Well, I can see your point. I concede that he does not have a high opinion of humans. your point about that is strong.
What I do not concede, though, is that thinking that "humans are frail"
necessarily implies thinking, as you seem to be doing, that they deserve
no freedom, rights or respect.
Let us analyze his quotes:
A: "We'll be nothing like Munuds. We'll respect our subjects, not enslave them"
(...)
(Dante says: "It was his freedom we were fighting for, not yours.")
B."Don't be so simplistic. Humans are frail, they are like children, they need protection. Not just from others but from themselves!"
(...)
C. "If you can't see the chaos that humans will cause..."
Now, quotes B and C are evidence... of what, precisely? Literally, that he seems to fear what humans will do if left to their own devices. What he seems to fear is that humans would cause "chaos" if left to themselves. But what does "chaos" mean? What does "being frail" mean? Why must humans be protected "from themselves"?
And, above all, what is Vergil truly implying by stating he would be "nothing like Mundus"?
How much freedom?
First, Vergil never says that humans will not be allowed
any rights
nor freedom. It's Dante that, hearing the word "subjects" immediately implies that humans would not be free, and their rights would be cancelled (two espressions that we can, for the sake of simplicity, consider synonimical).
But a person can have certain degrees of freedom (can have rights) even if he is subject to rules. We are subject to law, but we don't consider ourselves slaves. We are forced to do certain things, but we don not complain, saying we are not free. Why? Because our laws, even though impeding certain actions, still grant us a quite wide degree of freedom. Our laws protect our rights.
So the turning point is: what degree of freedom would Vergil allow his subjects? Would he establish laws that protect rights?
Well, we are NOT told that. And we cannot just say that, because he thinks them frail, then he will not grant humans
any.
Dante's quote is easily interpreted to mean that Vergil doesn't truly care about humans, only about his own freedom. But that's not necessarily true.
Why do I say this? Because we don't know what Vergil truly means with "protection".
What if he just wants to say that he wants to protect them from possible dangerous outcomes of collective chioces, or of perilious tendencies that are intrinsic to our way of reasoning?
Social sciences tell us that sometimes, in particular situations, humans do make poor choices, choices that endanger their rights. Maybe they do not do that on purpose, but the fact is that
they do it. It's... natural.
Now, I do not mean that humans are just worthless beings because of that, but I recognize that sometimes we make wrong choices.
What if "frail" means just that to Vergil? What if he just wants to protect us from these choices?
When I hear the word "respect", I cannot help thinking that he may just want to protect them from chaos/harm, where "harm" means something akin to "poor choices" as I intended before.
The point is, I am convinced that he wants what is good for us, but he is biased in thinking that we cannot obtain it without his guide.
But what Vergil thinks is "good" for us? He does
never say a word about that.
I suspect, and there is no line of his that explicitly shows the opposite, that he might just mean a structured society that brings peace and prosperity. And yes, that's exactly what Mundus says.
So, how come he is different from Mundus, better than him?
Let's quote him some more: "To Mundus, the world is a factory farm of human souls, and he wants to keep his animals monitored and docile."
And, as we already saw, Mundus is a slaver, while Vergil wants not to be one.
What I recollect, and this is the only way to make sense of Vergil's words, is that Mundus is sapping energy from humans, while he does not care for their well-being. And that's not good at all.
Vergil, on the other hand, wants to respect his subjects, not use them as some energy source ("enslave them").
That's the key point. He would be a better ruler because he won't treat them as just... batteries.
Mundus is worse because his true intent is to sap energy from humans, and he tries to justify hid misdeeds (note: he only does that when faced with Dante) by saying he's bringing peace. Mundus' peace is just a mask.
Vergil's peace, on the other hand, is sincere. That's what he really wants.
If he wanted just revenge, he would have been satisfied once Mundus was destroyed, once he was free. If he wasn't thinking of mankind, he would never had said he wanted to rule. He would have just sat back and enjoyed the view.
By saying this, I'm assuming he was sincere in his worry for mankind. What he had said before was not a lie.
What ****es Dante and Kat off is the fact that he wants to rule, and they simply assume that this is not good for mankind. They assume this, and they also assume that he won't respect humans' freedom/rights. But, as I already said, this is not necessarily true.
It all depends on the specific set of rules that Vergil would
in practice establish. But, I repeat like an obsessed, we do not know what this set of rules would be.
If, using his absolute power, he establishes a peaceful, prosper society in which humans are allowed the right degrees of freedom (as in, not a totally anarchic situation), then what's the matter? We start from a situation in which he is an absolute ruler (in the sense that he has all
political powers), then he smoothly goes in the direction of granting people their rights. By doing so, he moves in the direction of not being a tyrant.
And, once again, I think I gave reasons to think that this might be the case.
The
real testing ground for him would be the concession of
political rights (those that make a democracy).
The best way to peace, (ruled freedom) and prosperity
Now, what is the best way to bring about a structured society that brings peace and prosperity?
This is a delicate issue. Humans sometimes fail to bring about such a society. Sometimes, conditions do not help them. Sometimes, a leader is needed. Let's call this conditions "conditions L".
There are still conditions, let's call them conditions D, in which humans can do the job themselves. These are the conditions that allow for the flourishing of democracy.
Would, however, Vergil agree with us? Would he accept that conditions D can exist?
Well, he surely does not think so in Mission 20. But, as I argued, he
may come to realize his error in time.
Conclusion
Vergil does make potentially contradictory statements. He says he wants to respect humans, then he says that humans are subjects. He does not know how those two statements may clash.
His intentions are good, in a certain way: he wants to help humans. But he thinks humans cannot help themselves.
He probably just thinks that, because humans tend to make poor chioces, then they need someone to tell them what a good choice would be.
But he has no idea whatsoever that this simple statement addresses a series of difficult and complicated issues, the issues we have briefly touched in our little debate.
But, being an intelligent person, he could come, in time, to realize the problems connected to rule-posing, and maybe, if put in the right direction, even come to answer to some of the questions we have addressed in a way that would be acceptable to us.
...Ok, now I think I said all I had to say. I swear I will not address this questions again, for the sake of the sanity of all people here...
And you're right, it's probably all a matter of impressions and interpretation... so my guess is just as good as yours.
