the fruit of the poisoned tree. You'd have to choose to do it without my prompting.>Wait. You're saying the only way you can do good is by committing atrocities so people will beat you up?>Just so.>That sounds like one heck of a perverse incentive.>I'm evil. All my incentives are perverse.
>>290835128Yes, some people, I mean monsters, are like that.
>>290835128Do you have access to this book, mayhaps?/a/non
>>290835128Less yappin more demon brain splattin
>>290835128Wouldn't that mean that all her intentions are automatically evil themselves? And therefore if she wants to do good it will ultimately result in evil regardless. Just like her doing kind or neutral deeds would necessarily be perverted into net negative by ontological principles of her being?
>>290835640YesThat's what happened with the previous demon king, who earnestly tried to get along with humans and caused the deaths of millions as a direct consequence
>>290835669But that would mean that doing actual percieveavble bad things is bad for ontological evil as it limits the net negative it pursues and would therefore make ontological evil good
>>290835690Its not like demons have any loyalty to the concept of evil, no more than we have any loyalty to the concept of carbon. Nor is the nature of evil (substance) something you can get around with double negatives.
>>290835746We are not talking about the concept of evil we are talking about ontological evil - being itself. If we assume that the goal of ontological evil is the spread of evil and the spread of evil is achieved by any action of a creature through which it manifests then it manifestation in creatures that commit acts of perceived evil is ultimately counterproductive to said goal and therefore the fact that it does manifest in such creatures betrays the fact that it seeks to minimize itself which is ontologically good
>>290835805>If we assume that the goal of ontological evilThat's begging the question of ontological evil having a goal in the first place, and my extension, the question of if its capable of having a will at all
>>290835838Ok if the spread of itself isn't its goal or function or whatever the hell you wanna call it why is it then we assume that we must fight it and hold ontological good over it? What makes ontological evil evil in the first place?
>>290835904>What makes ontological evil evil in the first place?It's opposition to ontological good>why is it then we assume that we must fight it and hold ontological good over it?Maybe we don't. Maybe sometimes its better to give ontological evil some breathing room now and again to make sure ontological good has something to fight against other than non-ontological evil
Aura bad, Frieren good. All that bloated mess just boils down to something primally simple and direct.
>>290836120So why do we choose ontological good over ontological evil what exactly separates the two and what exactly makes them clash
>Days since /a/ argued over frieren killing demons back to 0These are going to become a tradition like elaina threads kek, you love to see it
Why do tourists always have to try and connect everything to some real world equivalent? Is it really that hard to comprehend that "demons=bad, humans=good".
>>290836270because the whole reason they are here is to push a political agenda
>>290836270It's not even that, it's all just a narrative about what it means to be human and to live, you can throw elves into the mix because of how their lifespan affects their perception. I'd mention dwarves as well, but they're quite human. Anyway fuck this spam thread
>>290836239one is good and the other is evil
>>290836350I don't accept the myth that homo sapiens can be discretely divided into different races with clear cut differences in biological nature in regards to behaviour and cognitionGive me ten billion dollars in research grants and a pre-emptive pardon for unethical human experiments and I'll prove it too
>>290836475That's a tautology
>>290836239gotta ask the goddess in person to find that out
>>290835640Like a Kihara?
>>290836500every understanding in this universe is ultimately founded on circular logic
>>290835128Perversion is good though. Prudence is evil.
Demons aren't evil though. They seem evil because the story is written from the perspective of a prey species. A story about humans written by cows wouldn't be flattering for humans either.
The only good part of this show was the line about demons using words only to deceive their prey and how it does not engage in moral ambiguity.
>>290839183But humans run an actual civilization while demons are just supernatural parasites. A perversion of nature, no different than undead abominations from the real world folklore. No wonder leftards feel irrational sympathy for those beings, their existence is eerily similar.
>>290835128Frieren is poorly written. The 5m tall giant demon is believable evil but the human-like ones who clearly show emotions in moments where it's not necessary, not. They may lack of moral but moral isn't the only thing that keeps order in our society. Yet when the loli demon tried to adapt, they forgot to establish basic human laws and customs and when shit happened they were like: "but... morally it's bad...". But whenever people point these out, people just make it about politics or religion or something.
