#utility calculus

!!!! Spoilers for SDR2 !!!!

(this is all for fun there is every possibility i've gotten things wrong, please feel free to correct me or argue against me if that's the case!)

In this blog i will be discussing whether Gundham Tanaka's murder of Nekomaru Nidai in Danganronpa 2 is morally permissible - in this I won’t be going into too much detail around the contexts surrounding the nature of the killing game (i.e. we'll ignore the fact its a simulation and in fact noone dies, noone involved in this murder is aware of that fact, thus this is irrelevant) , or anything to do with the specific murder that i feel is irrelevant to the discussion, so if you haven’t played the game I would recommend doing so, me personally i watched Kubz Scouts play it, I highly recommend his play-through if you’re going to watch any, he makes it so funny and memorable!

To begin, I want to discuss the context behind this specific killing, the motivation from monokuma, the funhouse scenario: either a) everyone starves to death while trapped in this funhouse, or b) Someone kills another, allowing everyone to escape, and get food, living as normal (well as normal as it can be during the killing school trip, but again I won't be diving into these contexts). This on the surface level seems to force the group into a moral landscape that resembles a distorted version of the classic trolley problem. However, unlike the trolley cases, this situation seems to offer no passive option, Monokuma has guaranteed that inaction is itself a choice that leads to universal death of the other students. Although it may appear that "everyone starves to death" is the passive option, and in the literal sense it is, if noone kills, noone acts, everyone dies, this is the do nothing path. However, philosophically, (to me, at least) this doesn't appear to be a passive option, as typically in trolley problems, the passive option can preserve life, in the funhouse scenario that the students find themself in, the passive option guarantees death. This transforms the scenario from a question of whether one may kill to save many into a question of whether one may refuse to kill when doing so condemns everyone. The Funhouse removes the possibility of moral innocence, forcing the characters into a situation where every available option carries the weight of death. The coercive environment strips the characters of meaningful autonomy, placing them under moral duress, where every available action carries severe moral cost. In such a setting, the usual ethical frameworks begin to fracture: utilitarianism seems to demand a sacrifice, deontology forbids it, and virtue ethics struggles to define what “courage” or “cowardice” even mean when starvation looms. The Funhouse is not merely a backdrop, it is an engineered ethical trap designed to collapse the boundaries between murder, survival, and duty.

Perhaps given the fact that through killing Nekomaru, Gundham prevented the death of all of the students, we could argue that Gundham did the right thing, that his actions were morally permissible, I also believe that this is what a hedonistic utilitarian would say. I'm going to use Bentham's Utility Calculus to defend this. To put it simply, a hedonistic utilitarian is someone who believes we should maximise pleasure and minimise pain, it is a consequentialist theory meaning a , and Bentham's utility calculus is an ethical algorithm designed to measure the moral worth of an action by calculating the total amount of pleasure it produces and subtracting the pain it causes considering 7 key criteria.

Before delving into the specific criteria and applying it to this murder, I believe it's important to discuss the question: "Does Nekomaru Count as a Moral Patient?", especially considering the fact he is a robot. Can we justify Gundham's actions and say a murder didn't even take place (ignoring Monokuma's ruling at the beginning of the chapter that Nekomaru can still be killed and will be treated as if any other student died), because he chose to kill Nekomaru, or even Mechamaru, who was a robot, which implies he doesn't feel pain. However, there is also an implication he does feel pain once he is revealed to be a robot - when Kazuichi tells him to take his "mask" off because it's scaring Sonia, not understanding it's his actual head, and he tries to rip it off. In response to this happening Nekomaru says "Ow", which implies he may feel pain. However, I think this can easily be debunked when minutes later he withstands a Monokuma Bazooka, coming out unfazed and uninjured. Perhaps his "ow" could be explained away as a reflexive linguistic habit from his human consciousness, I mean me personally, I say ow when i simply anticipate pain even when nothing actually touches me in the end, so it can be easily explained that Nekomaru's "ow" was just reflexive. That's all good and well, but that still doesn't answer whether Nekomaru is a moral patient, whether Gundham's choice in who he kills is justifiable. Even if he doesn't feel pain, Nekomaru is still self-aware, capable of reasoning, and capable of forming preferences. It is still Nekomaru's consciousness within that robot, despite not feeling physical pain, he is still a moral agent and moral patient. Nekomaru's consciousness was uploaded to the robot, thus destroying the body is equivalent to destroying the person. So morally, this is still homicide, and I don't believe that we can justify Gundham's actions by claiming otherwise.

Now lets try and use Bentham's utility calculus to try to justify Gundham's actions, here is the 7 criteria of the calculus: Intensity: How strong or powerful is the pleasure or pain? Duration: How long will the pleasure or pain last? Certainty: How likely or guaranteed is it that the pleasure or pain will occur? Propinquity (or Remoteness): How near or far away in time is the pleasure or pain? Fecundity: What is the chance that the pleasure will be followed by more pleasures, or pain by more pains? Purity: What is the chance that the pleasure will not be followed by pain (or vice versa)? Extent: How many people will be affected by the action?

And here is what i would consider following these criteria, I am going to be giving each criteria a score out between -5 and +5 with -1-5 being pain and +1-5 being pleasure:

Intensity: Though Nekomaru doesn't necessarily feel physical pain as a robot, he still has a consciousness, and that consciousness still dies with his robot body, i would argue death is probably the most intense pain. He also causes emotional turmoil of the friends of Nekomaru. (-4) Duration: The pain of death for Nekomaru was short lived, he dies instantly when his head hits the ground. The pleasure caused by his death is much higher, if Nekomaru didn't die the other students would've all died in turn. Through one person's death, Gundham saved 7 other students (not including himself). However, he did cause emotional pain by killing someone most of the other students loved, perhaps he could've avoided this by killing someone like Nagito, who is not liked at all at this point in the plot. (+3) Certainty: It wasn't necessarily certain that Nekomaru would die. Gundham and Nekomaru began with a duel to the death, perhaps it could've been Gundham that died - however either way this still guarantees death which I believe would be equally measurable. Perhaps we could argue that Nekomaru could've survived the trap. Gundham was relying on him thrashing around so he'd fall and land on his head, perhaps he may have not thrashed around, and would've just stayed hanging there surviving, perhaps if he fell he could've caught himself, or even maybe Nekomaru had another feature Gundham was unaware of where Nekomaru could maybe fly or at least hover, saving himself from the fall (usually I wouldn't suggest something so out there, but considering Nekomaru could have soda come out of his eyes, this doesn't feel entirely unrealistic). Considering all of this, I think it's fair to say the end result of death doesn't feel entirely certain. However, the positive result of Nekomaru's death (the other students getting food and eventually getting out of the funhouse) doesn't feel entirely certain either. Monokuma is who promised this through the motive he provides to kill, and given his past actions Monokuma is known to lie or at least come across as deceiving, the main example being he deceives the group into believing a terrorist organization named World Ender is to blame for erasing their memories and trapping them on Jabberwock Island, hiding his own identity. However, this isn't something they know to be a lie at that time. Though it's clear through his personality that you would approach what he says with caution and not 100% guarantee. However, you could also argue that Monokuma always sticks to the school rules, evidenced by him 'saving' Nekomaru in the first place, perhaps he would've never let everyone die at once, but again this isn't a guarantee, they don't know this as fact. Thus, the certainty of the pleasure being caused is also not certain. (0) Propinquity: Both the pain and pleasure are immediate, however the pain of loss isn't going to go away quickly. (-1) Fecundity: As mentioned previously, the death of Nekomaru is supposed to save 7 other people. However, perhaps if Gundham got away with the murder and got everyone else executed it could've led to more pain. This is something I'm going to choose to ignore for now and discuss later, for the sake of this calculus let's assume Gundham was always at some point going to admit to it, or even he assumed he was always going to be found out. Another thing to consider is again that this did cause emotional pain because of the loss of a friend, this is short-lived however. (+4) Purity: The death of Nekomaru was always going to cause emotional pain, but again it was always going to cause pleasure of surviving the funhouse (+4) Extent: As mentioned previously, 7 people will be saved by 1 person's death. (+5)

5+4+4+3-4-1+0 = +11

From this, I can conclude that Bentham's utility calculus could justify Gundham's actions as morally permissible.

However, I don't think utilitarianism is providing an in depth enough analysis of Gundham's actions. The consequences of his actions aren't the only factors that I feel are relevant when analysing them, I find the motivation also to be interesting, as well as the fact Nekomaru seems to be, at least partly, consenting in his murder.

Nekomaru’s role in the confrontation complicates the moral landscape even further, because he is not simply a passive recipient of harm but an autonomous agent who actively participates in the decision that leads to his death. When Gundham challenges him, Nekomaru neither flees nor calls for help; instead, he recognises the situation immediately and accepts the duel. This acceptance is not born of resignation but of conviction. Both men share a belief that allowing yourself to waste away in the Funhouse would be a betrayal of life itself, a cowardly surrender rather than a dignified end. Gundham praises Nekomaru for having “the courage to die when he needed to die,” and this is not empty rhetoric: Nekomaru’s entire character is built around self‑sacrifice, leadership, and the protection of others. His willingness to fight, even knowing the likely outcome, reflects a preference to act meaningfully rather than passively succumb to starvation. In this sense, the duel becomes a mutual expression of their shared values: courage over resignation, action over decay, and the belief that life demands struggle rather than surrender. Nekomaru’s consent does not erase the moral weight of killing, but it transforms the act from a unilateral harm into a morally charged exchange between two agents who understand and affirm the stakes.

Even with this mutual recognition of values, Kantian ethics forces us to confront the act from a very different angle. Kantian ethics are deontological, this means they are based on duty, they are also non-consequentialist, meaning they focus on the intention behind an action, instead of the consequence.

Here is a brief outline of Kant's first and second formulation of the categorical imperative:

Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative provides a systematic method for testing whether a maxim (moral rule) is morally permissible. According to Kant, maxims must be universalisable, and this is determined by checking whether universalising it leads to either a contradiction in conception or a contradiction in will. For example, to test whether stealing is morally permissible, we take the maxim “It is acceptable to steal” and universalise it to “Everyone may steal whenever they want.” This produces a contradiction in conception: the very act of stealing presupposes the existence of private property, but if everyone could steal freely, the institution of private property would collapse, making stealing impossible. Because the universalised maxim destroys the very conditions that make the action possible, it fails the test and is therefore morally impermissible.

A contradiction in will occurs when a maxim could logically be universalised, but no rational person could will to live in the world it creates. An example is the maxim “I will never help others.” If universalised, this does not create a logical impossibility, people could all refuse to help one another, but Kant argues that no rational agent could will such a world, because everyone inevitably needs help at some point. Willing a world where no one helps anyone would undermine your own rational interests, so the maxim fails the test and is therefore morally impermissible.

Kant also distinguishes between perfect and imperfect duties: a perfect duty is one which we must follow at all times no matter what, this is one that when negated would become a contradiction in conception (like "you must never steal"); an imperfect duty is one which you still must always follow but it provides flexibility in when and how you do them, and is one that becomes a contradiction in will when negated (eg. with "you must help others" the fact it's an imperfect duty allows for you to not be required to help everyone constantly, say you were hanging off a cliff by one hand and someone asks you to help tie their shoe, it's reasonable for you to not help then).

Finally, Kant’s second formulation, the principle of humanity states that you must act so that you treat others as an end rather than a mere means. This means that you shouldn’t treat someone as a tool to achieve your own goals but instead recognise that every human possesses intrinsic worth, as people with their own goals in mind

Given this framework, Gundham’s actions become far more difficult to justify under Kantian ethics. If we apply the first formulation of the categorical imperative, the maxim behind Gundham’s action might be something like: “It is permissible to kill one person in order to prevent many deaths.” Universalising this maxim produces an immediate problem. A world where everyone may kill whenever they believe it will save others risks collapsing the very security and dignity that moral law is meant to protect. This begins to resemble a contradiction in will: although such a maxim is not logically impossible, no rational agent could genuinely will to live in a world where their life could be taken whenever someone else judged it beneficial. At the same time, the maxim fails the principle of humanity, as it relies on respecting rational agents as ends in themselves, not as instruments for producing outcomes. Killing, even with noble intentions, treats the victim as a means, which violates Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative. Finally, and possibly the most obvious way you can condemn Gundham using Kantian ethics, is the fact that Killing is a contradiction in conception, and thus a perfect duty. In a world where everyone could kill anyone whenever they please, the human race would rapidly go extinct or be wiped out. If no rational human beings are left alive to execute the rule, the maxim itself cannot continue to exist. Therefore, through the very act of killing, despite of the other factors, Gundham's actions are not morally permissible.

However, the Funhouse scenario complicates this seemingly straightforward condemnation. As said previously, Kant distinguishes between perfect duties, such as the duty not to kill, and imperfect duties, such as the duty to help others or preserve one’s own life. Perfect duties admit no exceptions; imperfect duties allow flexibility in how they are fulfilled. In the Funhouse, refusing to kill does not simply preserve moral purity, it guarantees the death of everyone, including oneself. This raises a troubling conflict: upholding the perfect duty not to kill would simultaneously violate the imperfect duty of self‑preservation in the most absolute way. Kant does not require self‑destruction; he does not demand that one willingly embrace death when survival is still possible through morally permissible means. Gundham’s reasoning reflects this tension. He believes that allowing himself and the others to starve would be a deeper betrayal of duty than acting decisively, especially when Nekomaru willingly enters the duel and shares his conviction that passive resignation is an affront to life. In Gundham’s view, refusing to act would amount to killing himself and the others through inaction, whereas acting preserves life. While Kant would still formally condemn the killing as a violation of a perfect duty, the extremity of the situation reveals why Gundham interprets his choice as fulfilling the duty to preserve life rather than violating it.

Virtue ethics offers a radically different approach to moral evaluation compared to both utilitarianism and Kantian deontology. Instead of focusing on consequences or universal moral rules, virtue ethics centres the moral character of the agent: the traits, dispositions, and habits that shape how a person acts. Originating in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, virtue ethics argues that morality is fundamentally about cultivating the virtues necessary for eudaimonia, a flourishing, meaningful, and excellent human life. Virtues such as courage, honesty, generosity, temperance, and practical wisdom (phronesis) are not rigid rules but stable character traits that enable a person to act well across a variety of situations. Importantly, virtue ethics rejects the idea that morality can be reduced to a single action or rule; instead, it evaluates whether an action expresses or undermines the agent’s character and contributes to their overall flourishing.

A central component of virtue ethics is the idea of the doctrine of the mean: every virtue lies between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency. Courage, for example, lies between cowardice (deficiency) and recklessness (excess). What counts as the virtuous mean depends heavily on context, which is why Aristotle emphasises phronesis, the intellectual virtue that allows a person to discern what the right action is in a particular situation. Virtue ethics therefore demands sensitivity to nuance: the same outward action can be virtuous or vicious depending on the motivations, character, and circumstances involved. Another key feature is that virtue ethics is deeply relational and narrative, it considers the whole story of a person’s life, their intentions, their commitments, and the kind of person they are striving to become.

I believe that from a virtue-ethical perspective, the moral permissibility of Gundham's actions can be defended partially when considering that Gundham's value of preserving life is a characteristic trait he has (i get this from 1. him being the ultimate breeder which implies a relationship to nurturing and sustaining living beings but also 2. from his explicit comments in the trial saying that giving up and not killing allowing everyone to die of starvation would've been "an insult to life itself" and insists that choosing death violates the natural order. Virtue ethics’ doctrine of the mean helps illuminate the moral structure he perceives: allowing nine people to starve would be a vice of deficiency, a failure of courage and resolve, while killing recklessly or without moral grounding would be a vice of excess. Gundham attempts to occupy the virtuous mean between these extremes by acting decisively to preserve life while doing so in a way that honours Nekomaru’s agency and shared values. In his view, letting nine people die is a far greater moral failing than causing the death of one person who willingly accepts the risk. Whether this reflects genuine practical wisdom is the central question. If his judgement is sound and his motives truly stem from a commitment to life, virtue ethics could deem the act morally permissible; if his reasoning is clouded by pride or misjudgement, the act may fall short of virtue. Thus, the permissibility of the killing hinges on whether Gundham’s choice genuinely embodies the virtues he claims to uphold, and i believe that his choice is genuinely embodying the virtues that he claims to uphold. At several points in this chapter, Gundham argues that: life has intrinsic value, choosing to simply waste away is cowardly, living requires struggle, and death is acceptable only when faced courageously, and all these arguments are shown through the murder - the motivation, the stand off, the admiration of Nekomaru facing death and the challenge head-on. I believe that from this and from the fact Gundham's acts lie within virtue in the golden mean, make his acts morally permissible.

At this point, I want to return to Utilitarianism, but this time non-hedonistic utilitarianism. Although Bentham's utility calculus appears to justify Gundham's actions, hedonistic utilitarianism may not fully capture the morally relevant features of the case. The central issue in the Funhouse is not simply pleasure and pain, but the competing preferences of the individuals involved. Preference utilitarianism, most notably associated with Peter Singer and R. M. Hare, argues that morality should aim to satisfy the preferences or interests of those affected rather than merely maximise pleasure. In this case it appears that Nekomaru's preference is to preserve the lives of those in the group, and fight with dignity rather than starve. Nekomaru's willingness to engage in the duel suggests that he shares Gundham's belief that passive starvation is unacceptable. By choosing to fight rather than resist the plan altogether, Nekomaru appears to endorse the underlying goal of preserving the lives of the remaining students, even at the risk of his own death. If preference utilitarianism requires us to consider the preferences of all affected parties, then Nekomaru's apparent consent becomes morally significant. Also, despite Hajime saying he'd rather starve than have one of his friend's kill another again, which we could consider the preference, I do believe that that's not his true preference that should be taken at face value. Consider the unhappy addict, who may sincerely claim to prefer another dose of a drug while simultaneously possessing a deeper preference to overcome their addiction and live a healthier life. In such cases, preference utilitarians often argue that the more informed or reflective preference deserves greater moral weight. A similar argument could be made regarding Hajime's claim that he would rather starve than see another student commit murder. While this may be his stated preference, his actions throughout the game consistently demonstrate a strong desire to continue living. He searches for escape routes, cooperates with survival efforts, and never willingly embraces death. This suggests that his deeper preference is not starvation itself, but rather survival without the moral cost of murder. The tragedy of the Funhouse is that this option does not exist. Once Monokuma reduces the available choices to murder or starvation, Hajime's stated preference may conflict with his more fundamental interest in continued existence. Thus, it appears that everyone involved preferences seem to align with Gundham's actions, rendering them morally justifiable.

The biggest argument i could think of while planning this that defends the view that Gundham's actions were not morally permissible was the fact it appears he tried to get away with the murder, which would've resulted in the death of every student but himself. If Gundham's primary goal was to save the group from starvation, there were simpler ways to achieve this. He could have confessed immediately after killing Nekomaru. He could have announced what had happened before the trial began. He could even have killed openly in front of the others. Instead, he created an elaborate murder scheme and actively attempted to avoid suspicion. Perhaps you could counter this with, maybe Gundham feared the consequences of doing it so openly, maybe he knew if someone saw him, or if he confessed before the trial, someone, namely Akane, could've reacted harshly and attcked him, killing him, and in turn herself as she would be executed. However, I don't think this is the strongest rebuttal, in fact, I believe that Gundham giving himself up immediately would contradict his philosophy. Throughout the chapter Gundham repeatedly argues that life possesses inherent value and that surrendering without resistance is a betrayal of that value. If this belief is sincere, then immediately handing himself over after the murder would amount to abandoning his own life without struggle. From Gundham's perspective, every life, including his own, deserves to fight for survival. By not giving himself away immediately and appearing to allow for the option of him getting away with it and the others getting executed, Gundham isn'y saying "my life matters more", he's saying "every life has intrinsic value, therefore every life should struggle to continue", if he gave himself in, that would be him giving up his life which his whole motivation for murder in the first place was to stop that from happening.

Ultimately, utilitarianism offers the strongest justification for Gundham's actions. By sacrificing one life, he prevented the starvation of the remaining students, and Bentham's utility calculus appears to support the decision. Preference utilitarianism may provide an even stronger defence: although several students, most notably Hajime, express that they would rather starve than see another murder occur, their actions throughout the game consistently demonstrate a deeper preference for continued existence. If preserving the strongest and most fundamental preferences of those involved is what matters morally, then Gundham's actions can be understood as protecting the students' shared interest in survival. Kantian ethics, by contrast, almost certainly condemns the act, as killing violates a perfect duty regardless of the circumstances.

Yet neither framework seems to fully capture Gundham's own reasoning. Gundham never speaks like a utilitarian calculating outcomes, nor like a Kantian following universal moral laws. Instead, he speaks the language of virtue: courage, struggle, dignity, and reverence for life. He kills not because he believes murder is good, nor simply because it produces the best consequences, but because he believes that passively accepting death is worse. From a virtue-ethical perspective, Gundham appears motivated by a sincere commitment to preserving life and rejecting what he sees as the cowardice of surrendering to starvation. Whether this reflects genuine practical wisdom or a tragic misjudgement remains open to debate.

Whether this ultimately makes his actions morally permissible remains open to debate. What makes Gundham's case so philosophically interesting is that he occupies an uncomfortable space between heroism and villainy. He commits murder, yet does so to preserve life. He deceives his friends, yet appears motivated by principles rather than selfishness. In the end, Gundham Tanaka's crime forces us to confront a difficult question: when every available choice leads to death, what does it truly mean to respect life?