>>183855913>Moral is a subjective thing differing form person to person.
Yes, morality is subjective. But no, marality is not specific to an individual. There are certain absolute axioms in any ethics that make them reasonably comprehensible.
What you are suggesting is a radical relativism that could excuse literally everything. And that's not how morality works.
As for why you argue "state law" in this context is even more questionable. Not only does it have nothing to do with her failures of character, the law we are presented with does not seem to apply consistently and uiniformly to all citizens.>That Akame could asspull a superpower to beat her at the last moment?
No. That her emperor is a retard, for example. That her lifestyle is not sustainable and that it's part of why she can't have the man she wants. Or that she has no chance to get that man.
She is blind to all of that and to more.>If she had won in the end, nothing would have changed.
Again: Look up what a theme is!
Without her ultimate failure, her whole character arc would not have had any point. She had to fail because she made grave errors.
It's like you saying: "If Oidipos and his whole family had survived his story, nothing would have changed", "If Medea didn't kill her children, nothting would have changed."
You're not seeing that negating any negative consequences destroys what character - or a whole literary piece is about.>I think you are too biased here
Sure, it's me who's biased ...
Anon, please. You can't even see that not being perfect makes her a better character.
Or that in literature, it's not about winning or losing.
Also, please, let us end this fruitless excercise. It seems you don't want to question your believes anyway. You don't want to learn and broaden your perspective. That's okay. But let's not derail this thread.