>>280775440
>His presence actually makes the outcome worse in the end because he saves the life of a psychopathic serial killer
Yes, the point being who was the monster? The ''altruistic'' character actually fucks shit up even more from a consequentialist perspective, yet we cannot exactly call his empathy wrong since the whole story is about what happens when people lack just that virtue. Him saving Johan is the action that ironically proves Tenma to be right. Johan wanted Tenma to kill him so Johan could be proven right. Thus, psychological egoism is heavily implied making Tenma a very flawed and complex character. His journey isn't about the greater good, its about him trying to prove to himself the value system he holds is correct. Thats purposeful and subversive, not bad writing. The ending climax creates a multilayered ethical question, that question being the logical endpoint to all the earlier questions the show has portrayed. What is value, what is the value of life? At least enough to kill over, if we're to listen to the eros of our genetic coding apparently. From between the two pillars, the ying & yang, masculine and feminine, positive and negative comes the shot. Moral dualistic worldview is turned into tatters in the final act of a man killing to save a life. The irony of it is utterly fucking perfect.
Tolkien shined in worldbuilding, not in characterwriting nor in ethical dilemmas. He said good guy, bad guy. Thats lame.
The final scene brings to question, if we look at the causality of evil, who was the real monster? A person, human nature, building blocks that create reality? Its an excellent portrayal of the idea of karmic consequence and the question of evil.
And we do know that Johan went off to live in a small cottage, never killing again. In this way he admitted defeat, and lived a peaceful rest of his life.
>Did I touch a nerve?
No, thats called genuine advice.
