This whole post contains unmarked
SPOILERS for
Gargantia 1 -3 so read at your own caution:
[Gargantia] - 3
This episode dedicates itself to dealing with the consequences of Ledo's actions at the end of the previous episode. It's partly a series of arguments and partly one lengthy combat set piece. Now, while I don't have too much to say about the combat I think it would be interesting to examine the actual arguments espoused by the characters in the episode.
The most important scene with regards to these arguments is the conversation between Bellows and Ledo. Bellows opens the conversation with a stupid question:
Amy asked Ledo to save Bellows and the other members of the Gargantia from attack by pirates.
He did as he was asked and acted to defend them from the pirates. Perhaps he didn't deal with the situation in the same way that Bellows would have, given access to the same technology, but that shouldn't be surprising. Ledo is a foreigner, who comes from a completely different culture that speaks a separate language. Obviously he's going to be different from her.
From her on out Bellows makes a number of separate arguments and it's worth examining each one in turn.
1.
The sanctity of human life
Bellows first argument is that human life is important and therefore you shouldn't kill humans needlessly, it has to be justified. There's nothing inherently wrong with this except that Ledo wasn't aggressively taking lives without justification, he was moving to defend other human beings from attack. Self-defence, or acting to defend others so that they are not killed or unduly hurt, certainly seems like a perfectly good reason to take another person's life and it's clearly something that the people on Gargantia practice as we see later on. The fact that Bellows doesn't acknowledge that Ledo acted for that reason is odd.
You could argue that Ledo would be justified in killing the attackers, but not the one's who were not actively engaged in the assault. However, quite a few pirates were engaged in the assault and a number of Gargantians were presumably injured and killed as a result. Moreover, the rest of the pirates are looting and taking other human beings as prisoners, with the implication that might rape them later, so it doesn't seem likely that any of the pirates are particularly innocent in this:
It seems like these vicious attackers have forfeited their right to be treated well as a result of their actions.
Either way, the sanctity of life argument only really holds any sway if you also believe that all human life is sacred and Bellows fails to make an argument for why it should be treated as such. If you don't hold that all human life is important, then Ledo's actions are perfectly reasonable and even if you do it's possible to see his actions as being reasonable, albeit excessive. So this argument doesn't hold water.
2.
Bearing arms is a way to reduce conflict
Bellows reply to Ledo, stating that simply possessing arms helps to reduce conflict, hasn't been demonstrated at all. The pirates attacked Bellows and her comrades earlier because the pirates had more weapons and thought they could win, which they did. This happens again later on when the larger pirate fleet turns up because, once again, they have more firepower.
Presumably the pirates push on with their attack in the full knowledge that they'll take some casualties, but not enough to stop them. Perhaps, therefore, that they'd respect the Gargantian's some more if the Gargantian's had equal or greater firepower than the pirates. You know who could demonstrate greater firepower but is restrained from doing so? Ledo.
So this argument doesn't really work either.
3.
Violence only leads to more violence, the pirates will have to fight back
This is Bellows final, and most successful, argument. Killing all the pirates has clearly brought a whole heap of trouble onto the fleet which they now need to defuse. Simply escalating the bloodshed might trigger an even greater conflict.
There are still some problems with this line of reasoning, however. Consider, for example, what would have happened if Ledo hadn't been there to save Bellows and the others. The pirates weren't just demanding that people hand over goods, they were killing and looting and kidnapping, entirely without restraint. If the Gargantian fleet had had it's attack ships closer to Bellow's people surely they would have intervened and battled the pirates, who were the aggressors, which would have resulted in a high volume of pirate deaths. How is that any different from how Ledo handled the situation, except that Ledo was far more efficient? How can the pirates get mad? Do the Gargantian's not ever shoot back? Well no, clearly they do, so I still don't get how Ledo is suddenly the only one killing people and this gives the pirates a justification to launch a massive attack. If Ledo had gone out on his own and struck the pirates first, before they had opened fire, then maybe they'd be justified in seeking their revenge, but that's not what happened at all.
No. It's not his fault that they got into this mess and he shouldn't need to apologize either.
4. Ledo shouldn't advertise his power
An argument that no-one makes explicitly, but which you can infer based on the requests Ledo receives to hold back, is that demonstrating to the world that you have a super weapon might attract a lot of unwarranted attention and, as such, Ledo should pretend to be far weaker than he is. No one ever comes out and says this, but it really matches his actions and explains why he moves so oddly during the fight.
Side thought:
I guess this brief, comedic sequence demonstrates to everyone that Ledo's ship does contain an A.I. and, as such, simply disposing of Ledo won't solve all their problems. Except that no-one comments on it at all.