Legend of the Galactic Heroes Gaiden Episode 4 Discussion

kerlyenai said:
What a bunch of selfish brats these two are, seriously. They give no reason whatsoever for their fight against the Alliance apart from their will to rise through ranks so as to save Anne-Rose. I perfectly understand their pain and sorrow as well as their anger but to sacrifice human lives to save another is criminal and completely unjustifiable.

How very often people believe they are fighting for justice and a righteous cause when they have actually long crossed over to the side of the wrong-doers...

eyerok said:


but then who decides righteous cause or justice? And I think you're assuming there's a universal morality. The meaning of 'Justice' and 'righteous cause' change from society to society, time to time, person to person. Morality is almost completely subjective (except a few facets of it arguably) Besides the people they kill in the war are soldiers, who themselves wont hesitate to harm them or the people of the place they come from. Soldiers killing each other in a war is not a murder, even though wars in general are a sad thing and we shouldn't need them in the first place.

eyerok said:
I was going for the legal definition of murder, actually. Your definition is right, but its incomplete. Its not murder when you kill in self-defence, or if you didnt have the intention to. But its also not murder when you're in the middle of war. You cant try a soldier for killing another soldier during a war in any court of law.

I'd go a little further than that to say this: War isn't really in the hands of soldiers. They aren't the ones to decide when and who to fight. There has hardly been a time of peace in mankind's history; conflict and violence have always been a part of history. Most wars are fought for power or some other gain...its like my dad always says, its always about geography. But Soldiers themselves can have different motives for being part of that war, and its rarely the same reason as the ones who send them have in their minds. I think its a bit of an oversimplification to call it murder when a soldier kills another soldier...its kinda unfair for those people fighting for their lives. I think its really harsh to judge individuals like that.

eyerok said:
And about Reinhard calling kaiser's war useless; he's kinda right cuz I think he does say more than once that if the kaiser or the imperial's really had a brain, they would have ended the war in victory decades ago, instead of just dragging it for so long. And Reinhard does just that. In a way, he ended a meaningless conflict in a few years when it was going to go on for at least a couple of decades more. That doesn't justify his actions, no, but I don't think they did that just to save A relative. They just wanted to end the corruption of the fascist regime..they didnt want people to suffer at the whims of the imperials just like Annerose did. I always felt that that was the goal, or at least one of the goals, Reinhard was striving towards. I feel that to be a noble cause, and Reinhards path was the only way for him to reach that end.

kerlyenai said:



I disagree that calling it murder is harsh. Soldiers are indivisuals, not tools or weapons and thus are accountable for their actions. A soldier, as a conscious being, has a duty to question orders given to him or her. If a soldiers is ordered to kill so as to defend civilians or free them from tyranny then of course, I can understand that he/she would obey (though, of course a less simplistic and violent course of action should have been sought before hand). If, however, a soldiers kills for any other reason, then that soldier is a murderer (and a an irresponsible human being, but that would be the lesser evil in this case).

Are you saying that when born within a tyrannical system waging a war one morally opposes, it would be a good thing to join the armed forces of this system, make it win and then seize power to change it?
Let me ask this: if a charismatic and talented officer joined the nazi army and ensured Germany's victory during the 2nd world war, and then seized power so as to change the system, would you say he was right and that his cause was noble?

There were plenty of other paths for Reinhard to tread and the one he took was definitely not noble. He was understandably impatient as any human would have been if his or her sibling faced such injustice and hardship but he took a shortcut that led him to countless crimes.

eyerok said:
Less simplistic and violent options were not available at that time because the aristocratic elitist system didn't allow for any other option in the first place. They ruled politics, administration as well as the army.

eyerok said:
I dont get it. The definition of murder does not encompass lives of soldiers taken during war. I already mentioned what the legal definition is. If you disagree with it then look at it this way; if the soldiers during battle dont fight, they simply choose to stand aside, what do you think the other side will do? leave them alone? not attack their country because they're acting nice? By extension of that argument, aren't they then fighting to defend their lands.
The FPA was formed when a couple of hundred thousand people (or more) escaped and found their planets. The wars between the two sides are not just for fun, its for for territory. Defending your land is not murder, even you'd agree with that. Now the soldiers may also have their own motives in mind because they're all human beings, but essentially, as a collective, they do have a reason to fight.

eyerok said:
The nazi case is different.

eyerok said:
Were they fighting against a system that was itself rotten on the inside?Woudl the war they waged last for decades? not really.

eyerok said:
We know that the FPA is being ruled by a bunch of corrupt no gooders, we know that the aristocrats are not any better. We also know for sure that their conflict is not going to end in a couple of hundred years.

eyerok said:
So all of a sudden we have this guy who can end it in 4-5 years instead, because he has talented friends and he knows how to use them, and he himself is a genius strategist. Think of the lives that would be saved, the time and resources.And if he manages to change two systems (which he did to some degree), and solves the problem of corruption, apathy, poverty or any other dilemma that the masses have been facing...why not.

eyerok said:
Moral theories not grounded on reality might be against this, but what if Reinhard had followed your version of morality...the consequences would have been dire.

Just because you do not see other options does not mean they are not there. Man's intelligence and imagination are his greatest asset as I am sure you'll agree. I believe it is wise not to underestimate them. And even if you don't see any other options, justifying the means because of the end amounts to digging your own grave. The Russian revolution is an obvious example but there are countless such examples in history.

Er, do you not understand what I write?

I don't see any difference. Both were destructive regimes bent on conquest, both carrying out forms of eugenism and killing political opponents as well as exterminating individuals according to their alledged race.

Once again, you do not know this for certain.

First of all he did not solve all the problems of corruption or poverty. A nation of merchants (ruled democratically or otherwise) is unbalanced by nature and the New Reich still has poverty and unsatisfied government employees. Reinhard is seen to hunt down the corrupt elements but he is not an all-seeing god. As long as the economic systems remains the same, its old flaws will too.
Apathy, he might have temporarily solved, as people tend to love following a figure rather than taking reponsibility and changing things with their own hands. That of course cannot last, because problems are not fundamentally solved by an autocratic government (based on the denial of a person to decide by whom and how his/her community is governed) replacing a more corrupt one.

I find it rather pretentious to dismiss moral considerations as unrealistic.

The long hard way has managed to bring about many changes. The end of slavery, woman's and children's rights, freedom of expression in the arts and press, etc... Heck in India it even freed a country from the oppressive rule of armed colonists!

However, if he had followed my version of morality, he would not have left millions of sacrificed lives in his wake as he rose to glory. He would not have let civilians be massacred. He would not have executed political enemies. He would not have left the members of his community denied of their basic political rights. He would not have sown the seeds of his own nation's future failure.
Indeed, the consequences of his actions have been and will be (if the show actually has a sequel :P) dire...

tainteddonut said:
I first thought Martel was going against testifying because he was more worried about having the blood of Herder's family on his hands should the truth come out. I could see why he wouldn't want to get caught up in court affairs though.