Aathi

L is more morally justified in his actions when compared to Light. This is because, though Light’s objective of eradicating crime may be seen as noble, his methods of doing so is not. Light wishes to become a god of a new world without crime. Choosing to create that world by murdering the perpetrators of crime would mean that Light’s means of ruling as this “god” is through tyranny and oppression.

Though such methods may stop crime if left unchecked, it will also lead to the creation of a society in which a single ruler controls all, and fear of death leads to no resistance. Essentially, if Light’s plan was to prevail, the citizens would be stripped of their free will and ability to think for themselves. I believe such a world is worse than a world with crime. My reason for this belief is that it indirectly punishes undeserving citizens and strips away people’s ability to think (a vital component to the growth of human civilization).

On the other hand, though L had to get his hands dirty in the process, he was simply trying to put an end to this goal. Seeing the circumstance, I believe that it is clear to see that L is more so morally “right” when compared to Light.

One Piece is my favorite series of all time. I find that Luffy is a big contributor to this being the case. He is always enjoyable to see on screen, and can be a great inspiration in times of need.

When you said that Luffy is not special I was confused about what you meant. This is because he is the happiest character that I have ever seen, and is the character that embodies most what it means to live a life of adventure. After reading through your article, that confusion cleared up.

I have heard of many people who argued that One piece’s main character had been given special abilities like many other Shonen anime. I had always disagreed with that notion. I am happy to see that you share my thoughts.

A group cannot function without a goal to move towards. The duty of an ideal leader is to create that vision for the group, and bring glory to his people with the fulfillment of that vision. The leader must have the respect of the people, and the power to have his followers enact his decisions. In this sense the leader must be somewhat of a tyrant in terms of his ability to rule with an iron fist. If not, the trust in the leader dwindles and the occurrence of rebellions would see an increase.

That said, I don’t believe that a leader should rule completely through tyranny. This is because tyrannical regimes tend to enforce subordination. I believe that people should decide for themselves whether or not to support a leader in the fulfilment of his goal. In doing so they adapt the goal of the leader and put their best efforts into its accomplishment. Tyrannical regimes make people support the leader not out of a wish to accomplish his goal, but rather out of fear for their safety. As such, the production of new ideas would be compromised in return for the complete obedience of the tyrannical leader’s followers. This is compromise is created due to the people’s fear of making an error on the leader’s watch. Furthermore, rebellions are sure to occur in a tyrannical regime if the followers find a means of ensuring the safety of themselves and their loved ones from the tyrant.

Even so, the path of self-sacrifice is less befitting of a leader when compared to the path of tyranny. This is because, as stated before, the leader must set the goal for the group. In losing that leader, the group’s vision fades along with its reason for existence. With a tyrannical ruler there will at least be a foundational goal that provides meaning to the group. However, a leader who sways to the path of self-sacrifice will be unable to provide that goal. Therefore, an ideal leader is one who can set goals for the group and move towards it with the utilization of an iron fist in times of absolute necessity.

The duty of an effective leader is to make his followers believe in his vision, and bring glory to his group with the fulfillment of that vision.