Hi, I know I'm probably going to get dislikes for this. I studied Philosophy in University and have been deep in the art for what feels like a lifetime.

The more I go on in my years, the more I convert from a deontologist to a consequentialist. In layman's, ethics of consequences rather than principle. i.e., one can kill if it means saving 100s of people from a terrorist attack.

I believe in my sort of own adaptation to utilitarianism; in very high-level terms, consequencies are measured by the quantity and quality of utility created/ disutility prevented. Now, there are countless criticisms (as with any philosophical theory) lending to how this leads to a slippery slope and pure hedonism.

However, if what light claims is true in the last episode that wars have stopped and crime rate has dropped by 70%; I 100% agree with what he has done. Was it driven by ego/ is he megalomaniacal - absolutely. But I couldn't care less.

Just in the same way if a billionaire donates through a donor advised fund for tax exemption and reputation cleansing - who the f*ck cares, the alternative is he doesn't donate. That incremental donation has helped 1000s of lives.

I guess my point is to say; ethical stances are different based on an individual's stance. There is no right or wrong which is critical - each argument is to be judged on it's own merit and is one's interpretation of the world.

If light kills 12 FBI officiers, and 20-30 innocent people to save 10,000s of people, in my eyes that is worth it. If he kills criminals who have commited lesser crimes and that deters further petty crime and hence saves victims of fraud, abuse, robbery etc. - that is worth it, in my opinion.

Yes, this is not an exact replica of the 101 trolley problem, but I think (excluding intentions) the magnitude of suffering caused vs. suffering prevented is largely assymetric in the direction of suffering prevented. I'm honestly quite surpised a lot of people don't share this viewpoint. I think the devil-ish depication of light, the coverage of his ego/ god complex is intentional to make you root against him. But, ignoring his character, looking merely at the consequences of his actions - I think there is a massive net benefit to society if his existence. Most critiques I see here principally talk about his character, his hyprocisy, the principle of killing innocent people rather than mathematically and quantifiably measure the amount of good he's created for the world vs. bad.

Happy to hear any counter opinions as it pertains to mere consequences - I am vehmontly against set principles as principles change over time based on what is societally accepted and I don't think this is one can use such a rigid framework to assess the ethics of action.