As my other thread finally died, I decided to make another thread based around a similar discussion (not as controversial, though). Does having the ability to change the world gives you the right to do so? Let's say you find a way to change the world. You, being the good person you are, try to improve the world as you see fit. How can you change the world is irrelevant, the point is that you can. Should you? Is reality as it is sacred (not in the religious sense) or disposable? This appears a lot in fiction. Some examples: We have Death Note. Death Note is about a really intelligent adolescent (Light Yagami) who finds a the Death Note. The notebook kills anyone whose name is written on it. Light decides that he is going to change the world for good, killing all criminals to create a world where people are too scared to commit crimes. His reasoning is that a world without evil is a perfect world (let's ignore the fact that he wanted to become a God more than he wanted to have a perfect world). His actions are, (as of right now) morally wrong but for the 'greater' good. "The ends justifies the means". His philosophy seems to be that of consequentialism (from consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence). Take in account that the crime rate does drop consequentially. We have the antagonist corporation in Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy, who plan to kill everybody to allow nature to take over. They seem to think that a human-less world would be more beneficial for the world. We never got to see if they were right, but what if they were? Would that have given them the right to have done what they had to do for that to happen? The Paladins from Jumper: They hunt and slay Jumpers to protect the world from the Jumpers' sociopathy that descends into evil. A person who could be anywhere they wanted could be pretty bad for the economy and they could commit crimes and go unpunished. Does that give them the right to kill them? In the more idealist part we have Haruhi Suzumiya 3). She can alter reality directly. Does that gives her the right to do it? When she bores of one reality she merely creates another one more to her liking. Do the people from the other realities, created by her, not get a say in the matter? Rephrasing the question (just to mess with the heads of people who already had their mind set): Do the ends justify the means?