Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-190.153.39.127-20141227172100/@comment-218.212.190.74-20200117163730

Actually i believe he is more morally bad rather than good. Like the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". He "seems" good if you only consider his goals and not the methods by which he achieves them, as well as disregarding any other form of life as being of any value. Consider this: the whole point of his project was to train an AI to serve as soldiers to prevent human losses, an AI that uses human souls which can be considered another human life since they develop their own sentience and consciousness albeit without a physical form aside from the Fluctlight cube. Compare this to, say, a human vegetable, a person who cannot interact with the physical world but are still their own person. So are these AI really that different from normal people? Assuming these souls can eventually be put in a flesh and bone body, say of a brain dead person, would they still be less than human? Remember these original Fluctlights are copies of souls of infants in the first place (which runs smack dab into the argument against cloning btw).

Then the second problem comes up for me: essentially his plan is to manipulate an entire civilisation of law abiding people to commit acts that go against the grain, in order to find an specific soul that is willing to kill on order. Not when it is morally right but on order, because the residents of Underworld have shown no compunctions fighting back to defend themselves from the Dark Territory (self-defense being a valid legal reason), which would have meant the experiment would have succeeded way earlier if he just wanted soldiers that are able to defend themselves (Bercouli for example, i thought he would have made a pretty good soldier). The whole thing about the Taboo index is to find a person who have no problems breaking it, ergo no problems breaking the law (aka a sociopath). Quinella in a way could actually be considered a success by him (which was also probably why they never deleted her). So you are taking a group of people with childlike innocence or literally children (Linel and Fizel come to mind) and are hoping to make them into killers (child soldiers much? which is also illegal btw).

The only reason i could think of that anybody would think he was "good" would, to me, be only the fact that he seemed to be on the protagonists' sides. However, just being on the same side, doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason to just assume people are morally good. History has lots of examples of that. It's not just a matter of priorities as someone said; the difference is in the actions one takes that determines whether it is good or bad. Trying to save lives is a good thing, but what about choosing to disregard other lives to only save the ones you consider worth saving? (First Convention of the Geneva Convention anyone?)