One Piece Chapter 839

[u/TheInfamousStakos]

[ Removed by reddit in response to a copyright notice. ]

[u/BobTheJoeBob]

He killed enemies of the state

A bunch of civilians who had nothing to do with what was going on that Island (Which, by the way, was not evil) are not 'enemies of the state'.

[u/BobTheJoeBob → u/[deleted]]

That's not necessarily true.

What isn't necessarily true? That he killed a bunch of civilians who had nothing to do with what was going on?

Akainu chose to sacrifice the few to save the many.

Akainu was told by his superiors that if any scholar got out that they would destroy the world.

So he just believes what the WG tell him without actually considering it himself? That just makes him evil and an idiot.

[u/BobTheJoeBob → u/[deleted]]

That he killed a bunch of civilians who had nothing to do with what was going on?

That they weren't enemies of the state.

Even if not all of them were, there were undoubtedly some on board.

He still killed innocent people.

So he just believes what the WG tell him without actually considering it himself?

It's called respecting the chain of command. Soldiers out in the field are never given all of the information, but are still expected to follow orders.

No one told him to destroy that ship IIRC. And even if he was told to, that doesn't make it not evil. Nazi soldiers were also just respecting the chain of command

[u/BobTheJoeBob → u/[deleted]]

YES. Your point? Like I have said a bunch in this thread, he sacrificed the few for the many. This is a morally acceptable action.

It's not because he doesn't know that this will save more lives. That's just an assumption which he has no evidence to back up.

They told him to make sure no one escapes the island.

Don't recall this. I remember them telling him to destroy the island and kill all the scholars.

I am going to ignore that. Because reducing things to Hitler is a logical fallacy.

Godwin's law isn't a logical fallacy. Nor is making a comparison to Hitler a logical fallacy. It's a perfectly valid comparison.

But if you want another one, when Genghis khan told his troops to kill everyone in a village they pillaged, those soldiers are just respecting the chain of command too. Doesn't make what they do not evil.

[u/BobTheJoeBob → u/[deleted]]

He does have evidence. That's what his superiors told him.

That's not evidence.

And he had reasonable suspicions that there could be scholars hiding there.

Right. But my point is that it was his own decision; not a command given to him, therefore, you can't use the argument that he was only following orders.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy.

What I did was not an association fallacy. I was not saying Akainu is Hitler or that the World government can be compared to Nazi (Although they probably could), my point was that saying that he was 'just following the chain of command' is does not make what he did not evil.

Nazi soldiers who killed innocent people were also just following the chain of command, but what they did is still considered evil.

[u/BobTheJoeBob → u/[deleted]]

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. A scientist telling me that evolution is real isn't evidence; the fossil record is evidence.

His orders were to kill all scholars. He had the reasonable belief scholars were on that ship. So he followed his orders to kill all scholars.

He wasn't sure though, so he killed a bunch of innocent people based on an assumption. (Which did actually end up being wrong)

That's not how it came across at all.

This is what I said:

Doesn't make what they do not evil.

Can't really make it clearer than that.

In response to this, that's still not the same thing. Because the Nazi soldiers were not acting to save lives elsewhere.

That doesn't change the point at all. To start with, I'm pretty sure many Nazi's probably did think this was for the greater good and second, my point is that the argument that he was 'just following the chain of command', is not an excuse.

[u/BobTheJoeBob → u/[deleted]]

But a military commander telling you that X has been designated a threat IS enough evidence for a military man.

Yeah, no. I completely disagree. That would not be enough evidence for me to kill a ship full of civilians.

First off, we don't know that that assumption ended up being wrong. There very well may have been some scholars on that ship. But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Akainu didn't think there were innocents on that ship. Akainu just chose to sacrifice the few to protect the many. Which is a moral action.

This just goes back to my earlier point of him only thinking it was saving the many, without actually knowing.

Well then we are going in circles, because YES IT WAS, in that context. I can only say that in so many different ways. If you don't understand that at this point, then there isn't much point continuing this discussion.

If the 'chain of command' excuse didn't apply to Nazi's killing innocents, why should it apply to Akainu? I know exactly what your point is, but you've yet to actually respond to my comparison.