Poll

Do you believe Lavos is inherent evil, or just feeding for survival?

Evil
14 (43.8%)
Survivor
18 (56.3%)

Total Members Voted: 26

Voting closed: December 29, 2003, 05:28:26 pm

Author Topic: The Ethics of Lavos  (Read 5931 times)

Ryan_WMD_2006

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • The Black Wind howls...
    • View Profile
    • Chrono Creations
Re: The Ethics of Lavos
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2006, 08:52:45 am »
My belief is that Lavos is an intelligent being. It may have been evil to us, but from Lavos' point of view it was just doing what it need to do to survive. In a strange way, Crono and co coming to kill Lavos would actually be evil from Lavos' point of view.
Basically, I believe that because there is no true evil, Lavos can not be evil. It may have manipulated an entire planets evolution, but from his point of view he would be doing good and from our point of view it would be doing evil.
While Lavos may be capable of moral decisions, it probably doesn't see humans as anything important.

EDIT: In a strange sense Lavos mirrors the human race. We shape the world the way we want it and in the process we have driven many species to extintion. All to further our evolution.
I am not trying to say the human race is evil, i'm just pointing out a simularity.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2006, 08:55:19 am by Ryan_WMD_2006 »

jihnsius

  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: The Ethics of Lavos
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2007, 09:27:26 pm »
It's been a while since this thread has been posted it, but I'd still like to put in my thoughts on the subject.

The idea that Lavos is "proven" to have sentience in this article is false. First, let's define Lavos as a being.

Take into consideration how a virus works: It finds a host, infects that host, and will reproduce until that host dies (or rids itself of the virus, which isn't of any importance in this case). It may or may not make it's way to new hosts from here, but it's primary function is simply to reproduce and "infect." Lavos' goal is not to infect the planet, but rather to absorb DNA from other living beings. Not to mention viruses aren't considered living beings. Thus, I argue that Lavos is not a virus.

Perhaps the more broad term 'parasite' is the best way to define him. A parasite is any organism that feeds on another organism for personal gain. Surely Lavos does this, so I argue Lavos is an endoparasite (a parasite that feeds from within, rather than out.)

Now, is Lavos self-aware? The previous arguements suggest that he is due to the fact that he can corrupt human mind and warp space-time.

On the topic of corruption of intelligence, I argue: Is it only sentient beings that can corrupt and take over the minds of intelligent beings? The biggest non-organic example I can think of is wealth. Are humans not obsessed with wealth, and often make irrational and seemingly unintelligent decisions when presented with or deprived of wealth? The same can be said for power. Furthermore, can it be assumed that (hypothetically, just imagine this situation) if Lavos weren't intelligent or self-aware in any aspect, would it be possible for him to have the same effect on humanity? I argue that it would be. Consider the Frozen Flame, an object we take for given as non-organic. It has the power the corrupt just as much, if not more, than Lavos, so why assume that Lavos must be organic, let alone sentient and selfaware, due to his same ability?

As for the ability to warp space-time, I can argue the same point. Can it be assumed that only sentient and/or self-aware beings have the ability to do such feats? Blackholes destroy space and time, so would you thus consider them to be intelligent beings? Or, perhaps you could even argue that Lavos doesn't exist in the third dimensional plane, perhaps he is an inorganic object in a higher plane and what we know of him is merely a glimpse as to what he really is? What I'm trying to get at here is that we don't know anything past what we know, which is what makes us, as humans, self-aware. Your arguement supporting his self-awareness is that his actions are beyond our comprehension, which must make him self-aware, which I think, in itself, is a flawed idea to begin with.

Now, on to the concept of good versus evil. There's really not much to be said here other than the fact that opinion is in the eye of the beholder. There is, in the reality of all existence of a whole, no common good. All things will eventually have the same outcome, regardless of actions or decisions, and are thus irrelevant to classification on a universal scale, but conversly might be relevant to classification on a multiversal scale (if there exists such a thing,) or even on an oscillatory universal scale, assuming that the outcomes of this oscillation might affect the next. As for less than universal and/or multiversal scale, again comes into consideration the concept of self-awareness. The most common thoughts of good or evil are on a personal scale, in which case it's purely up to the beholder, but if we were to make a decision on good or evil on the scale of the entire human race, we'd be forced to argue that Lavos is, in fact, evil. Lavos has no intention of reimbursing the planet, or humanity, of what it has taken, and thus there is really no way to say that he, as a being, is good in terms of humanity. In terms of life or evolution on a whole, however, you might argue that Lavos is probably the highest order of good, as he is the concept of a perfect form of evolution.

This said, however, I'd like to raise the idea that Lavos isn't even a self-aware being, and may not even be able to be considered sentient or intelligent of any sort. His actions, on the grand scheme of things, are really no different than a microbe.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2007, 09:32:50 pm by jihnsius »

Bohepans

  • Porrean (+50)
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • I oft feel I actually am split into two people...
    • View Profile
Re: The Ethics of Lavos
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2007, 09:26:56 am »
I just want to say one thing on this, and then just step back and see what can be said in response:
Lavos is an alien. He's not human. He collected human DNA at some point, and possibly absorbed the knowledge of, like, the entire species, but he was originally not human.
One more time: Lavos is alien.
So, here's my thought...how can human concepts be applied to a non-human entity? To attempt to make animals subject to our laws, rules, and regulations as if they were human too is simply impossible (for the reason of applying human concepts, as well as other reasons with nothing to do with Lavos or this debate here, I should imagine).

I will not argue Lavos's sentience, intelligence, or whatever.
I simply state that, as an alien lifeform, one that could have "grown up" so to speak on a planet where life is completely different than life on our own planet, developing in completely different ways, possibly having their own concepts of right and wrong (or, more to my thought, no concept at all of such a thing), we cannot apply our concepts to him.
Let me say that again. We cannot apply our concepts to him. So let's say that, yes, he did absorb all of our knowledge - that doesn't mean he believed we were right or even worth considering whether or not we were right on such possibly (to him) abstract concepts of "good" and "evil".
This is not to say he cannot process the concepts of good and evil - it is more to say that he could have easily seen them as human concepts. Possibly true for them, but not so for himself and his species.

I believe there is absolutely no way to classify his actions as truly "good" or "evil" unless one of us can actually sit down and have a conversation with the creature in some way. We do not know his perspective of things - we only see his actions, from the view of those trying to stop him, believing (perhaps in bias) that he is "evil", or at least must be stopped out of necessity.

Humans may be as they are because of his influence, but they are still human species, and Lavos is still of his own, completely separate species. The thought processes may be so different from one another as to...oh, I was going somewhere with this, but I lost my train of thought...
(This, children, is why you should never try to be epic at 7 am - if you've been up since 3 the afternoon of the previous day.)

Sorry about that. But I believe I've...well, said way the hell more than I intended to initially, but still have (hopefully) at least gotten my base idea out. I hope this wasn't said by any one else in any way, shape, or form, as I was sure before I'd started typing this up that no one had.

Let me just leave you with one last thought:
What if our ideas of right and wrong are wrong? Well, more appropriately, I suppose, to avoid confusion, "incorrect"?
We cannot absolutely prove anything on the concepts. We believe certain things, we think certain things, we say and do certain things - but just because we say or think or believe they are true, does that mean they are?
Mayhaps Chrono and that unnamed scientist in Chronopolis were right...
"Humans are such fragile, disjointed, imperfect things. Love and hate... Life and death..."
"...humans are, biologically speaking, unbalanced and half-finished. Internally inconsistent and disconnected, the human existence is plagued by contradictions. An incomplete species, torn between love and hatred, whose very being is self-contradictory."
(Oh, and, I snipped these from ZeaLitY's full game script of Chrono Cross at GameFAQs - thanks for making it, and I do hope you don't mind my using those two bits for this post.)

And finally, that bit about having a conversation with Lavos...not to go off topic, but, I think that'd make for a hell of a fanfic. What do you think?

(Edit: And just in case I shoulda said it before, since I forgot to: Yes, all the above is just my opinion, based on my own musings, and playing Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross a lot, and such. Just. My. Opinion.
I say that so, like, I don't get flamed or in trouble or anything like that. >.>; That'd be bad. Especially as I'm new here. Yes...)
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 10:00:59 am by Bohepans »

Alfador-Is-The-Entity

  • Iokan (+1)
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: The Ethics of Lavos
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2009, 11:13:02 pm »
Does anyone who has the DS version of the game think that the new final boss adds anything to this topic?

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8974
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: The Ethics of Lavos
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2009, 01:36:04 am »
Darn good question there. It's hard to tell whether Schala speaks for herself, or for both her and Lavos when she says she welcomes the destruction of everything.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10592
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The Ethics of Lavos
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2009, 01:37:59 am »
Cross says the raw emotion of Lavos was involved in her decision to destroy everything. Still, this article only pertains to Lavos in his normal form, since the Dream / Time Devourer is an anomaly.

That said, this article's kind of not aging well...

utunnels

  • Guru of Reason Emeritus
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2798
    • View Profile
Re: The Ethics of Lavos
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2009, 02:51:49 am »
Kid being bound to the Mandora Monster due to her anger and hatred in RD, is probably the earlier idea that Schala is bound to Lavos in CC. Yeah, you can't free her by brutal force...
Although it is said that scenario is not written by Kato.