Pagkalinawan, Ma. Samantha I.

IETHICS ODGE1
Activity 5: Rurouni Kenshin

Memory Aid: Natural Law Theory

Natural Law Theory states that any law that advocates something good is considered as
moral, and that any moral law is said to be good as well. Moreover, it asserts that some rights
can be universally comprehensible through human reason and are intrinsic by virtue of human
nature, generally perceived as having bestowed by God or a divine source. It originates from the
belief that human morality is innate and everything, especially humans has a function or
purpose in life.

Application Exercise: Rurouni Kenshin and The Universal Moral Laws

Hitokiri Battōsai, Himura Kenshin's lone wanderer pseudonym as a Kiheitai group

assassin, shows his persona when murdering Shogunate, in which he exhibits hatred and no
remorse when slaughtering every Patriot of the specified military organization. Despite his
strong commitment to overthrow the Shogunate, he met Tomoe Yukishiro, who demonstrates
her sense of guilt to counter-attack his "protect the happiness of everyone by relentlessly killing
the Patriots to restore peace to their land, abolishing the tyranny." In foreshadowing the
senseless killings, he had resulted in innocent victims and even himself falling into the trap of
lonely and undesired situations in life; the loss of a loved one. The grief of his loved one
Tomoe’s death has led to a new vision of far from ignorance, the principle of not having to kill
anyone ever again.

Even in the beginning, Himura's intention to join the assassination was to always aim for
peace for everyone to live in by fighting. The lens of Aristotle's principle of becoming an
excellent person stands with how one knows of their 'character.' At the same time, Himura is
fully aware of his role in the Kiheitai and that he must be the one who must 'wield' the sword to
fulfill the essential bearer to act through Phronesis. Through his judgment, he sought to
determine that assassinating the Shogunate by sacrificing himself and his reputation was what
he thought needed to be done ethically to achieve the most significant safety of all in the New
Age. In contrast with Aristotle, Himura's judgment in the situation brings about The Middle Part
of Aristotle and Confucious of Himura doing 'too much' leads to the notion of limitations of
senseless killings until the consequence has brought upon his loved one's Death.

Himura's actions in the film closely parallel Mill's description of the principle of
Utilitarianism as the acquisition of peace is attainable, including the lives of thousands, only
through the warfare between assassins and the military dictatorship, for the sake of future
generations of Japanese independence and peace. Mill and Himura's concept relates to how
both pick the quantified people to sacrifice to achieve the greatest happiness for all. Therefore, it
remains acceptable even if Himura's choice of combat with the execution of life significantly
impacts the outcome, which is considerably better for everyone else, especially future
generations. Mill, on the other hand, limited his theory to experiencing total pleasure in
happiness. This is where Mill's concept contrasts with Himura as he does not experience any
pleasure through Utilitarianism. As it is his duty as someone with combat skill and knowledge,
his well-being and happiness are unimportant as long as he achieves his aim. According to Mill,
Himura's conduct of assassinating the Patriots is justified since it promotes the greatest
happiness in their nation for many years to come.

Himura desires to fight to protect the people; however, according to Kant's concept, the
motive behind the will is more important than the outcome. In comparison, Himura's mission is
to preserve the people from military rule. It bears his intention to protect the people's happiness,
even in the means of his assassinations to protect others. Thus according to Kant's principle,
Himura's intention to protect persons from the tyranny of oppressive dictatorship weighs heavier
on the positive side because of his choice to defend those oppressed. In contrast, Himura's
combat skill is highly correlated with his ability to fight for the people through war, demonstrating
that his best intentions would still lead to the good as his skills are put to the frontline, fully
aware of his ability to impose peace, despite the sin he must bear in doing so.

The natural law theory of Aquinas and the Principle of Himura is derived from how he
sees the good in life by changing from what he was in the past. His moral precept of being an
ex-assassin drives him to act upon the good he can do by protecting the people from evil.
Despite that he was one of the sinners, his character portrays a sort of knight to fight for the
people. In contrast, because of his acts, which include fighting and murdering people, his
philosophy contradicts Aquinas' concept since the three aspects must be satisfied to be good.
Contrary to natural law theory, even if Himura's goal is good at heart, the ultimate result and
circumstances do not match the good for everyone; some even conclude death and can
therefore be characterized as unethical conduct.

Eventually, each principle has argued the goodness and yet the best feasible action
that promotes happiness for a more significant group of people. Yet, a human, an assassin like
Himura, has only a limited ability to accomplish all of the goodness in life without enduring the
repercussions. As a result, the principles mentioned severely limit his act in a more immoral
setting because murder under natural and universal law should not be done. Regardless of how
his intentions are pure and how he sacrifices a part of himself to appear evil but with the hope of
someday achieving freedom and peace, Himura, on other principles, could be a hero and, to
some, a murderous no, remorse samurai.