In Berserk, there is a pivotal moment when one of the main characters, Griffith, sacrifices the lives of everyone he knows and loves to gain immense power and transform into the godlike being, Femto. The general consensus is that this is a selfish and cruel act of betrayal, one posed as irredeemable.
However, I have always asked this question: is there a way for something so hideous to be considered "good"? At the core of the "Femto dilemma" lies the concept of "absolute sacrifice," where one gives up everything, including their soul. Yes, in Berserk, Griffith is irredeemable—he acts purely out of self-interest, with no regard for human life.
But I can describe one motivation that might be worth considering. If a person refuses to take power by sacrificing what they love, they might claim it’s because they’re doing the right thing—that they cannot commit something so horrific. Yet, if they don’t take the power, someone else will inevitably be offered the same choice. In the end, only the most depraved individuals would accept it. This means that refusing such power ultimately hands it over to the worst people.
Thus, this is the "Femto dilemma": how much are your morals worth? If, by maintaining them, you allow evil people to commit atrocities, should you sacrifice yourself—and your morals—in order to prevent evil from ruling unchallenged?
There’s no definitive answer. The thought process itself is what matters. Many other characters in fiction face the same trap. Take someone like Batman: he has often been portrayed as a hero whose strict code against killing leads to more death than if he were to break it.
The closest comparison we have from history is Plato’s warning: “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Refusing to participate in "dirty games" merely ensures that the dirtiest players will win.
AttackHelicopter64
The Femto dilemma
In Berserk, there is a pivotal moment when one of the main characters, Griffith, sacrifices the lives of everyone he knows and loves to gain immense power and transform into the godlike being, Femto. The general consensus is that this is a selfish and cruel act of betrayal, one posed as irredeemable.
However, I have always asked this question: is there a way for something so hideous to be considered "good"? At the core of the "Femto dilemma" lies the concept of "absolute sacrifice," where one gives up everything, including their soul. Yes, in Berserk, Griffith is irredeemable—he acts purely out of self-interest, with no regard for human life.
But I can describe one motivation that might be worth considering. If a person refuses to take power by sacrificing what they love, they might claim it’s because they’re doing the right thing—that they cannot commit something so horrific. Yet, if they don’t take the power, someone else will inevitably be offered the same choice. In the end, only the most depraved individuals would accept it. This means that refusing such power ultimately hands it over to the worst people.
Thus, this is the "Femto dilemma": how much are your morals worth? If, by maintaining them, you allow evil people to commit atrocities, should you sacrifice yourself—and your morals—in order to prevent evil from ruling unchallenged?
There’s no definitive answer. The thought process itself is what matters. Many other characters in fiction face the same trap. Take someone like Batman: he has often been portrayed as a hero whose strict code against killing leads to more death than if he were to break it.
The closest comparison we have from history is Plato’s warning: “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Refusing to participate in "dirty games" merely ensures that the dirtiest players will win.
3 months ago | [YT] | 0