Probably the argument people would make supporting his “brilliant plan” is that Lelouche needed to erase himself to effectively end Britania as it existed before so the world could start anew. World peace isn’t guaranteed, but people now get a chance to fix things or screw up again on their own, instead of being controlled by the Britannian empire or whatever crazy plans Charles and Schneizel had.
But there are so many things I find wrong about Lelouche’s scapegoat plan. For one, I do not think it is remotely ok to do horrible things and act like an ass to get people to hate you so you can then die and become a scapegoat to pay for your sins. We’re probably supposed to feel sympathetic for his sacrifice because in the end it was all for the “greater good,” but I guess I still don’t agree that the ends justify the means.
The idea of throwing the blame onto one person and then moving on with life strikes me as a somewhat Japanese way of thinking. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that in Japan if something goes wrong, the politician or CEO or whoever’s on top takes the fall and then everyone else gets to innocent and move on. The same thing kind of happened with WWII, when most the blame for the things Japan did got placed on the government of the time so now Japan can have a victim complex about the war too.
no subject
Probably the argument people would make supporting his “brilliant plan” is that Lelouche needed to erase himself to effectively end Britania as it existed before so the world could start anew. World peace isn’t guaranteed, but people now get a chance to fix things or screw up again on their own, instead of being controlled by the Britannian empire or whatever crazy plans Charles and Schneizel had.
But there are so many things I find wrong about Lelouche’s scapegoat plan. For one, I do not think it is remotely ok to do horrible things and act like an ass to get people to hate you so you can then die and become a scapegoat to pay for your sins. We’re probably supposed to feel sympathetic for his sacrifice because in the end it was all for the “greater good,” but I guess I still don’t agree that the ends justify the means.
The idea of throwing the blame onto one person and then moving on with life strikes me as a somewhat Japanese way of thinking. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that in Japan if something goes wrong, the politician or CEO or whoever’s on top takes the fall and then everyone else gets to innocent and move on. The same thing kind of happened with WWII, when most the blame for the things Japan did got placed on the government of the time so now Japan can have a victim complex about the war too.