Was Femto in the right all along?

[himura_kenshin]

Please not the plural "soldiers" in my statement. Not soldier. I don't think a leader should put himself above his ENTIRE army.

Also, i'm not the one who stated that EVERY one of the hawks knew that griffith prized his dream over all of them. You should give a basis for that statement.

As for my reason for contradicting: The hawks revered griffith as a sort of a hero. They all loved him and respected him, or at least that's the impression i got. I don't remember anyone speaking ill of grif when he wasn't around. If i missed that somewhere, it didn't happen often. I don't think the hawks would have that sort of respect for him if they didn't think he cared for them. I will admit that that is a weak basis, but i haven't seen you provide any yet.

That aside, i think the core of this debate actually revolves around WHY griffith sacrificed them. If it was solely for the purpose that he could live, dream aside, it was a pretty low and cowardly thing to do. That's probably not what happened though. If it was the purpose of his life and his dream, it depends what his dream was. If his dream was simply to accumulate power for himself, it was still extremely selfish and low. If he did it because he wanted to accumulate power and be a good ruler etc. Then what we have here is a question of "Do the ends justify the means?" as i have already said. This is a very common and debatable answer. Let's have an example:

The US or some other country could probably all but eliminate the AIDS epidemic in Africa by bombing certain areas, quarantining and killling off certain areas, etc. This would greatly improve life in Africa in the long run. I personally am against this idea. Some others would probably support it. Classic example of ends justifying means.

If you support ends justifying means, that's your opinion and i cannot argue with you any further.

 

[puella]

I'd suppose it would be good if you guys compare the Hawks and the Neo Hawks composed of apostles and demon soldiers.

The Hawk soldiers were common people who just followed Griffith as their captain and friend while Neo Hawk soldiers follow Griffith as their master.
Of course, they could die in the battlefield following Griffith's order. But it's not for just Griffith's order. There is some difference. It's a death fighting the enemies. They died in the battle.

Think about some Hawk soldiers who left Griffith and the Hawk while Griffith was being tortured in the dungeon for a year.
They could make a choice at least, stay or leave.
But the soldiers sacrificed in the eclipse had no choice. Just killed and sacrificed.
My point is that a choice should have been given to them even if there had been some Hawk soldiers who would have been willing to die only for Griffith's dream.

elhinnaw's opinion could be applied to some members who would be willing to die but what about those who wouldn't?
And did we see any Hawk members who accepted their death calmly in the eclipse? All of them just ran away extremely horrified. If they could have made a choice, stay(to be a sacrifice for Griffith) or leave(flee), it seemed that almost of them would have chosen to flee.

If you say it's because they didn't know it's for Griffith's dream, then there is a fallacy.
If they really had been ready to die for Griffith, they should've known they could die at any time. Even if some of them were killed sleeping at night or hit by thunder, it should be supposed to be holy death for Griffith.
But none of them did that.

And it seems there are many apostles in the Neo Hawk soldiers who would be willing to die at any time just following Griffith's order, even for Griffith's toenails. If some crucial moments when they had to die comes, they might not just run away like the Hawk members.

Just beacuse they didnt die the death they wanted, doesnt change this fact.

I think it's not just because they didn't die the death they wanted
but because they didn't want to die only for Griffith's dream.
The members also had their own dream. They wanted to come true their dream through/follwing Griffith. Griffith himself knew well about this so he also had to do many things for that.

 

[elhinnaw]

Griffith isnt betraying the Hawks unless there is an impression or a general assumption that he holds the Hawks higher than his dream. If you take the example of an assistant to an office manager. This office manager makes it very clear to everyone who works under him that his dream of being a partner is tremendously important and its what he lives for. If one day, the CEO of the company says that if you fire your assistant, you will be a partner. If the manager does that, I can see how the assistant would feel betrayed, but at no point did the manager ever indicate or show the assistant the affection to give the impression that they were closer to him that the dream.

As for the ends justifying the means, I dont see this scenario as true. If anything its more like a scale. On one side is Griffiths dream and what he believes, on the other its the Hawks.

As far as what Puella says, Adam already made that point a while ago, and you are right. I didnt think there were Hawks like that, but when I looked back on it, there were many. What confused me is that the main Hawks, Caska, Judeau, Pippen, Corkus, those deaths are the ones that make people hate Griffith, yet those are the ones that are undoubtedly staying for Griffiths dream (maybe not Pippen, I dont know anything about him) and so thats why I felt (and feel for different reasons) that he is right.

And that Chess analogy is really a good one. In a game of chess there is no feeling like having that pawn in for a queen. Maybe thats why I like Femto so much.

 

[Makkuro]

Griffith isnt betraying the Hawks unless there is an impression or a general assumption that he holds the Hawks higher than his dream.

Christ, man! There was an impression or general assumption that Griffith wouldn't outright kill his men. He betrayed them, alright? He betrayed their asses off. Griffith is a self-serving bastard, no two ways about it. Don't try to make him something he's not.

 

[elhinnaw]

Im not making something out of nothing, and its quite apparent that Im not. Griffith didnt kill his men, he sacraficed them so he could attain his dream.

The only one that Griffith betrayed is Guts, and if you think so passionately that Griffith is a self serving bastard and there are 'no two ways about it' then maybe you just got caught up in Miura's words too much. From what I can tell about this site so far, the best thoughts and the best insight arent from anyone who is fanatically pro or con Griffith, or fanatically pro Guts for that matter.

And no, there wasnt a general assumption or anything resembling an assumption that Griffith wouldnt kill his men for his dream. Thats my whole point.

 

[Makkuro]

Im not making something out of nothing, and its quite apparent that Im not. Griffith didnt kill his men, he sacraficed them so he could attain his dream.

He didn't actually cut them himself, but he summoned a horde of gruesome monsters on their asses, and it amounts to the same thing.

The only one that Griffith betrayed is Guts, and if you think so passionately that Griffith is a self serving bastard and there are 'no two ways about it' then maybe you just got caught up in Miura's words too much. From what I can tell about this site so far, the best thoughts and the best insight arent from anyone who is fanatically pro or con Griffith, or fanatically pro Guts for that matter.

I quite like Griffith, actually, as should be evidenced by my avatar. But I still think he's a bastard.

And no, there wasnt a general assumption or anything resembling an assumption that Griffith wouldnt kill his men for his dream. Thats my whole point.

When you join an army, you do kind of assume your commander won't deliberately murder you. Unless you're a retard, that is.

 

[Xans-Griffith]

Going with the bonfire of dreams idea, each Hawk wanted to see the fulfillment of their dream by attaching themselves to a greater dream that encompassed their own. Now if that greater dream were to require the extinguishing of their individual dreams, how are we to say that they would willingly accept it (assuming they were given a choice)? I believe this requires us to analyze the manner and the extent to which each Hawk member was attracted to and believed in Griffith's dream.

Griffith's dream was a pure ideal, sublime in its conception and ambition, and driven by a man who embodied that ideal. I'm reminded of the scene in which Griffith relates his dream to Charlotte and the following image of Guts looking up to see the castle, brilliant and shining, and Griffith standing right below, hair blowing in the wind. Both awe inspiring in their lofty grandeur, yet seeming illusory and far away because of it. To the average mercenary, the abstract ideal of Griffith's dream was probably not the main attractive force. The more concrete facets of that ideal, i.e. the power, status, sense of order and the sense of power and charisma that Griffith radiated were lower common denominators and thus greater attractive forces than the ideal and elusive. When the Hawks' ranks were dwindling down after Griffith's capture, the first to leave were those who followed Griffith based on the concrete and substantial. Of those that stayed behind, all were loyal to the pure essence of Griffith's dream, and also to each other as comrades in pursuit of that dream. Those few like Judo consciously saw and believed in that ideal, while Rickert and most others believed and were loyal to it on a more subconscious level, blindly following it even. (one could say Rickert's eyes were finally opened after hearing reborn Griffith openly state the full implications of following his dream after the battle on the hill of swords) Would the Hawks have, at the point before the eclipse, given up their very lives for that ideal, for Griffith and for that dynamic that had driven them thus far, and that they had clung to thus far? Had they become so caught up in that dynamic of Griffith's dream that their individual dreams, their individual lives even, were meaningless in the context of that supreme ideal? Would they as individuals, sacrifice that individuality in believing that their place in the greater ideal, and in the pile of corpses supporting that ideal, was a better place for them than in the pointless, inane existence outside of that ideal? I believe maybe, but most likely no. A choice to willingly give up one's life is too unexpected and abrupt, and too personal to answer while weighing into it the context of the ideal. And in the end it was Griffith's choice whether to add them to that pile of corpses or to completely abandon the ideal on which it was built. The decision he made may have been utterly selfish, and it may have been utterly selfless, but I believe it leans more towards the latter; a decision made solely for the dream itself, and for those who had already been sacrificed (remember the boy with the toy knight). It was a decision made out of responsibility for what his dream had become; an entity which contained, continued and made worthwhile the existence and sacrifice of all those countless hundreds who had already died within it.

Sometimes a dream transcends the causality of a mortal plane and reaches such lofty heights that it cannot be brought down. Griffith's dream is one such and maybe he didn't have a choice at all. And maybe the mortal who was coerced by the power of that dream died that day and was reborn as the dream itself. And to fight that dream requires another such man to transcend the causality which binds us down. And we can all guess who that is.

I'm not going debate the rightness or wrongness of the decision Griffith made, and I don't blame him either way. He may or may not have been right, but he was consistent and pure, and he too died for that dream in a sense. And for that alone I admire him.

 

[himura_kenshin]

First, I have already stated that i don't think a man who prioritizes his own life and goal above all of his army is fit to lead that army, of mercenaries, knights or otherwise. That's just an opinion that you apparently disagree with.

Second, your theory still requires your apparent belief that ALL of the hawks knew that grif wouldn't die for them, which you have yet to justify.

Third, you say that it isn't ends justifying means, it's a scale instead. Ends justifying means IS a scale, it's ends weighed against means.

Ok, let me sum up what i THINK you are saying:

The hawks would've died for griffith and his goal. Griffith wouldn've died and lost his goal for the hawks. The situation that came up required that either griffith die for the hawks, or the hawks die for grif. Therefore, the course of action that makes the most sense is for the hawks to die for griffith.

Does that sound right? Please correct me if it doesn't. If that is right, there are still a few problems. One is that it still requires that ALL of the hawks would die for him and knew that he wouldn't die for them, which i still haven't seen any evidence for. Two, do you think grif would've hesitated if he didn't think the hawks would've died for him? Grif didn't do it because he made the evaluation that i just made about who wants what. Grif did it to achieve what he wanted irreguardless of the expense to others, his own men even! It was by definition a selfish act.

 

[Xans-Griffith]

I’m not sure whether you are referring to me or not, but if you are you’ve misinterpreted a few things:

The hawks would've died for griffith and his goal.

I believe maybe, but most likely no.

Griffith wouldn've died and lost his goal for the hawks.

I don’t think I mentioned this explicitly and I’m not sure where you are getting it from.

The situation that came up required that either griffith die for the hawks, or the hawks die for grif.

The situation wasn’t about either of the two dying; it was about the dream living. Griffith probably wasn’t concerned about himself dying as compared to his dream dying (he did try to commit suicide after all).

Therefore, the course of action that makes the most sense is for the hawks to die for griffith.

You’ve oversimplified and misinterpreted what I said, if indeed you are referring to my post. I apologize if I'm missing something here.

Grif did it to achieve what he wanted irreguardless of the expense to others, his own men even! It was by definition a selfish act.

This point I would argue. Remember what finally pushed Griffith to make the choice. Sure his ambition was still there, but Ubik’s replaying of the mountain of corpses and especially the image of that dead boy, coerced him in a moment of weakness to accept that fated choice. A classic example of ‘I’ve gone this far and now there’s no turning back’. He had to make the choice, not only for himself but for all those he had, in a sense, already sacrificed. One could say the scale had on one side not only his ambition but also the much heavier weight of that mountain of corpses. The fact that his decision satisfied his ambition was a somewhat unsavory side effect. The dream had to go on, regardless of his intentions, selfish, selfless, or otherwise.

The root cause of the entire situation may have been his selfish/selfless/pure/whatever ambition, but to label the decision he made at that one crucial point as purely selfish, without taking into account the entire context of the situation, and the events leading up to it, is a little bit unfair I think.

 

[Herald of Galactor]

I personally believe in a clear division between "morals" and "ethics".

Morals are those things considered 'good and right' by societies and cultures. In short, they are the collected precepts of a group of people.

Ethics comprise those things which the individual considers 'good and right'. Ethics may overlap morals on certain points, or they may be utterly outside their compass.

Another major difference is that as individuals, people have to decide their own ethics; morals will get preached to you your entire life, no matter where you live.(unless you're a hermit your entire life.)

Griffith was an intelligent man who saw that his dream would require tremendous sacrifice, both personal and external, in order to be achieved. To accept this would require more than the mere morality of his day, which would have told him 'be mindful of your station', and so he outlined for himself what he considered right and wrong to do. Whether or not this ethical code was a well-planned imaginary document seared into the very fabric of his being, or simply an on-the-fly arrangement of ideas sympathetic to his dream, I do not know.

Summarizing and in closing, what Griffith did to achieve his goal may have been wrong morally, but for him it was right ethically.

 

[himura_kenshin]

Eek! very sorry for not clarifying Xans, i was actually referring to the argument i had been having with elhinnaw. You did however, raise a very, very good point:

This point I would argue. Remember what finally pushed Griffith to make the choice. Sure his ambition was still there, but Ubik’s replaying of the mountain of corpses and especially the image of that dead boy, coerced him in a moment of weakness to accept that fated choice. A classic example of ‘I’ve gone this far and now there’s no turning back’. He had to make the choice, not only for himself but for all those he had, in a sense, already sacrificed. One could say the scale had on one side not only his ambition but also the much heavier weight of that mountain of corpses. The fact that his decision satisfied his ambition was a somewhat unsavory side effect. The dream had to go on, regardless of his intentions, selfish, selfless, or otherwise.

The root cause of the entire situation may have been his selfish/selfless/pure/whatever ambition, but to label the decision he made at that one crucial point as purely selfish, without taking into account the entire context of the situation, and the events leading up to it, is a little bit unfair I think.

If griffith had died, the lives of those who died for him already would've been lost in vain. I never even considered that. Hmm... the question that comes to mind now is... is Griffith becoming a demon king actually what those soldiers had in mind when they died for him?

Hmm.. i guess it's tough to argue. I don't give grif the least bit of support on the grounds of simply pursuing a dream and being loyal to it. It was to gain power for himself and it was what i would call a selfish dream. Even if you say that he was doing it so he could be a fair and just leader, i still don't support it because it's ends justifying means.

On the other hand, if you consider that griffith made his choice because of how far he'd come, becuase of how many had already died for that cause, it adds a new dimension. It actually raises several questions. Would the hawks he sacrificed have wanted him to make that choice? How many had already willingly died for him? Did they really die for griffith's dream and not their own? Was the dream griffith pursued by sacrificing the hawks the same dream the dead hawks had believed in and fought for? I suppose, given certain answers to all of these questions, i would support grif's descision. However, since i don't really know them, i won't completely get behind him on this. I still tend to think he had his own interests in mind.

 

[elhinnaw]

Ive already been proved wrong that all the hawks were there for griffiths dream, see the end of (1) posts or the (2) ones.

As for this entire argument, Griffith was superior to every person in every talent imaginable (again aside from Guts in fighting). In my opinion, he had a pure dream attain power, to rule over those that opressed him. In my opinion, this is the Ultimate dream. To compliment this, he found a way to attain his dream that was strictly looked down upon by those who held the power, and everything was done to try to keep him down. He crushed them, by being smarter than the smartest people in the country.

Then he had his dream ripped away from him. All his hard work, all his notable traits, all erased, all taken away, by the same people that he was trying to upend. Maybe 'taken away' is too light a term. In the current condition he was in, he would never be able to dream again.

In my opinion, if you have a chance to attain your dream after this, then there is nothing that isnt worth it. There is no amount of people, there is no amount of anything that will make attaining that dream not worth it. Maybe its because I think there are too many situations out there where this "Griffith" scenario happens, but the final result never happens.

If any of you have ever cheered for a sports team, and you consistently lose to your arch rival, and you lose in the worst possible ways, then attaining a defining and everlasting win over that opponent is priceless. This is a comparable analogy.

Id argue that Griffith is the greatest hero in Berserk, not just that he was right about the eclipse. After thinking about it, himura_kenshin is right that this is an 'ends justifying means' debate. But in my opinion, in this scenario, the end will always justify the means. Maybe its just me being stubborn and stupid (more than likely), but I think the only way I would change my mind is if you somehow could show that Griffith's dream and revenge, werent worth everything. And in the end, isnt this a part of human nature that Miura is trying to show us? That deep down, we are willing to wager everything for what we believe in?

 

[Mizar]

If griffith had died, the lives of those who died for him already would've been lost in vain.

No, I disagree, that would only be true if their only reason to live was for Griffith's dream, and that's definitely not the case. Or to say it as Guts probably would have said, they haven't died in vain, because they have all spent their lives doing what they wanted to do.

 

[Lliugusamui]

No, I disagree, that would only be true if their only reason to live was for Griffith's dream, and that's definitely not the case. Or to say it as Guts probably would have said, they haven't died in vain, because they have all spent their lives doing what they wanted to do.

Exactly, I wanna say its not because Griff says they'd die for his dream that they will actually do. They have their own pretty lives.
Oh and i'm very tired, school, working for neighboor, school, kungfu, working for neighboor and oh its 1.30 am arrg cant do anything these days... anyway
Guil

 

[himura_kenshin]

In my opinion, if you have a chance to attain your dream after this, then there is nothing that isnt worth it. There is no amount of people, there is no amount of anything that will make attaining that dream not worth it.

Hmm... well i pretty much just disagree. I think he might have made the descision because otherwise, the deaths of those who died for him had been in vain, he might have done it so he could create a kingdom that was a better place for it's subjects. More likely however, he was just being an selfish, ambitious, prick. "A dream" is a concept. The dream is griffith's dream. Doing something for the sake of his dream is no different than doing something for himself, it's just a different way of saying it. Unless of course his dream was for someone elses sake, but i doubt it. Anyway, i'll summarize:

There's a few things i don't know and probably can't find out such as how many had already died for grif and what his exact motives were. It is at least possible that grif had motives that i would support. However, it seems more likely to me that his motives were selfish ones that i would not support.

 

[Xans-Griffith]

If griffith had died, the lives of those who died for him already would've been lost in vain.

No, I disagree, that would only be true if their only reason to live was for Griffith's dream, and that's definitely not the case. Or to say it as Guts probably would have said, they haven't died in vain, because they have all spent their lives doing what they wanted to do.

I think ‘in vain’ here is referring more to the value of those lives in terms of their value in supporting Griffith’s dream (their value as stepping stones, something Griffith used) as opposed to their general worth as human beings. Sure, the only reason for them to have lived was probably not for Griffith’s dream, but that was irrelevant in the ultimate context that Griffith found himself in: that their lives, or better yet, their deaths were supporting his ascent to that castle and regardless of whether they lived for his dream or not, the fact still remained that they died for his dream, and thereby added themselves to the pile of corpses supporting it. And the choice Griffith faced was whether to toss in a few more corpses and continue his grisly ascent, or to give up the dream altogether—thereby rendering that entire mountain of corpses (not necessarily the wholesome lives that formerly might've been the corpses) in vain.

himura_kenshin, I’m beginning to think the answers to your questions most probably won’t be putting Griffith in your favor. Those men who flung themselves onto that pile of corpses probably weren’t doing it for Griffith’s dream, but were merely attracted by his magnetism and were thus caught up in the deadly dynamic of his dream. The least we can say is that there might have been a tinge of concern on Griffith’s part for his men—for their dreams/goals/worth (the only thing still holding me to this is the way he reacted to the image of that dead boy with the toy knight and the few times he seemed emotionally vulnerable, e.g. when he asked Guts if he thought he was a bad person). But the situation during the eclipse was more likely leaning towards a Griffith who, pushed to emotional and physical extremes, gave in, and in a sense relinquished his humanity, relinquished those things, friendship, love, camaraderie, that bound him to the Hawks, to Guts, to anything but his dream, and enabled him to rise above, and see only his dream.

 

[Xans-Griffith]

To elhinnaw, those are good points and I admire Griffith for those same reasons, but I believe his willingness to wager everything for what he believed in was only part of the equation. His final decision was the outcome of many conflicting factors, and in the end I believe that in order to make a fair judgment on the individual, the entire context and causal framework behind the individual must not be denied.

 

[SexyCharlotte]

Is it just me or is this just another version of ' Is Griffith evil?'

LG

 

[Walter]

Is it just me or is this just another version of ' Is Griffith evil?'

LG

Everything's eventual. That Griffith, what a fag!

 

[Mizar]

Sure, the only reason for them to have lived was probably not for Griffith’s dream, but that was irrelevant in the ultimate context that Griffith found himself in: [...]

Yes, but it is relevant to the question if Griffith was justified in sacrificing his men. And it's not only a matter of piling more corpses, it's also important how those corpses were piled.

And even Griffith suffered from his very own conscience concerning the death of his soldiers, as is evidenced by his words to Caska in Volume 7:

Griffith: "Caska, I.... I don't feel responsible when soldiers die because of my orders. Because.... it's the battle that you guys chose for yourselves. [..] But, for them. For those who die. If I can do anything for them. It would be.... victory. I will continue winning for them even if it means sacrificing myself.... for my dream."

Also keep in mind that Griffith is scratching his arms with his fingernails while he's saying this. This seems to indicate that Griffith is very much torn up about this whole thing inside.

Is it just me or is this just another version of ' Is Griffith evil?'

LG

It is, but we can't help ourselves, we're doomed to repeat history. ;)

 

[Xans-Griffith]

Good point. I couldn't remember exactly what Griffith said and was beginning to doubt he was ever torn up about his men at all (not having an accessible copy of the manga is frustrating -.-). Thank you for pointing that out, Mizar.

On how they were piled, or how they died, I mentioned one thing: Griffith's men added themselves to the pile on their own accord, "through a battle they chose for themselves". During the eclipse, Griffith not only chose, he decided the battle for them (all but two of them at least). In his own words, "I don't feel responsible when soldiers die because of my orders. Because.... it's the battle that you guys chose for yourselves." But if it's a battle he chose for them.. is he responsible, and therefore by his own ethics, his own judgement, evil..

 

[Xans-Griffith]

Re:Is Griffith Evil?

Is Griffith EVIL!? ;)

 

[SexyCharlotte]

Why don't we come up with a contest...

To see how many ways we can state the question, " Is Griffith evil?"


LG

 

[Xans-Griffith]

Because we'd feel sorry for the certain someone who'd state the question instead of asking it. ;)

ahahah.. actually no. Before you start giving me dictionary definitions of 'state', please forgive me Lady Griffith. I wuv yew.. *^^*

 

[Herald of Galactor]

Looking back on it, the dream wasn't the most important thing to Griffith. The dream was Griffith, it was the reason he existed. He was the result of years of planning by Idea, molded by experience to make the decisions he made, his thoughts and feelings carefully manipulated to bring about the results Idea desired. So I have a slightly different question. "Was Idea right all along?"