Nasuverse Fate/Gathering Night

[shioran toushin]

Black: i do exactly what i want.
White: I follow the letter of the law with Zealotry
Red: i'm ruled by passion (even omnicidal passion)

Blue: Pure cold and frigid MoFo logic.

 

[Inaba]

I haven't much to contribute to this conversation since others have already said what I want to say and said it better, but I would like to I vastly prefer ethics based on consequences rather than principles because the first gives me numbers to play with.

As I see it, the moral choice is the option with the lowest expected number of deaths, where the expected number of deaths is the sum of all possible outcomes (these being the number of deaths) multiplied by the possibilities of those outcomes. For example, if Shirou chooses to kill Sakura and there is an 100% chance that he succeeds without fail, the expected deaths of that choice is 1. To extend the example, if Shirou chooses not to kill Sakura and there is an even chance that either no one dies or 10 people dies, the expected deaths of that choice is 5 deaths. You could build on this tool by incorporating more nebulous things like the impact of deaths on survivors and the value of each life, but that kind of thing quickly becomes complex (it's relatively simple to calculate the value of a life for specific situations, but less so for life in general).

I don't remember enough about the route to care to put forward a guess about the expected number of deaths resulting from the choice not to kill Sakura, but I suspect that it doesn't look too good in comparison to the other choice. Neither emotion nor the probable actions of others should matter when it comes to moral dilemmas, only the utility/damages that result in each option.

 

[Cherry_lover]

Ok what the fucking Fuck, all of you (incluiding me) Shirou does not fucking kill freaking Saint Sakura in the MoS ending, he only doesn't stop Rin from doing the 'Magus'-approved course of action in terminating Sakura after Kirei had finished operating on Sakura an said that the worm in her heart can not be removed safely.

No, true, he doesn't, but he does offer to do it, and makes no effort to prevent her. The fact that Rin did the job before he could doesn't make him any less guilty.

I haven't much to contribute to this conversation since others have already said what I want to say and said it better, but I would like to I vastly prefer ethics based on consequences rather than principles because the first gives me numbers to play with.

As I see it, the moral choice is the option with the lowest expected number of deaths, where the expected number of deaths is the sum of all possible outcomes (these being the number of deaths) multiplied by the possibilities of those outcomes. For example, if Shirou chooses to kill Sakura and there is an 100% chance that he succeeds without fail, the expected deaths of that choice is 1. To extend the example, if Shirou chooses not to kill Sakura and there is an even chance that either no one dies or 10 people dies, the expected deaths of that choice is 5 deaths. You could build on this tool by incorporating more nebulous things like the impact of deaths on survivors and the value of each life, but that kind of thing quickly becomes complex (it's relatively simple to calculate the value of a life for specific situations, but less so for life in general).

I don't remember enough about the route to care to put forward a guess about the expected number of deaths resulting from the choice not to kill Sakura, but I suspect that it doesn't look too good in comparison to the other choice. Neither emotion nor the probable actions of others should matter when it comes to moral dilemmas, only the utility/damages that result in each option.

And I entirely disagree with your idea of "morality". Further, it is the exact same "morality" that has driven many of the worst dictators in history. Once you start seeing people as nothing more than statistics, then it is very easy to ignore the fact that they're actually people.

 

[shioran toushin]

mike, honestly, he only offers to off Saint Sakura so Rin does not suffer the trauma of killing her sister, if Rin suddenly had a change of Heart Shirou wouldn't stop it either.
he Washed his hands out of that buisness, if you want to compare it to someone then it would be Pontius Pilate who washed his hands at the execution of jesus and in offering to kill her for Rin he would be akin to the modern interpretation of Saint Longinius , and no, neither Sakura or Rin are even remotely close to jesus circumstances.

 

[Inaba]

And I entirely disagree with your idea of "morality". Further, it is the exact same "morality" that has driven many of the worst dictators in history. Once you start seeing people as nothing more than statistics, then it is very easy to ignore the fact that they're actually people.

And yet you provide no justification, no underpinning and no basis for your own sense of morality. What is the moral system that you are using? Do you base it on inalienable principles or perhaps a combination of principles and consequences? From where do you draw those principles and how do you justify them rather than a hundred thousand other possibilities? In sum, why are you so certain that your position on morality is correct and what arguments do you base this on?

Regardless, there is a significant difference between the 'greatest good for the greatest number' and the 'greatest good for a select number' that you seem to fear. The first can be combined with mathematics in order to calculate the best usage of limited resources to maximize happiness for the maximum number of people and it works fine so long as the right rules are implemented (each person begins has equal right to happiness, additional investment has diminishing returns, monitoring systems are in place to watch the human agents that create and implement policy, etc.) It is cold perhaps, but that coldness is not a minus but a plus when it comes to ethics.

If anything, basing morality on emotion and personal feeling seems much more likely to fall into the 'greatest good for a select number' trap. It is a human limitation that we cannot sustain more than a certain number of social relationships and that we treat these people differently from strangers. We are bound by nature to treat strangers as either statistics or even cruder pastiches built up of misconceptions and not particularly nuanced stereotypes. Letting emotion and personal feeling dominate morality can only lead to preferential treatment for friends and relatives over nameless and faceless strangers.

After all, a panel of public healthcare officials can choose to fund one kind of medical treatment over another for the same disease because the benefits of the second aren't enough to justify the extra expenditure that could've gone to help other people, but can they do the same if they have friends and relatives with the same disease and they were desperate for any solution to that problem?

 

[Cherry_lover]

mike, honestly, he only offers to off Saint Sakura so Rin does not suffer the trauma of killing her sister, if Rin suddenly had a change of Heart Shirou wouldn't stop it either.
he Washed his hands out of that buisness, if you want to compare it to someone then it would be Pontius Pilate who washed his hands at the execution of jesus and in offering to kill her for Rin he would be akin to the modern interpretation of Saint Longinius , and no, neither Sakura or Rin are even remotely close to jesus circumstances.

Erm, no, that's quite distinctly not the case. He had decided that Sakura needed to die, and he offered to take on the burden to spare Rin of it. If Rin had refused, then he would have killed them both without a second thought.

It makes no sense for him to simply "wash his hands of it", because he still cares about Sakura either way. The only difference is whether he considers the risk of her killing others too great for her to be allowed to live. If he didn't care enough about either her or the people who might die as a result of her living to act one way or the other, then he wouldn't have a decision to make in the first place.

And yet you provide no justification, no underpinning and no basis for your own sense of morality. What is the moral system that you are using? Do you base it on inalienable principles or perhaps a combination of principles and consequences? From where do you draw those principles and how do you justify them rather than a hundred thousand other possibilities? In sum, why are you so certain that your position on morality is correct and what arguments do you base this on?

I base my idea of morality on what I think is right, just like everyone else.

Regardless, there is a significant difference between the 'greatest good for the greatest number' and the 'greatest good for a select number' that you seem to fear. The first can be combined with mathematics in order to calculate the best usage of limited resources to maximize happiness for the maximum number of people and it works fine so long as the right rules are implemented (each person begins has equal right to happiness, additional investment has diminishing returns, monitoring systems are in place to watch the human agents that create and implement policy, etc.) It is cold perhaps, but that coldness is not a minus but a plus when it comes to ethics.

The problem I have with that is that it invariably results in some people losing out through no fault of their own, and that is quite simply not fair. Particularly since the ones who lose out are usually the ones who are in the worst position to start with.

Everyone deserves an equal chance at life, and your approach does not give them it. Further, your approach invariably results in oppression for the "greater good", and also results in no-one being safe because the government will kill you in a second if they perceive you as a possible threat.

Guantanemo Bay is the result of this sort of thinking, as is every other oppressive anti-terror law and, indeed, every law based around legislating morality (anti-homosexuality laws etc.). If you start reducing people to mere statistics, then what meaning is there to the concept of "freedom"? That, after all, can't be reduced to a mere number....

If anything, basing morality on emotion and personal feeling seems much more likely to fall into the 'greatest good for a select number' trap. It is a human limitation that we cannot sustain more than a certain number of social relationships and that we treat these people differently from strangers. We are bound by nature to treat strangers as either statistics or even cruder pastiches built up of misconceptions and not particularly nuanced stereotypes. Letting emotion and personal feeling dominate morality can only lead to preferential treatment for friends and relatives over nameless and faceless strangers.

After all, a panel of public healthcare officials can choose to fund one kind of medical treatment over another for the same disease because the benefits of the second aren't enough to justify the extra expenditure that could've gone to help other people, but can they do the same if they have friends and relatives with the same disease and they were desperate for any solution to that problem?

I'm not saying that decisions shouldn't be made on that basis, I'm saying that it's not a good way of making all decisions, especially not life-or-death ones. Some things are just plain wrong.

 

[trevelyan1983]

No, true, he doesn't, but he does offer to do it, and makes no effort to prevent her. The fact that Rin did the job before he could doesn't make him any less guilty.

Shirou is guilty of murdering Sakura, even though Rin had already decided to kill her and did in fact kill her in this ending.

What kind of logic is this?

 

[Inaba]

I base my idea of morality on what I think is right, just like everyone else.

Yes, but what are your ideas of morality based on? For example, mine are largely based on the position that happiness is the highest good and that society should promote happiness for the highest possible number of people.

The problem I have with that is that it invariably results in some people losing out through no fault of their own, and that is quite simply not fair. Particularly since the ones who lose out are usually the ones who are in the worst position to start with.

Everyone deserves an equal chance at life, and your approach does not give them it. Further, your approach invariably results in oppression for the "greater good", and also results in no-one being safe because the government will kill you in a second if they perceive you as a possible threat.

Guantanemo Bay is the result of this sort of thinking, as is every other oppressive anti-terror law and, indeed, every law based around legislating morality (anti-homosexuality laws etc.). If you start reducing people to mere statistics, then what meaning is there to the concept of "freedom"? That, after all, can't be reduced to a mere number....

There will always be people losing out - that is a consequence of trying to use limited resources to meeting limitless needs and desires. It cannot be solved, but it can be combated - I don't see how an utilitarian system that ignores personal qualities such as sex, race and social-economic class is anymore susceptible to that problem than anything else.

As for anti-homosexual legislation, that's about as far from 'the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number' as possible. It is a fault of the society that implements the decision-making system, rather than a fault of the system itself. If anything, they're legislation catering to a specific number of people rather than the greatest number possible. As for the excesses of anti-terrorism legislation, I would consider them the results of an emotional response, with the greatest good being window-dressing tacked on as an excuse rather than the primary cause.

Having said that, I believe that everyone has the right to pursue happiness and to be happy, so long as that doesn't conflict with the same rights of other people. I'm inclined to think that most of society agrees with me, as shown by our attitudes towards drunk drivers and quarantines. Society tries to stop drunk drivers before they hit someone because they pose an unacceptably high risk of causing harm to others. Similarly, our society is perfectly willing to quarantine people with dangerous and highly infectious diseases in order to prevent them from spreading those diseases. Evidently, our society does not consider the happiness of any one single individual to be absolutely inalienable because no sane society of similar scale could do that and hope to survive.

To use an example that is perhaps closer to the one presented in-game, if combat planes had shot down the airplanes that struck the WTC on 9/11, would that have been the right thing for them to do?

? I'm not saying that decisions shouldn't be made on that basis, I'm saying that it's not a good way of making all decisions, especially not life-or-death ones. Some things are just plain wrong.

Can I assume then that your morality is based on a number of perhaps interrelated moral principles? Furthermore, if you believe that this isn't a good basis, what do you believe should replace it?

Frankly speaking, at this point, I suspect that we have very different ideas of what a system that operates on the 'greatest good for the greatest number' looks like.

 

[Cynical Kyle]

No, true, he doesn't, but he does offer to do it, and makes no effort to prevent her. The fact that Rin did the job before he could doesn't make him any less guilty.

Shirou is guilty of murdering Sakura, even though Rin had already decided to kill her and did in fact kill her in this ending.

What kind of logic is this?

Logic of butthurt fanboi.

 

[trevelyan1983]

Logic of butthurt fanboi.

I lol'd.

Not so far from the truth, I fear.

 

[Avider]

Having said that, I believe that everyone has the right to pursue happiness and to be happy, so long as that doesn't conflict with the same rights of other people. I'm inclined to think that most of society agrees with me, as shown by our attitudes towards drunk drivers and quarantines. Society tries to stop drunk drivers before they hit someone because they pose an unacceptably high risk of causing harm to others. Similarly, our society is perfectly willing to quarantine people with dangerous and highly infectious diseases in order to prevent them from spreading those diseases. Evidently, our society does not consider the happiness of any one single individual to be absolutely inalienable because no sane society of similar scale could do that and hope to survive.

And of course our society have decided to kill everybody who has the potential to drink and drive, kill everybody who has the potential to spread dangerous disease, and so on.

Oh wait no we don't.

It's not a matter of you can never deny someone happiness no matter what, obviously that'll lead to severe complications, but just as well that's not what wanted.

But there's a severe problem when potential is translated to actual by, in the words of awesome people of this thread, "butthurt fanboy logic", so as to indict a person who hasn't actually done what they're accused of doing and so execute them base on that.

Ignoring the whole question about capital punishment, it's still true that killing someone based on just things they could possibly do ain't right.

Now, if they pose a certain risk, then a good argument can be made for quarantining them, just as in the case of contagious disease. In the case of drunk drivers, once they've demonstrated a certain amount of risk, the state can and does revoke their license to drive.

In either case, however, we don't just kill them, because death is permanent and not to be taken lightly.

Applying this to Sakura, what Rin reasoned was that Sakura exceeded a certain amount of risk that necessitated her death. Even supposing a utilitarian morality, this specific aspect is subjective, on what constitutes the baseline for receiving death instead of quarantine or other means less permanent, and so essentially refutes the entire premise that the decision is both logical and objective.

The situation does not neatly collapse into a trolley cart scenario typical of the classic utilitarian argument, and in fact, life rarely does.

 

[shioran toushin]

And yet you provide no justification, no underpinning and no basis for your own sense of morality. What is the moral system that you are using? Do you base it on inalienable principles or perhaps a combination of principles and consequences? From where do you draw those principles and how do you justify them rather than a hundred thousand other possibilities? In sum, why are you so certain that your position on morality is correct and what arguments do you base this on?

I base my idea of morality on what I think is right, just like everyone else.

^
then there is no wrong in Rin's morality or MoS Shirou, afterall they also did what they tought was right.

 

[Inaba]

And of course our society have decided to kill everybody who has the potential to drink and drive, kill everybody who has the potential to spread dangerous disease, and so on.

Oh wait no we don't.

It's not a matter of you can never deny someone happiness no matter what, obviously that'll lead to severe complications, but just as well that's not what wanted.

But there's a severe problem when potential is translated to actual by, in the words of awesome people of this thread, "butthurt fanboy logic", so as to indict a person who hasn't actually done what they're accused of doing and so execute them base on that.

Ignoring the whole question about capital punishment, it's still true that killing someone based on just things they could possibly do ain't right.

Now, if they pose a certain risk, then a good argument can be made for quarantining them, just as in the case of contagious disease.? In the case of drunk drivers, once they've demonstrated a certain amount of risk, the state can and does revoke their license to drive.

In either case, however, we don't just kill them, because death is permanent and not to be taken lightly.

Applying this to Sakura, what Rin reasoned was that Sakura exceeded a certain amount of risk that necessitated her death.? Even supposing a utilitarian morality, this specific aspect is subjective, on what constitutes the baseline for receiving death instead of quarantine or other means less permanent, and so essentially refutes the entire premise that the decision is both logical and objective.

The situation does not neatly collapse into a trolley cart scenario typical of the classic utilitarian argument, and in fact, life rarely does.

Killing a drunk driver for drinking and driving is a case of gross overreaction, as is killing someone with a dangerous infectious disease. Other, more humane measures exist in our society to both contain the dangers presented by both the drunk driver and the diseased person and to resolve them; not to mention that killing either is a suboptimal solution in a scenario where the happiness of the maximum number is paramount. On the other hand, I wouldn't condemn a medieval society if their idea of plague quarantine happened to be walling the bubonic plague sufferers into their homes and leaving them to die.

In my opinion, the most moral choice is limited by both the possible choices and the expected outcomes of those solutions. Doing nothing is one choice and solutions to the problem are other choices. It is moral to choose the one that results in the greatest benefit/least harm - where benefit/harm is defined as being a person's ability to enjoy his or her life. Quality of life is a measurable concept and even if you quibble about which specific measurements can/cannot be used for which specific aspects of quality of life, you can still strip down the system for usage on an 1 to 1 basis. Each person has the same right to live and if the choices becomes either 1 expected death or 10 expected deaths without possibility of error - then the choice leading to the 1 expected death is more moral than the other one.

Of course, real life situations aren't this simple. Scenarios are not easily reduced to expected outcomes plus possibilities of expected outcomes, individuals may lack the time and expertise to gauge scenarios and predictions can always be faulty or inaccurate.

Having said that, I can't say whether the scenario collapses into the trolley-cart example because I don't remember the route very well. Other than the bare bones, I don't remember squat about why Sakura was hazardous and how hazardous she was. I'd be thankful if someone could sum that up for me.

 

[nick012000]

Having said that, I can't say whether the scenario collapses into the trolley-cart example because I don't remember the route very well. Other than the bare bones, I don't remember squat about why Sakura was hazardous and how hazardous she was. I'd be thankful if someone could sum that up for me.

She was running out of prana thanks to the worms, and Rin was worried that she was going to go berserk and start eating people to keep herself alive.

 

[Inaba]

She was running out of prana thanks to the worms, and Rin was worried that she was going to go berserk and start eating people to keep herself alive.

That's . . . kind of underwhelming.

 

[nick012000]

She was running out of prana thanks to the worms, and Rin was worried that she was going to go berserk and start eating people to keep herself alive.

That's . . . kind of underwhelming.

To be fair, she already had gone berserk when Shinji dosed her with the sex-drug. It was more a matter of "when", not "if".

 

[shioran toushin]

"She escaped death, but it is just temporary.
I was able to remove most of the crest worm, but some parts were buried too deeply to be removed. Some of it has eaten into the nerves. I can extract it all if I remove her heart, but that will kill Sakura as well."


"All I could do was to remove the crest worm that did not metabolize with her nerves, decreasing her pain and the pressure from Zouken. Her life should have ended tonight, but I prolonged it on a whim. Well, it will all be vain effort if the worm in her nerves start moving again."


"Whathen Sakura isà"


"It means nothing has changed.
She will have no problem living normally, but Zouken can easily drive her berserk.
That old man can force her to fight, whether she wants to or not. In short, she is a bomb with a lit fuse."

""
I'd be lying if I said I'm not agitated.
But I'm not surprised or puzzled.
I've made my decision already.
I chose to be on Sakura's side, no matter what happens, no matter what state she's in.


"I see. Then there's only one thing left to do. I'm sorry for making you use you Crest."


Tohsaka starts to walk.
I instantly understand what she's going to do.
"Hey, stop, Tohsakaà!"
I grab Tohsaka's hand and stop her.

"What? Talk to me later."
"What are you saying? Are you planning to kill Sakura?"

"Then what are you going to doà!?
Look, Sakura can't live unless she fights as a Master.
She has to absorb other people's magical energy to surviveà!
Don't you see how this will end!? Killing her here is for her own goodà!"

"àNo way! Why are you jumping to conclusions when she hasn't done anything yet!"


"How could I not? If this were just about Sakura, there'd be hope. But it's not, is it? That damn old man holds her life, and she's his puppet as long as he lives.
Do you think he's ever going to let her go?"
"That'sà"


"See, you understand. Zouken will never give her a moment's peace. àThenà If she's going to go through endless torment with no hope of escape, all we can do is kill her here and minimize the number of victims. Sakura and all the people Sakura will kill would be saved."

 

[Avider]

And of course our society have decided to kill everybody who has the potential to drink and drive, kill everybody who has the potential to spread dangerous disease, and so on.

Oh wait no we don't.

It's not a matter of you can never deny someone happiness no matter what, obviously that'll lead to severe complications, but just as well that's not what wanted.

But there's a severe problem when potential is translated to actual by, in the words of awesome people of this thread, "butthurt fanboy logic", so as to indict a person who hasn't actually done what they're accused of doing and so execute them base on that.

Ignoring the whole question about capital punishment, it's still true that killing someone based on just things they could possibly do ain't right.

Now, if they pose a certain risk, then a good argument can be made for quarantining them, just as in the case of contagious disease.á In the case of drunk drivers, once they've demonstrated a certain amount of risk, the state can and does revoke their license to drive.

In either case, however, we don't just kill them, because death is permanent and not to be taken lightly.

Applying this to Sakura, what Rin reasoned was that Sakura exceeded a certain amount of risk that necessitated her death.á Even supposing a utilitarian morality, this specific aspect is subjective, on what constitutes the baseline for receiving death instead of quarantine or other means less permanent, and so essentially refutes the entire premise that the decision is both logical and objective.

The situation does not neatly collapse into a trolley cart scenario typical of the classic utilitarian argument, and in fact, life rarely does.

Killing a drunk driver for drinking and driving is a case of gross overreaction, as is killing someone with a dangerous infectious disease. Other, more humane measures exist in our society to both contain the dangers presented by both the drunk driver and the diseased person and to resolve them; not to mention that killing either is a suboptimal solution in a scenario where the happiness of the maximum number is paramount. On the other hand, I wouldn't condemn a medieval society if their idea of plague quarantine happened to be walling the bubonic plague sufferers into their homes and leaving them to die.

In my opinion, the most moral choice is limited by both the possible choices and the expected outcomes of those solutions. Doing nothing is one choice and solutions to the problem are other choices. It is moral to choose the one that results in the greatest benefit/least harm - where benefit/harm is defined as being a person's ability to enjoy his or her life. Quality of life is a measurable concept and even if you quibble about which specific measurements can/cannot be used for which specific aspects of quality of life, you can still strip down the system for usage on an 1 to 1 basis. Each person has the same right to live and if the choices becomes either 1 expected death or 10 expected deaths without possibility of error - then the choice leading to the 1 expected death is more moral than the other one.

Of course, real life situations aren't this simple. Scenarios are not easily reduced to expected outcomes plus possibilities of expected outcomes, individuals may lack the time and expertise to gauge scenarios and predictions can always be faulty or inaccurate.

Having said that, I can't say whether the scenario collapses into the trolley-cart example because I don't remember the route very well. Other than the bare bones, I don't remember squat about why Sakura was hazardous and how hazardous she was. I'd be thankful if someone could sum that up for me.

I don't need a crash course on utilitarianism, thanks, much less one which I've already stated as irrelevant for the purposes of the argument. If you want, I can give a paper detailing exactly why Utilitarianism is a very undesirable moral theory, involving at its core the forced acceptance of counter-intuitive notions of morality and the dissolution of normal morality itself.


As for the argument that Sakura can be driven berserk by Zouken.

That possibility also applies to everybody. It may not be Zouken, but there are certain sets of conditions that allows for the existence of that possibility.

Fact of the matter is, she hasn't done it, present tense. Killing her would be, in the words of an awesome person in this thread, a gross overreaction.


What Rin does is make a bunch of assumptions to justify her own actions. Whether we can grant those or not? Well we'll differ on that, but I doubt anyone can provide a completely clear and objective basis for granting those assumptions. (This ties in with my previous statement that the judgment call Rin makes is subjective, even supposing Utilitarianism is objective and correct.)

 

[Inaba]

If you want, I can give a paper detailing exactly why Utilitarianism is a very undesirable moral theory, involving at its core the forced acceptance of counter-intuitive notions of morality and the dissolution of normal morality itself.

I'd be happy to read such a paper.

That possibility also applies to everybody.? It may not be Zouken, but there are certain sets of conditions that allows for the existence of that possibility.

I'm still standing in the dark on this; it's a little bit clearer now (thanks to everyone), but I'm still unclear on certain matters. I'm assuming that Zouken can influence Sakura through the crest worms but what is the process that he uses in order to induce a berserk state? The passage that shioran toushin posted seems to suggest that it's at least in part through prana depletion, but shouldn't that be combat-able through other means such as sexual intercourse? What am I missing here?

What Rin does is make a bunch of assumptions to justify her own actions.? Whether we can grant those or not?? Well we'll differ on that, but I doubt anyone can provide a completely clear and objective basis for granting those assumptions.

I remain undecided in this scenario since I don't understand all the facts, though I stand by the position that choosing a course of action that leads to the death of innocents can be correct if the cost otherwise is high enough. So yeah, I suppose we'll have to differ on that - if all the philosophers since people started living in mud huts haven't managed to come up with objective morality, we're not going to magically come up with it in the course of an Internet conversation.

 

[shioran toushin]

actually is not so much as : she will kill whithout remorse, or she is a beast so she must be put down, hell as Mike loves to reiterate NO ONE but Zoken knwe about the fragments of AM implanted into her at that moment.
as
she is dieing, is controlled by a Monster who will amuse himself with death and will also enjoy her suffering, OTOH Sakura's insctincual reaction is to latch and leech prana from the nearest source (that was why she atacked Rin in the first place), IIRC the AM!Sakura only appeare after she broke down and Killed Shinji.


@Inaba, check the links on my big post, that can explain what happens since Sakura collapsed, was taken to Kirei, the path-split, MoS/Superhero and finally the rest of HF wich Mike seems to love.

 

[Inaba]

@Inaba, check the links on my big post, that can explain what happens since Sakura collapsed, was taken to Kirei, the path-split, MoS/Superhero and finally the rest of HF wich Mike seems to love.

Ha ha, thanks.

The embarrassing thing is that I've actually played through the route and read through Seorin's Let's Play thread a couple of times, but still can't remember a thing.

 

[shioran toushin]

i only played HF for 4 things:
1.-Mos/Superhero
2.- Nine Bullet Revolver
3.-Spark Liner High
4.-All Evils of the World and All the Good in this Life AKA Shirou vs Kirei.

but for practical purposes i put those links as it is the relevant section of the VN that goes from Sakura goes mad (or at least only Od/Prana depleted) to the Kill/no-Kill thing wich is the point of GH's, Mike's and our discussion, and i linked it because i noted that all of us were saying "Shirou killed Sakura because XXXXX" and Mike responded " Shirou killed Sakura and it's wrong because xxxxx"
what actually happened was that Shirou choose to be cold and follow his ideal, accepted Kirei's prognosis (he is a medic, or they trusted him enough to have taken Sakura there) and did not try to Stop Rin, only offered to do it for her so Rin did not suffer the act of fraticide.
in the normal path He choose to be selfishy human and decided to stand on Sakura's side and stopped Rin.

another RL example would be Euthanasia or pulling the life support from a Coma patient, it hurts but there are two options:
1.- he could wake
2.- the family coose to pull the life support from the patient.

and ths can apply to terminal patients to, 'miracles' happen and the patient recovers, but again they may not recover.

 

[Cherry_lover]

She was running out of prana thanks to the worms, and Rin was worried that she was going to go berserk and start eating people to keep herself alive.

That's . . . kind of underwhelming.

To be fair, she already had gone berserk when Shinji dosed her with the sex-drug. It was more a matter of "when", not "if".

Except that it wasn't, because she never actually did go berserk in that way....

what actually happened was that Shirou choose to be cold and follow his ideal, accepted Kirei's prognosis (he is a medic, or they trusted him enough to have taken Sakura there) and did not try to Stop Rin, only offered to do it for her so Rin did not suffer the act of fraticide.

OK, then, what do you think Shirou would have done if Rin had not decided to kill Sakura...?

And, no, he wasn't following his ideal, not in any way, shape or form. His ideal does not allow standing by and watching an innocent girl getting murdered in cold blood, and nor does it allow for offering to murder said innocent girl.

 

[GenocideHeart]

His ideal broke in a million pieces soon as Kirei told him the truth, man. He, at that point, COULD NOT follow it. Someone was doomed either way - either Sakura or someone else because Sakura was still a Master in a Grail War and the only way to save her at that point was to win a Grail War... and when was the last time a Grail War was won without bloodshed?

The MoS/HF split is pretty much Shirou choosing which his colors would be - MoS obviously went White/Blue, as he chose to dedicate himself to being a Hero even at the cost of his own feelings, following logic and reason, HF went Black/Red by choosing to follow his feelings and his personal desire, and stand by Sakura even if that meant the rest of the world would be placed in jeopardy. At this point, his ideal was already shot to hell - Shirou found that hoping he could keep his hands clean and save everybody wasn't going to happen.

He had to let go of his old, dead ideal and embrace a new one, dedicating himself to it... and he had to make that choice right there and then. Stand for justice even over one's own feelings, or cling to his own feelings and stand against the world for the sake of the one he loved.

Ultimately, even he agreed that what he was doing was wholly selfish - he was protecting Sakura not because it was THE right thing to do for everyone, but because it was what he wanted to do himself, above all else.

"I will do what I truly want, no matter the price"... This description pretty much defines a Black/Red type. Shirou just happens to be one of the nice ones. They are rare (most Black/Red types are self-destructive or violently insane), but they do happen. Hell, his being one of the nice ones, if anything, makes him all the more interesting.

 

[shioran toushin]

he became like Kiritsugu.

During one mission on an Airbus A300 jumbo jet, they were following a magus known as the ôDemonic Bee Userö, Od Volsack. Natalia was in the plane during the flight while Kiritsugu waited at the destination. It was said that this magus successfully created Dead Apostles and could manipulate the Demonic Ghoul Bees under his control to use poisonous stings to increase the amount of Ghouls under his power. And those Bees caused a fatal disturbance in the plane after the death of Volsack. The Ghoul Bees raided towards the passengers one by one, and as every single passenger had become a Ghoul, were the situation deemed too risky and Kiritsugu shot the plane down before it could land, sacrificing Natalia in the process. In their last conversation via radio, he admitted that she was like a mother to him. It was then that he became disillusioned with his ideal of becoming a 'hero of justice', as it was impossible to save one person without losing another.However, he continued to fight for this dream, to ensure that everything he had given up would not be in vain.

and remember that he also shot his crush

He became friends with - and had a crush on - Norikata's assistant, a local girl called Shirley who was four years older than him. However, disaster struck when Shirley somehow became a vampire and pled for Kiritsugu to kill her.

Sakura was a Risk, because innocent or not he ha an could be absolutely controlled by Zoken, and that included him killing her via the worms.
he came to the conclusion that the Risks of something Bad happening outweighted the pros of allowing Sakura to live, OTOH he defered the fate of Sakura to Rin, if she suddenly decided to take a risk and allow Sakura to live a bit more then Shiro would have allowed that, until she became a greater risk (as it happened when the Shadow!AM fully took control of her), then he would be the one to terminate the threat.
and as for Following his ideal, did you not pay any little amount of atention onhow his ideal worked?
Shirou/Kiri: 'To be a hero'---'To save someone/everyone'
Kirei: wanting to save someone implies that you want the other to be in trouble first
Archer: I had to kill ozens to save hundreds
if Killing someone also saves lifes (plural) then the action is accord to his ideal, and that was stated in the VN mike.