Evil or Morally Ambigous?

[Mark Lawrence]

on a related note - I've seen people complain of unchallenged bad behaviour in my work and others. This set me thinking recently. The people doing the complaining know that murder, torture, rape, and theft are wrong. I have to assume they don't actually believe I wrote my book to promote those things. So I have to wonder why they want me to challenge my character's behaviour to show that these things are wrong. They know it. I know it. Is it that they think the rest of you are idiots who need me to write you a morality tale or you'll rush off on a rampage? I've been trying to figure out the reasons behind complaints that such work lacks simplistic instruction on the basics of good and bad, and on whose behalf the complaints are being made. Still puzzled. Blogged on it a bit here http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/murders-bad-mkay.html

[Arry]

Oh Yes! Please! A "morality tale" is exactly what we both want and need! But since I am reading Control Point at the moment, and haven't been preached at yet, I think I need to go gun down some people I expect are Latent. They're looking at me funny. I think they are about to manifest. And now, thinking about your book, I think perhaps I will do some raping and pillaging when I am done. Because, you know, Jorg is so obviously the person the rest of us should strive to be.

Whatever. Some people are just idiots. I dont see anyone who has read your book could claim it's "glorifying" Jorg's actions or make them appealing in anyway. I still like Jorg though, even though I know I probably shouldn't. But copy him? Come on. Anyone that could be influenced that easily was obviously already far gone from reality.

[Idlewilder]

...what Arry said. The second bit, I mean. Obviously. I'm not, y'know, insane. 

[JonRock411]

Oh Yes! Please! A "morality tale" is exactly what we both want and need! But since I am reading Control Point at the moment, and haven't been preached at yet, I think I need to go gun down some people I expect are Latent. They're looking at me funny. I think they are about to manifest. And now, thinking about your book, I think perhaps I will do some raping and pillaging when I am done. Because, you know, Jorg is so obviously the person the rest of us should strive to be.

Whatever. Some people are just idiots. I dont see anyone who has read your book could claim it's "glorifying" Jorg's actions or make them appealing in anyway. I still like Jorg though, even though I know I probably shouldn't. But copy him? Come on. Anyone that could be influenced that easily was obviously already far gone from reality.

Pretty much this.

[Charlemagne]

...what Arry said. The second bit, I mean. Obviously. I'm not, y'know, insane.

'Course not. We all know that's Craig's job. 

[Dan D Jones]

1 per center refers to teh amount of people who rider bikes ( not those in gangs)

Most of the Angels (and I know a fair few) I know are actually quite nice chaps. Depending in your definition obviously.  (there are a few you don't want to tangle with...) But they love their wives, their mums, their kids. We do runs for charity (toy runs to children's hospitals, egg runs at easter, blood runs for blood donation, they run organs for the donor prgram)

It may be different in the states, but then you have these guys:

http://arizona.bacaworld.org/

In reference to 1%ers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw_motorcycle_club#One_percenter

The origin likely is apocryphal but motorcycle gangs in the US really do wear the patches to indicate that they're hard core bikers and not just week-end enthusiast.  There's an example on a set of Bandidos colors about halfway down here:

http://history.knoji.com/ten-most-notorious-outlaw-biker-gangs/

I've been riding Harleys for over twenty five years.  I've modeled colors a few times but I'm really more of the week-end enthusiast than a gang member type.  I've known a lot of bikers, including those who wore the 1%er patch, and as you say they're generally great people.  That doesn't mean they won't bust your skull if you cross them, however.  Most people, even guys who run drugs and rob liquor stores, love their mums and take care of their kids.  It's quite in line with the topic to note that very few people are completely evil.

The motorcycle population in the US is quite large and very diverse.  There are clean-and-sober bike clubs, Christian bike clubs, the Blue Knights (active and retired cops), etc.  Yes, the hard-core clubs, who often are engaged in criminal endeavors of one sort or another, often do sponsor toy runs for underprivileged children, food runs to feed the homeless, etc.   There's nothing which says that a dude can't give to charity in the morning and fence stolen goods in the afternoon.

[Dan D Jones]

then the person wouldn't think it's wrong, so they wouldn't be fully accountable for their "sin".  I think morality is clearcut in almost every instance.  paint me a scenario where it isn't.

Is child molestation wrong?  I'm reasonably sure that everyone here (myself included) would respond with a pronounced and emphatic "YES!," along with a sidelong sneer of derision at the person who dared to voice the question.  But do some research on pederasty in ancient Greece.  It's hard to view the practice without the filters of modern morality, but for those raised in that society it was normal and socially accepted.  Can you really say that those who engaged were evil?

[Francis Knight]

In reference to 1%ers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw_motorcycle_club#One_percenter

The origin likely is apocryphal but motorcycle gangs in the US really do wear the patches to indicate that they're hard core bikers and not just week-end enthusiast.  There's an example on a set of Bandidos colors about halfway down here:

Angels wear colours here too. Your average bikers wear patches (not the back patches, but BC - bike club -  affiliation stuff, or MCC - I was one of these. Not angels, not just enthusiasts - biking as a way of life) But over here, a 1%er is any biker (well okay, maybe not Sunday riders, but you know, bikers. These days we hardly beat up Lambretta riders at all and allow that maybe they can be part of the 1% too.).

I've been riding Harleys for over twenty five years.  I've modeled colors a few times but I'm really more of the week-end enthusiast than a gang member type.  I've known a lot of bikers, including those who wore the 1%er patch, and as you say they're generally great people.  That doesn't mean they won't bust your skull if you cross them, however.  Most people, even guys who run drugs and rob liquor stores, love their mums and take care of their kids.  It's quite in line with the topic to note that very few people are completely evil.

Well, yeah, there's a few you wouldn't want to accidentally chat up their girlfriend! And there's some guys that even the angels take care with, and the ones who've been thrown out of the angels...and they have their own sort of rough justice, which I have observed from time to time...(details on request. I kinda agree with two of the occasions, though perhaps a court might have been a better option) But yes, most of them are not evil, just not particularly good either. Kind of...piratical?

The motorcycle population in the US is quite large and very diverse.  There are clean-and-sober bike clubs, Christian bike clubs, the Blue Knights (active and retired cops), etc.  Yes, the hard-core clubs, who often are engaged in criminal endeavors of one sort or another, often do sponsor toy runs for underprivileged children, food runs to feed the homeless, etc.   There's nothing which says that a dude can't give to charity in the morning and fence stolen goods in the afternoon.

Yeah, all sorts over here too. And a really good example of how people can differ within a stereotype.

[Jonathan Campbell]

then the person wouldn't think it's wrong, so they wouldn't be fully accountable for their "sin".  I think morality is clearcut in almost every instance.  paint me a scenario where it isn't.

Is child molestation wrong?  I'm reasonably sure that everyone here (myself included) would respond with a pronounced and emphatic "YES!," along with a sidelong sneer of derision at the person who dared to voice the question.  But do some research on pederasty in ancient Greece.  It's hard to view the practice without the filters of modern morality, but for those raised in that society it was normal and socially accepted.  Can you really say that those who engaged were evil?

Not an expert on this subject, but I think there are a large number of historians, translators and scholars who would argue that statement.

[jefGoelz]

then the person wouldn't think it's wrong, so they wouldn't be fully accountable for their "sin".  I think morality is clearcut in almost every instance.  paint me a scenario where it isn't.

Is child molestation wrong?  I'm reasonably sure that everyone here (myself included) would respond with a pronounced and emphatic "YES!," along with a sidelong sneer of derision at the person who dared to voice the question.  But do some research on pederasty in ancient Greece.  It's hard to view the practice without the filters of modern morality, but for those raised in that society it was normal and socially accepted.  Can you really say that those who engaged were evil?

Not an expert on this subject, but I think there are a large number of historians, translators and scholars who would argue that statement.

It is possible for a whole society (or at least some aspects of it) to be evil. With regard to individuals within that society, they have to know that something is a sin before they are held fully accountable for that sin. I do not know to what degree pederasty in ancient Sparta was enforced.  Was it a social norm, or were some boys reluctant and forced to engage?  I don't know. If they were forced, it would be a sin, regardless of whether it was a social norm. Removing a clitoris would be a sin if it was enforced over the objections of the victim, even if it was otherwise a social norm. 

[eclipse]

Spurred by a tangent, like most threads on here, I ask the question:

If, say Locke Lamora, were to exsist in the real world, would he be considered evil or morally ambigous, a term many nowadays prefer to use as a way to lessen the feelings of 'rooting for the "evil" guy?'

Which could also spur the question, what is morally ambigous? Don't we live in a world where breaking the law is wrong? So how is that justified? Yes, there are shades of gray inbetween some choices, but the actions some of our favored "heroes" commit are said to be "gray." In the real world, I don't see how they're justified. Is there any justification there?

(I would recommend disregarding most of my ramblling questions and just answer the first. The latter ones are me off on a tangent. )

What characters would you say are Morally Ambiguous ?

[ScarletBea]

From recent books, Edrin Walker from Cameron Johnston's books and Ryhalt Galharrow from Ed McDonald's books.

And I say this because, yes, they do the right thing (in the end), but they don't care about rules, processes and whoever (more or less) gets hurt along the way (especially if it's not a friend).

[Matthew]

I'd suggest vengeance themes. Taking justice into our own hands is ethically wrong, but I don't know many people who wouldn't rather deal with it their own way were they capable.

[Bender]

Merriam Webster defines Moral Ambiguity as "a lack of certainty about whether something is right or wrong".

The most popular characters I can think of is Walter White from Breaking Bad or Dexter from the eponymous TV show, or raylan Givens from Justified  series. In a nutshell, doing bad things for a good purpose. Or a vengence killing by a party to whom a grave injustice is done.

Outright evil, is a classic good vs bad character. Morally ambiguous can be good or evil, whilst amoral characters are downright scary. Nicoma Cosca in Red Country for example was downright best version of the character. Completely amoral.