I read through @ulixneriadne’s post here and I found their response fascinating so I spontaneously decided to write a short analysis loosely based on the sentence that they were originally responding to:
At this point in the story, Sebastian has ceased to seem like so much of a separate entity, as a kind of amoral conscience or ego for Ciel.
I absolutely disagree with this as a whole but there is an aspect of this sentence that I want to talk about and partially agree with. In Freudian (and Jungian) psychology, the concepts of Id (Shadow), Ego and Superego (Persona) essentially make up the person. Sebastian is Ciel’s Ego, as in he is a combination of Ciel’s worst aspects (his id, his most animalistic and darkest desires... he’s literally referred to as Ciel’s shadow) and his best ones (his superego and what he should aspire to be... and the one who serves the persona of ‘Ciel Phantomhive’).
Sebastian gives Ciel the power to do self-righteous things, which may be wrong or selfish, while also urging him to do good and be selfless. Ciel has pride in Sebastian (as evidenced by the way he defends him and tells him to ignore his status - see: Luxury Liner arc) while also refusing to accept himself or Sebastian as good people (something both he and Sebastian enjoy being seen as, as evidenced by how they respond to Abberline praising them in the Blue Cult arc).
I am like @ulixneriadne in the sense I take what Sebastian says at face value... Not always, but mostly. In fact, I think Sebastian suffers from the same thing Ciel does, he’s edgy as hell and that’s the only thing that makes him unreliable. I believe the narrative wants us to like the Ciel and Sebastian, I believe it paints them as morally grey but not amoral. As dark a story as Kuro is, I have never seen it as a story where you follow anti-heroes. To me, they're just heroes. Firstly, their means are not questionable nor do they have traits that make them unheroic. They go through very simple means to be honest. In fact, even when they take an approach that causes unneeded harm, they either repent (e.g. at the end of the Red Butler arc, at the funeral) or are forced to take on responsibility (e.g. having to take in Snake after the Circus/Murder arc(s)). I actually think these characters are heroes, just not conventional ones. I also think the villains are not anti-villains, they are just villains. Undertaker is a unique villain but he isn’t really doing anything noble, he is selfishly trying to save a family he cares about. The people who attacked the manor also aren’t anti-villains. This story isn’t black or white but it’s really not hard to see who does good things and who does bad things. Ciel’s goal may be selfish but he’s not really doing anything wrong? He has to impersonate his brother so they’ll come for him. He is doing a good job. Yes, he lies to people, but he presumed he’d die as Ciel after his revenge since his brother was not supposed to come back. His worst action was during a mental breakdown, but he’s not the main protagonist, Sebastian is. And Sebastian tried to persuade him not to order him to kill the children in the Baron’s basement. But he had to because it was an order: an order from a child having a PTSD attack.
So I have a lot more to say on this (evidently) but for now, I’ll end it with the simply statement that I don’t think Sebastian is an extension of Ciel at all but he does represent Ciel as well as being a sort of catalyst(?) for his ego. I’m exhausted right now so maybe I can articulate myself better in the morning. For now, I’ll say the post I’m replying to is very interesting so I recommend everyone takes a look at it as well to get a nuanced perspective on the statement as I didn’t really go into it and just focused on the ‘amoral conscience or ego for Ciel’ part of it.










