Another theory about Lavos that MAY be interesting

[Namara]

Who are we to judge if it was ethical to kill Lavos?  Just because we had to do it for us to survive doesn't make it right.  But I think what makes it right is the fact that he killed so many people.  It is arguable though that he did it just so that he could survive, forced to kill just to preserve him and his own species just like we were forced to kill him to preserve ourselves and our own species.  Are we any different than Lavos then?  There isn't a real answer to this because the logic cycles itself if we were justified or not in killing Lavos.  From a survival standpoint, we were completely right to do it.  From an ethical naturalistic point of view, no, we weren't justified in destroying this member of a species who was only trying to survive.

[JossiRossi]

From an ethical naturalistic point of view, no, we weren't justified in destroying this member of a species who was only trying to survive.

So we can't kill to survive, but Lavos can?

Ethics don't play into it when extinction is at hand, it's purely survival of the fittest and not much else factors in.

If lavos lives, the planet (and all life within) die.

Course we could just have told Lavos it was an unethical thing to do and surely he'd stop.

[Magus22]

If lavos lives, the planet (and all life within) die.

there was still life . . . 2300AD and so on

but i don't kno wat exactly happened to Lavos after 1999AD and the events in the future, did he simply go away? or continue his harvesting?

Course we could just have told Lavos it was an unethical thing to do and surely he'd stop.

let's jus invite him in for milk and cookies, i am sure he'd agree to hault his apocolypse

[CyberSarkany]

The question is what is ethnic, I mean what does it really mean. I think it's just something that might differs us from "animals", yet humans are even crueler than any enemy can be. But lets not discuss about that(might go into the wrong direction)I still think in this case the anser simply is: kill=survive, not kill=die.

"Flesh-Eater" = Carnivore.

Yeah sry, me = still learning, but tx for helping,
and I know I can't quote proberly(forgot how to insert name, blame'n'shame)

[AuraTwilight]

What is all boils down to is that no single life, no matter how important or superior, is worth destroying 1+ planet(s) over.

[CyberSarkany]

Can we compare this to a question like the one we discussed at school:
Our(german) gouvernement was asked if it would shoot an airplane with terrorists AND civils on board, knowing it will crash into the main political building(forgot my dictionairy, sry). Just theoreticaly thou, is the life we will save more with shooting it down more worth than the life of the persons in the plane(the Civils)?
The answer they gave is simply: No, we wouldn't.
Why? Life(well...only human's...) is invaluable, we can't count in "lifes". Every one is invaluable, even if we know know the civil guy is gonna die anyways, we would not sacrifice him.
If they really wouldn't is another question, but for Lavos: No human=no invaluable life(yeah, I mention it alot even now when everybody got my point).

[Magus22]

ur at a set of train tracks and ur next to a switch

the train carrying no1 yet is moving in the direction of 5 others

u can switch the tracks and hav the train take a different route, but there's 1 person on those tracks

wat do u do



CyberSarkany, ur exactly right

every1 has a price . . .

[Radical_Dreamer]

You're trying to apply morality beyond it's scope. It is equally moral for Lavos to kill humans for survival as it for humans to kill Lavos for survival. It's the natural order; it's outside of the scope of morality.

[AuraTwilight]

1 life < Hundreds of Billions of lives.

[Paradox]

I seriously dislike any theory that says that Lavos will move on to another planet, since the Lavos Spawn are supposed to be his legacy. It'd be totally stupid to have children if he's gonna persevere.

Well, working with that idea, it could just be a little twist on the whole idea of the DNA perfection dream of Lavos.

Why do people have children? Baseline, it's written into us. Natural instinct to continue on our species. But that's just animal, we're (not too be too egotistical about our species n' all) above that. Humans reproduce for a deeper reason then to just preserve humanity, we do it for immortality. We truly and deeply wish to continue on our names and memories, our experiences and wisdom.

In a similar way Lavos is immortal by continuing to reproduce, passing on the DNA collected from a planet to his offspring so they can in turn find other planets, collect their DNA, and grow ever closer to biological perfection. That falls apart though with the lack of exchange in the species. Lavos don't mate, they just sap energy then reproduce... outa' somewhere (Don't get into -that-). So I think only one Lavos makes it into space (the others die off, possibly some battle of dominance, I'm not sure), a single creature overflowing with the DNA information and advantages of all his kind before him and infects a new world.

This does seem to fit pretty well with most of the Lavos theories thus far, but it's more in support of the idea that Lavos, as a species, has this dream of perfection (Like teh BORG :3 I'll shut up) by collecting the DNA of species throughout the endless expanse that is the universe. It's just that dream is passed down through the generations of lil' Lavoses... maybe?

Note: Yeah you people have jumped into an ethical question of 1 life versus a billion. Sorry. My two cents? It's wrong just to start. Why not two? Whats two lives next to a billion? How about four? Still small. Ten? Twenty? A hundred? A thousand? A million? Still small next to a billion lives. It's far too easy to play god.

[Magus22]

well said Aura

[Burning Zeppelin]

Can we compare this to a question like the one we discussed at school:
Our(german) gouvernement was asked if it would shoot an airplane with terrorists AND civils on board, knowing it will crash into the main political building(forgot my dictionairy, sry). Just theoreticaly thou, is the life we will save more with shooting it down more worth than the life of the persons in the plane(the Civils)?
The answer they gave is simply: No, we wouldn't.
Why? Life(well...only human's...) is invaluable, we can't count in "lifes". Every one is invaluable, even if we know know the civil guy is gonna die anyways, we would not sacrifice him.
If they really wouldn't is another question, but for Lavos: No human=no invaluable life(yeah, I mention it alot even now when everybody got my point).

Umm...lemme get this straight. Instead of shooting down and killing, what, pretend, PRETEND, 500 people, they will instead let it crash into a building and kill...lets just say, PRETEND DAMNIT, 2000 people? Or are my eyes just blinded by the blood dripping from my ceiling? I have got to get that air conditioner fixed!

Yes, life is invaluable, depending on what morals you follow. Some Nihilists put life as no value. Its just part of the cycle, birth-life-death. But we have to take this from the CT values. Lavos we have learnt, has none of our values. He just kills to survive. It's INSTINCT for him. Does this destroy his sentiency? Who knows. But 3 of the people in your party are from 1000AD. A backwards society, which we can possibly base on Elizabethan times. One is from 65 gazillion years ago. Whats her ethics? Then we have 600, and even more backwards then 1000 civilisation. Then we have Magus, who I can presume just wants revenge, therefore doesn't care about Lavos. Then we have a robot. Nuff said. But Crono, Lucca, Marle and Ayla, not to mention a certain frog, are all goody goodies, wanting justice and all. They, for all we know, don't even know what this, this Lavos thingy is. To them its just a parasite. Killing it won't matter; its to save the worl innit?

[Magus22]

all they care about is just that, saving the world

did they ever consider the repercussions of what might've happened if Lavos was stopped?

[Burning Zeppelin]

No, like I said, they were clouded by the blood comin- wait, I mean they were clouded by the short term effects. Obviously, Lavos=dead=saved! They didn't think about things like Fate, A New World, or anything. It just wasn't in their capacity to think about it.

[CyberSarkany]

@Burning Zeppelin(2nd last post)
Yeah, that's what was announced. I don't wanna start a discussion whether you belive the politicians or not, so I won't.

To much questions comming up which r not topic related...*deletes*

What does actually "count" as Lavos? The Spikey shell thing, the right bit(core), or all together?
Why do the baby lavos seem to have no core? Or was it just left out because it's to small to show?