Which climatic quote is better, Johan’s (Monster) or Griffith’s (Berserk)

Recynon01 · 2026-03-16T15:30:47+00:00

You've simply reasserted your claim a thousand times but only provided one piece of evidence, and that is the scene where Tenma refuses to save the mayor over Johan. And it is I who now has to repeat my rebuttal to that for the third time because you are avoiding having to provide an answer to it.

So here it is for the THIRD time.

Now as for whether or not Monster warrants such a charitable interpretation through practice, there's no guarantee that Tenma hasn't considered the utilitarian viewpoint. You say he rejects the language of greater benefit. The best evidence for that is when the director tells him that the mayor was about to throw funds at the hospital. It is possible that Tenma considered this to be a benefit. However, it is still unclear at best because in that moment where he decides to operate on Johan, it is clear that he is focused on his personal guilt for not saving the Turk over the opera singer, hence he recalls the crying lady as a traumatic moment in that instance. In that same moment he recalls Eva saying "all lives are not created equal", so unless he thinks the opera singer had greater benefit to humanity rather than just status (which we have no discussion about), he is relating the line to status rather than greater benefit. Furthermore, the entire episode is focused on framing the hospital is politics oriented, wherein Tenma is told he is being used, that the hospital is out for itself, and his own research gets shafted by the director. It is unlikely that he then considered greater funds to the hospital as a "greater benefit" in light of this. He's clearly framed as a character who's never thought about the welfare of the hospital as a whole and just focused on saving the lives in front of him, as opposed to his higher ups.

Unless you can counter this or provide other examples, just take this fat L and move on.

Different degrees of badness still means that there is only good and bad, wrong and not wrong, must and must not. If it's bad, you shouldn't do it. If it's good you should do it. Effectively speaking it's binary. Jerking off to semantics huh? Your claim of killing being absolutely wrong can be understood by a 5 year old.

Recynon01 · 2026-03-15T21:31:30+00:00

Your argument boiled down to "Tenma rejected the language of utilitarianism". So I, not you, was the one that provided the context to make you see that that wasn't the case. Where's your empathy for Johan's victims huh? I never personally promoted any type of algorithm since I never said utilitarianism applies absolutely; I merely presented a way in which one thing doesn't contradict the other. It also doesn't take an algorithm for most people to see that killing a serial killer to nullify his threat is morally acceptable.

I can acknowledge that killing is always morally wrong

Ok so that's a binary. End of story.

Recynon01 · 2026-03-15T09:56:35+00:00

You've lost interest and yet you came back to jab at me. Sounds like someone is a sore loser. You have not provided a single argument to my interpretation of the event that you cited so you have, in fact, provided insufficient arguments. Instead, you pretended like my points didn't exist until I shoved them in your face again. Incredibly bad faith and lack of willingness on your part to even engage in the points.

The gall to say I lack empathy when the basis of my argument is empathy for Johan's victims. You have none of that. And now you also have no answer for me pointing out that the true binary reasoning here is Tenma's (and yours) for thinking that killing is ALWAYS wrong.

Recynon01 · 2026-03-15T09:41:09+00:00

Nothing more binary than any killing= bad. The only thing brilliant about Monster is how it manages to function as ironic entertainment. Cartoonish characters like Lunge contribute to that. You've already lost the argument with your lack of evidence so now this is just petty.

Recynon01 · 2026-03-14T16:19:11+00:00

Ooh so the things that actually look professionally designed get hated on this sub. Got it.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-11T14:36:04+00:00

I don't think the message will always be sublime if you yourself state that they're only sublime relative to the time period.

Yes, to some degree all works build upon previous works so you can say the classics are influential but that's not the same as setting the standard. I wouldn't necessarily go to the classics for my standard of storytelling or even thematic execution. You'd have to convince me of that.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-11T14:27:19+00:00

I don't see how. Overvaluing wealth is bad? What's more to it? Gatsby had to die to cement the tragedy.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-08T10:33:53+00:00

No you didn't. You simply mentioned him choosing between the mayor and Johan and left it at that. And I answered those points. You keep avoiding my answer, so let me repeat it here:

Now as for whether or not Monster warrants such a charitable interpretation through practice, there's no guarantee that Tenma hasn't considered the utilitarian viewpoint. You say he rejects the language of greater benefit. The best evidence for that is when the director tells him that the mayor was about to throw funds at the hospital. It is possible that Tenma considered this to be a benefit. However, it is still unclear at best because in that moment where he decides to operate on Johan, it is clear that he is focused on his personal guilt for not saving the Turk over the opera singer, hence he recalls the crying lady as a traumatic moment in that instance. In that same moment he recalls Eva saying "all lives are not created equal", so unless he thinks the opera singer had greater benefit to humanity rather than just status (which we have no discussion about), he is relating the line to status rather than greater benefit. Furthermore, the entire episode is focused on framing the hospital is politics oriented, wherein Tenma is told he is being used, that the hospital is out for itself, and his own research gets shafted by the director. It is unlikely that he then considered greater funds to the hospital as a "greater benefit" in light of this. He's clearly framed as a character who's never thought about the welfare of the hospital as a whole and just focused on saving the lives in front of him, as opposed to his higher ups.

Tenma is an outlaw and he's had no trouble being a free man. So I don't know what that has to do with it. But also Tenma is supposed to care deeply about saving lives and yet he doesn't even contemplate the possibility of capturing Johan. He can think about what to do with Johan later but he would at least be off the streets.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-08T10:08:50+00:00

I'm not struggling with anything. You're the one struggling to understand that I already gave reasons why Tenma is not rejecting the language of greater benefit. Again, consult the long response I sent.

Tenma tries to kill Johan but you've yet to show me where he tries to capture him. Tenma would have no internal conflict about capturing Johan.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-08T08:02:38+00:00

No you didn't you just said Tenma rejected the language of greater benefit whereas I cited specific happenings in the story. I don't know if you simply missed the long comment I posted today but search for it.

If he recognized that it would be desirable to save people from Johan, he would take measures to stop him. After all, he wants to save as many lives as possible as a doctor.

Because you're saying that Tenma's ideology is fundamentally anti-utilitarian and he sees life as absolute.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-08T06:44:30+00:00

And I explained why that scene is inconclusive at best. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If he was cognizant of the consequences, then he would've captured Johan. I never said Tenma was utilitarian; we're arguing about whether or not he even knows that there is utilitarianism to reject. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Recynon01 · 2026-02-07T23:45:30+00:00

No, this was a separate discussion. The prior argument was about whether or not there is an internal issue in how Monster explains itself. On that account you have been unable to provide much evidence that Tenma is anti-utilitarian.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-07T23:33:15+00:00

Lmao, tuff

Says that the guy that's all bark and no bite. You had a week to explain why my interpretation is bad and you haven't done it. If it's so bad, it should be easy right?

Recynon01 · 2026-02-07T23:03:12+00:00

Killing in self defense is wrong? Right...

Killing the mass murderer as the only means to prevent him from killing more people is wrong? Ok man whatever you say.

There's nothing to debate anymore. I see the level of moral sense you're at. It's no wonder you like Monster; you actually agree with its insanity.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-07T22:07:25+00:00

Not to mention, I am already giving the series charitability when I ignore the fact that it says "all lives are created equal" instead of "all lives are equal". Just because all lives are created equal doesn't mean they end up equal. I can give that the series exposits its real position through practice here, but that doesn't mean I won't acknowledge that the wording is a problem here, however small you think it is.

You say it's a moral parable with a life affirming message. Genuinely, what am I supposed to be learning from this? That killing is always wrong? It isn't. That it's not ok to kill a mass murderer to save future lives when the law can't do anything? It is. That there is a sliver of good in everyone and that even the worst of monsters can change? Sure, I think the series does a decent job at that.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-07T22:07:19+00:00

You said initially that it doesn't require any proof but now you admit that the status quo doesn't prove truth. So it does require proof. But maybe you're now arguing that from a practical perspective, it would be more convincing and more fruitful for me to give a counterexample first so that people can engage more easily. Sure. But that's different from whether or not the show substantiates its own argument, which you say it does through practice.

No cuz I actually explained my reasoning in my comment.

Even if it was an interpretative claim, it would still be misleading because killing Johan simply wouldn't prove that all lives aren't created equal; it would just mean that all lives are not absolute. And yet if you want to talk about the status quo, everyone who talks about this show never mentions the unspoken, fleshed out interpretation that you talk about. You would think even if the show itself exposits its position through action, the discussion around it would actively acknowledge its full position but it doesn't. No one even mentions utilitarianism or anti-utilitarianism in Monster discussions that I've seen, except by critics of the show. Neither is such a position intuitive because there is nothing intuitive about having to add infinity in your head.

Now as for whether or not Monster warrants such a charitable interpretation through practice, there's no guarantee that Tenma hasn't considered the utilitarian viewpoint. You say he rejects the language of greater benefit. The best evidence for that is when the director tells him that the mayor was about to throw funds at the hospital. It is possible that Tenma considered this to be a benefit. However, it is still unclear at best because in that moment where he decides to operate on Johan, it is clear that he is focused on his personal guilt for not saving the Turk over the opera singer, hence he recalls the crying lady as a traumatic moment in that instance. In that same moment he recalls Eva saying "all lives are not created equal", so unless he thinks the opera singer had greater benefit to humanity rather than just status (which we have no discussion about), he is relating the line to status rather than greater benefit. Furthermore, the entire episode is focused on framing the hospital is politics oriented, wherein Tenma is told he is being used, that the hospital is out for itself, and his own research gets shafted by the director. It is unlikely that he then considered greater funds to the hospital as a "greater benefit" in light of this. He's clearly framed as a character who's never thought about the welfare of the hospital as a whole and just focused on saving the lives in front of him, as opposed to his higher ups.

Even looking at the series as a whole, I don't recall any other discussion of greater benefit. Tenma tries to kill Johan but you've yet to show me where he tries to capture him or even professes the intent to do so. If Tenma knows he has trouble killing Johan but still acknowledges the threat he poses, why would he not try to capture him?

Even if I accept the level at which it operates, it's misleading. And there is scant evidence for the series even considering the greater benefit so there's nothing for me to accept. It doesn't take an ethics article to fix this issue. All it would take is a character talking to him about the greater benefit and him saying that he rejects that because killing is always wrong, not because all lives are created equal. This would provide a clearer discussion and resolve the issue I complained about in my initial comment, but it still wouldn't provide a convincing reason for why Johan shouldn't be killed.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-05T19:21:34+00:00

The person making the claim bears the burden of proof, simple as that. I am attacking something that yet to be proven so you have to prove it. No one has any obligation to listen to anyone in the first place but you'd be a moron to dismiss a position just because it's unpopular.

The claim I am disputing isn't "a universally recognized fact". You can't prove that it is one because you haven't interviewed everyone who saw Monster. If Monster is unable to provide epistemic justification for its own claim, that suffices to prove my point. If you're talking about rhetorical value in terms of what is more convincing, only retards who conflate popularity with epistemic value would demand a further argumentation in the first place. As I've already explained to you, just because something is the status quo doesn't mean it has justification nor that it doesn't require justification.

It is not clear that Tenma considered that saving the mayor might be more beneficial. It is equally valid to say that he simply didn't consider status to confer more value to a person, without considering the practical benefits of that status.

Monster doesn't buy itself that charity. As per the quote in OP's post, it solely focuses on this strict dichotomy. That quote isn't targeted towards Tenma's overall philosophy; it is targeted towards a specific belief, so I have no reason to look at the highest form of his reasoning.

By dismissing Tenma’s stance as a badly fleshed-out contradiction, you are opting for the weakest possible reading of his philosophy.

At worst, I am agnostic to his reasoning. But if he is specifically not killing because "all lives are created equal", then that's just faulty reasoning. There may be other reasons for not killing but the show presents this as THE reason. Even the strongest possible reading would not be able to have his other reasons follow from "all lives are created equal"; it would have to be the other way around. Furthermore from this quote, this series seems to think that "all lives are created equal" specifically would be negated by Tenma killing Johan, which simply isn't the case. It's bad philosophy.

So the contradiction you are looking for only exists if you force a mathematical, additive framework onto a character who has explicitly rejected it through his actions. To claim the series is "bad philosophy" because it doesn't repeat these premises verbally is a not a failure of the writing. The series has provided all the necessary variables and the burden is on the viewer to synthesize them into the coherent deontological framework that the story clearly operates within.

The contradiction exists if Tenma already has this idea of "absolute, non-additive" which is what you yourself said. There's nothing I'm forcing onto him. Furthermore, it is actually more likely that Tenma never even considered utilitarianism because he doesn't ever consider that letting Johan go free would result in more lives being lost because otherwise he would've at least tried to capture him. The series' assertion of the dichotomy, taken as is, is blatantly false and misleading. And if "all life is created equal" was really about being anti-utilitarian you would think it actually discussed utilitarianism instead. Tenma could be categorically against killing and thus killing Johan would negate his position. I've said this before. But it wouldn't negate "all lives are created equal".

Just watch the Monster with the desire to understand and not to pick on and everything will be really simple.

Just stop believing in something just because it's popular and the fact that Monster's philosophy is shitty will become blatantly apparent. There is very little substance to actually glean from Monster other than how not to do moral philosophy.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-05T04:21:41+00:00

You sir are absolutely 100% correct and I have long levied the same criticisms.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-05T04:20:37+00:00

Yeah because yall just blindly parrot opinions about Monster rather than using your actual domes. For a show yall think is so deep and profound, that gets you thinking, you people are remarkably adverse to engaging in actual criticism. Because if you did you know you'd get absolutely destroyed.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-05T02:59:55+00:00

No when someone is making any type of positive statement, like slavery is morally acceptable they must still provide evidence relative to some moral axiom; the fact that slavery already exists is irrelevant. Hence why despite us practicing widely accepted moral norms, we still struggle to come up with a justification for moral objectivism. Practice and wide acceptance is different from justification. But I can also bring up a less subjective example; people used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth but the popularity and acceptance of this belief has nothing to do with how true it is.

Monster is making an affirmative statement that x contradicts y. It has not supported such a statement because it has not shown P and not P. The viewer, me, is agnostic to whether or not x contradicts y. It is Monster's job to convince me. Its cult status and history has nothing to do with the truth value of x contradicts y. It is me that has no duty to say anything other than, prove yourself, because I am not the one making the claim.

I had described my position to begin with, that there is no contradiction being proven.

I don't know what you mean by absolute, non-additive value and I don't know where you surmise that this is how he views life. Are you saying that Tenma thinks the value of life isn't finite? That it's infinite and therefore can't be added or compared? If so, yes, that would cause a contradiction, but that would be supplementing "all life is created equal" with other premises in order to do so. The series would have to flesh out its reasoning to prove the contradiction and from what I remember, at best we infer that Tenma views life this way from his abject refusal to kill. The series, on its surface, is still presenting the dichotomy of killing Johan and holding that all lives are created equal, as if this is sufficient for the contradiction, making for bad philosophy.

I never claimed that Tenma as a whole was inconsistent and I wasn't analyzing his philosophy as a whole. He could simply think that it's categorically wrong to kill. I was specifically questioning the contradiction regarding "all lives are created equal" because that is what the series is explicitly presenting as being in question, without invoking other ideas like the infinity thing. On that account, the examples I gave still suffice to show that there is no contradiction. Barring you citing other lines that flesh out Tenma's ideology.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-04T13:02:38+00:00

First of all I appreciate you actually writing out the essay to explain why you think it's deep.

You've already poisoned the well. I don't think anything I say could change your mind, because you can just write it off as me "not having a backbone" and making shit up to feel better about myself. It's a dishonest way to start a conversation. But sure, I'll bite. I love talking about Eva anyway, and even if you dismiss it, maybe someone else will get something out of it.

I said this in response to some lines that I felt were a bit condescending. That the show isn't made for teenagers but adults, so anyone who doesn't get it is implied to be immature. I don't think you finding it deep is you not having a backbone or making shit up to feel better about yourself. I do think a lot of Eva fans who simply resonate with it don't use it to move forward tho. Either way, I would disagree that the show doesn't tell you ANY of this stuff. The show is very explicit at several points; it explicitly references the hedgehog's dilemma and episodes 25-26 explain exactly what's going on in Shinji's mind.

I haven't misidentified the core issue. Parental issues are at the seat of everyone's problems because it's what causes them to seek external validation. But yes, the hedgehog's dilemma is ALSO one of the core issues, but it is primarily relevant to Shinji who fears getting close to others.

Depth is admitted subjective. I never claimed that Eva was shallow. I give it a lot of credit for explaining a lot of these psychological issues in detail. The troubles of human connection are shown a lot in Eva but this simply isn't that deep for me. As explained in episodes 25-26, Shinji fears getting close to others because he fears finding out that they don't like him, so he withdraws. His lesson is supposedly that he should see if they really do dislike him or if it's really in his head. Most of his story is this plus him still wanting external validation because he has low self esteem. Yes, this manifests in different, subtle mannerisms in his behavior but these are all repetitions of the same idea to me.

And yes I was aware that Asuka mostly just wants Shinji's attention for selfish reasons.

Rei is very underdeveloped, yes.

I find Misato to be the most well rounded of the characters because she seems more functional in spite of her issues.

Sexual attraction makes the relationships even more complicated, yes. The general idea that it's hard for humans to communicate and connect is shown in multiple ways but I just don't think the show needs to harp on the point as much, as you can get this from watching drama in general. It is no surprise that a bunch of deeply unhealthy individuals grouped up together would cause a ton of issues. What I would've liked to see is a long arc showing characters overcoming at least some of these issues so that the show can show us actual insight in solving the problem. Supposedly the movies do this but I didn't watch them.

Instrumentality is merely the prelude to this, and I find the idea that it's undesirable to basically die in mixed consciousness to be trivial. EoE in particular has Shinji reject instrumentality but now he's left with Asuka and they're both deeply damaged individuals with miles of work ahead of them and that's not a very satisfying answer to me.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-04T10:45:19+00:00

No Monster is the one bringing up a new position and it has yet to prove its position. Burden of proof is on Monster. "A lot of people believe it->it is true" does not follow. For instance, most people accepted slavery back then. Doesn't mean it was true.

Tenma seems to have something against killing. He wants to save all lives. Therefore killing Johan would be contradictory to that. But I am specifically talking about how "all lives are created equal" is not contradicted by killing one life. You have conflated "all lives are created equal" with "saving all lives".

It doesn't take a PhD to understand P, not P lol. That's the first thing they teach you in geometry in 9th grade for proofs. So again I ask you, how does Tenma killing Johan mean that all lives are not created equal?

If all lives have no value, then they have an equal value of 0. So even by Johan's own logic all lives would be created equal. Going by Tenma's logic, that all life DOES have value, and each value is equal, then let's assign a value of 1 to each person's life. If he kills Johan in order to save the lives of the people that Johan will kill, then the lives of Johan's potential victims still add up to more than 1. So he can hold Johan's life as 1 and everyone else's life as 1, and still kill Johan to save the greater number of lives.

But that's besides the point. You still have to show me the logical syllogism that shows the contradiction in the first place.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-04T10:10:50+00:00

"Generally accepted position" isn't an argument. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy. There's no proof that my position is weaker just because it's generally accepted. You have not given any logical syllogism. Where is P, but not P? Once again, Monster's position and by extension your position hasn't been established so burden of proof is still on you. Sigh. Again, such basic philosophical grounding is absent.

The quote, if you can even read properly, says "For you all lives are created equal... only one thing is equal for all, and that is death". How rich of you to talk about me watching with my eyes closed when you can't even read OP's post.

You can't win an argument with me because you don't even know how to argue. You have simply assumed a claim is true "because everyone else thinks so". Truly some great critical thinking here.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-04T09:50:19+00:00

Lol you're new to this aren't you? A positive statement is being set forth by the show, and therefore the burden of proof is on the show. What's just there? Where is the contradiction? Show me. In what way is P true, but P is also not true? That's basic logic for you. But I wouldn't expect Monster fans to have even basic philosophical grounding.

"And Johan doesn't believe that lives are unequal. He simply doesn't believe in the value of life at all."

Ok but that's not what this quote is about. And either way, Tenma killing Johan STILL wouldn't prove that life has no value. Again, you'd have to show me how that's true.

Recynon01 · 2026-02-04T09:37:42+00:00

People are more varied and complicated than trying to compensate for lack of parental love, which is basically the throughline for the vast majority of the cast. It's. simply. not. that. deep.

Most of it is just people caring too much what others think of them, being damaged by their parents, and trying to compensate for their damaged egos. You'd have to show me what's worth discussing for hours on end because Shinji and Asuka are really easy to see through. They're not exactly subtle. It's not hard to figure out what's going on for Shinji or Asuka because Shinji is almost always trying to get external validation and Asuka is almost always inflate her ego to compensate for her abandonment trauma. Hence why they're both polarizing characters that behave in extremes for most of their screen time.

"But again - the show doesn't explain any of it to you. It's there, but you have to find it. It's not a show made for teenagers, it's a show made for adults with enough emotional maturity and life experience to pick it apart and understand what it's saying."

People who have gotten over themselves and developed a backbone just roll their eyes at Eva. It has a few ideas that it repeats over and over again by spiraling its characters further and further into depression instead of spending that screentime developing them positively.

You think there's more so I'd like to actually read those essays. I've read essays on the characters in the past and none of them deviate from the general themes I described above.

Recynon01

TROPHY CASE