Meanwhile there's also a lesson being illustrated with Miho that good and evil are just something we impose on each other; both are innately part of everyone and nobody has the right to arbitrarily declare someone as pure good or pure evil. The student council fails this lesson. They don't recognize their own actions as harmful, and while they might be made slightly more sympathetic, I don't expect them to ever be justified. Satsuki is making efforts to understand it and will ultimately be proven right.
I agree to your interpretation of what each characters role is supposed to be, from a perspective that goes beyond the plot. But I dont agree with what conclusion you might want to draw out of it. Or rather, perhaps you have hit the mark with what the author intends to convey, yet their is an underlying contradiction in your statement.
Without sounding way too 'edgy', that is, this is not meant to be arguing for arguings sake, one might take a step back and see what properties 'rights' or also 'ideals' must fulfill for everyone to be able to accept. That does not mean one necessarily shares the same - as seen in this forum, but I think at least some less emotionally driven will see the angle prez is coming from. (Even though he is in fact not fulfilling the most fundamental property.)
Any rights or ideal need to be selfconsistent (In all practial purposes). That is, if I take an arbitrary setup (that one finds acceptable as 'it may be done in actuality', this is of course up to discussion...) I must draw the same conclusion from any angle I come from in my set of rights. E.g. for prez: All bad people must die. + Some dynasty forum user: A sufficient condition for a person to be bad is someone who kills.
This is not a selfconsistent set of rights and definitions ('ideal'). Because for all practical purposes, trying to enforce rule 1 means to be susceptible to rule/defintion 2.
You probably need to impose more properties for rights and ideals than this first one, but it's not even the point I try to make. You in fact, fail this basic property too, with your conclusion. Let me show you:
- Nobody has the right to arbitrarily declare someone as pure good or pure evil.
I know, this is a bit plain, because I only cited one thing. And you have subtely included 'pure' in your right, but following from this rule, how are you supposed to judge whatever actions are harmful (= bad)? Certainly, a pure evil person is equivalent in doing only evil actions, yet because you (as you hopefully are a person) cannot judge a person to be pure evil, you cannot judge whether any arbitrary action is bad (take a person that only does one action.), rendering all other discussion about morals useless. (mind you, that a not pure evil person doesnt necessairly mean a pure good person, so technically you allow me to judge wheter or not someone is evil or good. With that in mind, and your postulate of everyone being a mix of both, there is no reason to cite right 1 in the first place.)
At the end of the day, even if your morals fulfill all possible conditions, enforcibility is what makes or breaks your ideals. In the case of MC and prez, it is more of a power struggle and less of a 'who's morals are better' discussion. So who can outdo the other first, is the one who is 'right'..
