# Moral Ambiguity vs. Moral Complexity



## Mindfire

One of the common criticisms of Tolkien I've seen is that his stories are too morally simplistic. (Whether this is true can be debated, but that's beside the point right now.) Meanwhile, authors like GRR Martin are praised for their "moral ambiguity." This puzzles me. Why is moral ambiguity praiseworthy? Why are we as a society so enamored of shades of grey? Why is it so popular to think that "everyone's equally right"/"everyone's equally wrong"/"there _is_ no right or wrong"? It seems like a dangerous trend to me, because it fosters the idea that in a given situation it's impossible to know right from wrong rather than just _really hard_, which promotes a kind of moral nihilism. An attitude of "you may as well be an amoral prick, because that's what's going to get you ahead anyway." And anyone who even _tries_ to cling to some semblance of a moral standard invariably gets screwed over because they weren't ruthless enough.

I reject moral ambiguity in favor of moral complexity. Rather than think that there's no real right or wrong, I prefer the idea that there _is_ a right and wrong choice in a given situation, but you have to put in some effort to sort it out and be able to tell the difference. You have to wade into the quagmire and wrestle with the crocodiles rather than just wallow in it and let them eat you alive. Promoting moral ambiguity devalues human choice, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you choose so long as you "win" and the other guy "loses". With moral complexity, choices are difficult, but they have meaning and purpose. This makes victories all the more triumphant and losses or falls to corruption all the more tragic, because ultimately our choices make us who we are.

What do you guys think about this issue of moral simplicity, moral ambiguity, and moral complexity?


----------



## Ankari

I think you have to define the terms "moral ambiguity" properly.  I wouldn't say that it means "everything is right" but that "all parties act in a manner that promotes personal and communal well-being".  The interesting thing about moral ambiguity, especially in speculative fiction, is that *true* right and wrong are never as easily understood as we would like it to be.  

This is how our lives are like.  We do things to better our own agenda, as an individual or as a community.  This can be seen when a resource is desired by two parties, but only one can have it.  Whether that resource be adherents to a faith or the trillion dollars worth of minerals in a third world country, makes little difference.  We (I) like moral ambiguity because it _challenges_ to think beyond the ideas spoon-fed to me, and think for myself.  

If you're not asking why a character is right in such books, then you missed the point.  Why is this house deserving of a certain plot of land over the other?  Why do we need to rid the world of the orc tribes?  Why is the MC cheered for slaying the giant leader but MC2 is scorned for slaying the town mayor, one who promotes a policy that makes it hard for the poor to live?

Those are just examples of questions that I _love_ to ask when I read morally ambiguous stories.  The exercise of chipping away the coal to find the diamond of a pure moral justification, that's what gets my head in a book.


----------



## Rullenzar

There is nothing wrong with either one if done right.
Is LOTR any less great because a few people think Evil/Good is too simplistic? In my opinion that's as close to real fantasy as one can get.

Martin chose to be more realistic, the real world is covered in a shade of grey. One persons right is another persons wrong and vice versa. All Martin did was play around with human characteristics and took us on a journey into places we may choose to ignore in our daily lives. Showed us how far a person may go to defend ones honor or to save it. That even an evil act doesn't always make that person evil themselves. Evil/Good still exists in his world too, just with a more loose meaning. Yes, this brings the moral line in society to its knees but does that not make a great book? One that pushes a reader out of their comfort zone to experience something new and poke holes in their beliefs? Does this not make great characters? More complex in nature, gritty, almost to the verge of taboo for liking a character with these traits?

It's all based on preference. The great thing about writing is your free to play with your world in various ways. The fact that your questioning certain pieces of works means the Author achieved something. He made you remember him! And in this day and age everyone strives to be remembered, you don't want to be pushed under yesterdays newspaper and forgotten.


----------



## BWFoster78

I see it in the more general sense that it's bad to create two dimensional characters.  Having the good guys be perfect with no flaws and on the side of Right is a bit weak.  I like complex characters who perform their heroics for complex reasons.  Sure, he wants to save the world, but isn't it okay that he also wouldn't mind making a bunch of money and winning the girl?


----------



## Telcontar

I don't think moral ambiguity in itself is a good thing. However, allowing for its existence is. In fact, I would term that an important part of moral complexity. Seeing the whole world as black and white is overly simplistic (few people will disagree with that) even if _some_ situations can be seen that way.

Even in your definition of moral complexity you seem to imply that there is a right and wrong answer for every moral choice. I do not believe there is. Some choices have no morally _correct_ answer. Thus any robust definition of moral complexity (in my mind) must acknowledge that.

I've written on the subject before, and there is a handy word which means something like "a system which acknowledges a region of morality between good and evil." I'll have to look up what I wrote and find it.

Edit: Found the phrase I was looking for, though I described it inaccurately above. It was "Supererogatory act." In short: "an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong _not_ to do." If you're interested in further reading on the matter, Wikipedia has a decent article on it.


----------



## ShortHair

One way to look at it is that literature has evolved. In earlier times, the good guys were obviously good, their cause was just, and they always triumphed in the end. The real world isn't like that. We try to be good, we try to follow whatever moral code we've been taught, but we don't always succeed. Sometimes the right thing isn't obvious. Sometimes you don't have a good choice, and you have to decide between bad and worse. Sometimes you do what feels good regardless of the consequences.

Personally, I'd rather read about a flawed character. I identify with someone who isn't perfect because I'm not perfect. A hero who never makes mistakes is like an armchair quarterback. He's always right because he's never really been tested, never had to examine his beliefs.

One good reason for moral ambiguity in fiction is to help you refine your own beliefs. We say murder is always wrong. Suppose, though, that you could travel back in time, kill a dictator, and save a million lives. Is one murder wrong if it prevents a million? A no brainer, you say. What if you save a hundred? Still okay? What if it's only one? Most likely you won't have to make that choice, but it's possible, and if that time comes, you won't hesitate over the morality of it.


----------



## Steerpike

YOu can have flawed characters and still have absolute notions of good and bad. Also, while it "may" have been more common in Tolkien's time to have moral absolutes (certainly not all books were that way), I think it is pretty clear that readers and those who like stories today still find a more absolute good v. evil to resonate with them. Look at Star Wars, Harry Potter, the popularity of the LOTR films, and so on.

Either approach is just fine, and you can create compelling, complex works with either approach.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I'm with BWF... I think it really comes down to what kind of characters you want to write or read about. Furthermore, as a writer it gives me more room for my characters to grow in the character arc. When you have inherently good vs. inherently evil the space available for those characters to grow and change during the story's course is more limited.

I much prefer those character's who might be considered villains but I understand why they do some of the things they do. I don't have to condone those actions to understand. Understanding them makes them real. Also consider a character who may do immoral acts for good reasons. Perhaps they're misguided, perhaps they have little choice. If during the character arc I can empathize with even their bad choices, well that's just gonna make me like that character more & more.

An example from a current TV series: 

Walter White from AMC's "Breaking Bad". A high school chemistry teacher diagnosed with terminal lung cancer starts cooking methamphetamine so he doesn't leave his family destitute when he dies. He is plunged headlong into a criminal underworld, winds up losing touch with the family he's trying to protect, and slowly spirals from being the show's protagonist to being the antagonist. I'd never condone Meth.... But I understand his choice. It's wrong but that's a powerful story & an interesting character.

For me it has less to do with a story's concept than it does the characters involved.

Bad decisions make good stories.


----------



## JonSnow

Mindfire said:


> One of the common criticisms of Tolkien I've seen is that his stories are too morally simplistic. (Whether this is true can be debated, but that's beside the point right now.) Meanwhile, authors like GRR Martin are praised for their "moral ambiguity." This puzzles me. Why is moral ambiguity praiseworthy? Why are we as a society so enamored of shades of grey? Why is it so popular to think that "everyone's equally right"/"everyone's equally wrong"/"there _is_ no right or wrong"? It seems like a dangerous trend to me, because it fosters the idea that in a given situation it's impossible to know right from wrong rather than just _really hard_, which promotes a kind of moral nihilism. An attitude of "you may as well be an amoral prick, because that's what's going to get you ahead anyway." And anyone who even _tries_ to cling to some semblance of a moral standard invariably gets screwed over because they weren't ruthless enough.
> 
> I reject moral ambiguity in favor of moral complexity. Rather than think that there's no real right or wrong, I prefer the idea that there _is_ a right and wrong choice in a given situation, but you have to put in some effort to sort it out and be able to tell the difference. You have to wade into the quagmire and wrestle with the crocodiles rather than just wallow in it and let them eat you alive. Promoting moral ambiguity devalues human choice, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you choose so long as you "win" and the other guy "loses". With moral complexity, choices are difficult, but they have meaning and purpose. This makes victories all the more triumphant and losses or falls to corruption all the more tragic, because ultimately our choices make us who we are.
> 
> What do you guys think about this issue of moral simplicity, moral ambiguity, and moral complexity?



The right and wrong is for the readers to decide. I don't think by creating characters with "moral ambiguity" you are making them all equally moral. I'll use George R. R. Martin as a perfect example of this. There is not a single "perfect" character, who makes every morally "right" decision, nor are there any characters who are 100% evil, and not capable of doing the right thing. Even Cersei Lannister loves her children and does everything she can to protect them (even if her methods are morally questionable). 

This is called reality. No real person is morally perfect. Everyone is tempted to do bad things for personal gain (though they may resist doing it), and even horrible people will do good things for those they love. And everyone has their vices, whether it be whores or gambling or alcohol. I think you are confusing ambiguity with equality. Nobody thinks Jaime Lannister and Ned Stark are equals morally (to use a Song of Ice and Fire reference), but to say Jaime is purely evil and Ned is morally perfect is just as wrong.


----------



## Frog

I think we've got a sliding scale, with two ultimate extremes.

On the far left (side picked at random, please avoid any kind of political reference here), there is a story with an obvious, absolute good and evil.  The extreme on this scale contains Tolkien.  This end of the scale also contains Terry Brooks, David Eddings, and a whole host of really classic fantasy authors.  We can throw Star Wars into the mix as well.  Rip on them all you want, I loved reading me some old-school good-battles-evil fiction.  

On the other end of the scale, we have a world in which there simply is no Good and Evil.  People are pointing to GRRM for this, and I'm not sure that's the extreme.  Certainly, GRRM has the Great Other who is raising the White Walkers to send at humanity; that seems pretty close to an absolute Evil, even if there is no balancing force for Good.  Ice and Fire is interesting because most of the actors prefer to pay attention to their petty squabbles instead of the real threat that's coming at them.  

No, for the extreme lack of Good and Evil I would point to The Engineer Trilogy by K.J. Parker.  Those books have such a dearth of good or evil in them that, once you're finished, you really feel the need to take a bit of a shower.  What's interesting about them is that I don't consider them to be complex.  In fact, the...let's call him the protagonist for convenience...the protagonist is very, very simple in his moral reasoning.  Which is kind of the problem.

In between these two points on the scale are books where there is an absolute good and evil, but the characters have a hard time figuring out which is which.  

Is one end preferable to the other?  Not necessarily, but it tends to be a question of what you want to write.  Invariably, a book that makes the reader think about morality is going to be more weighty.  That said, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with picking up a book and reading about good slaying evil on a summer's day.  It's not going to be really deep fiction, but that doesn't mean you won't enjoy reading it.


----------



## Steerpike

Frog, you should check out Joe Abercrombie. I like _Best Served Cold_ the best, though all of his are good. The characters are not the conventional morally-upstanding figures of Fantasy literature. I like KJ Parker. I've only read _The Company_, by him, but I thought it was quite good.


----------



## Frog

I will check that out.  Haven't read The Company yet, but I loved the Engineer stuff.  I'll read yours if you read mine.


----------



## Steerpike

Frog said:


> I will check that out.  Haven't read The Company yet, but I loved the Engineer stuff.  I'll read yours if you read mine.



Heh. Sounds good. I have the first of the Engineer books in my ever-growing "to-read" pile. I've heard good things about it.


----------



## Mindfire

Ankari said:


> I think you have to define the terms "moral ambiguity" properly.  I wouldn't say that it means "everything is right" but that "all parties act in a manner that promotes personal and communal well-being".  The interesting thing about moral ambiguity, especially in speculative fiction, is that *true* right and wrong are never as easily understood as we would like it to be.
> 
> This is how our lives are like.  We do things to better our own agenda, as an individual or as a community.  This can be seen when a resource is desired by two parties, but only one can have it.  Whether that resource be adherents to a faith or the trillion dollars worth of minerals in a third world country, makes little difference.  We (I) like moral ambiguity because it _challenges_ to think beyond the ideas spoon-fed to me, and think for myself.
> 
> If you're not asking why a character is right in such books, then you missed the point.  Why is this house deserving of a certain plot of land over the other?  Why do we need to rid the world of the orc tribes?  Why is the MC cheered for slaying the giant leader but MC2 is scorned for slaying the town mayor, one who promotes a policy that makes it hard for the poor to live?
> 
> Those are just examples of questions that I _love_ to ask when I read morally ambiguous stories.  The exercise of chipping away the coal to find the diamond of a pure moral justification, that's what gets my head in a book.



See, I think there's some confusion here. Because most of what you've said sounds more like moral complexity than moral ambiguity. Moral complexity = asking the hard questions. Moral ambiguity = "Who the **** cares?"


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Mindfire said:
			
		

> See, I think there's some confusion here. Because most of what you've said sounds more like moral complexity than moral ambiguity. Moral complexity = asking the hard questions. Moral ambiguity = "Who the **** cares?"



I would say that moral ambiguity is where the moral rightness of a character's ideals or actions are unclear. Moral rightness often depends on someone's point of view (the non-literary POV).


----------



## Mindfire

After reading the comments, people seem to be confused about what I mean when I say moral ambiguity vs complexity. I am not advocating flat or perfect characters by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps if I illustrate:

Morally Complex Story: Thoroughly human Protagonist is faced with an agonizingly difficult moral decision. Deep down he really does want to do the right thing. He looks at the problem, wrestles long and hard with it, and then, despite many hardships and dire sacrifices, he makes the right choice in the end. Or maybe he makes the wrong choice, and has to eternally abide the consequences or sinks deeper into evil as a result. If this happens, depending on how deep he sinks, he might repent and seek redemption.
I.E., there's a "good" and "bad" choice in there somewhere, even if they're not obvious, and whatever choice you make there are direct consequences.

Morally Ambiguous Story: Thoroughly human Protagonist is faced with an agonizingly difficult moral decision, but says "hand the hard work of sorting out the right thing to do here, I'll do as I please, morality be damned!" And then proceeds to pillage and rape and maybe give bread to orphans once in a while, but mostly pillage and rape. And (here's the key) _the story/author is 100% okay with this_. There are no consequences. No punishments for evil deeds, and certainly no rewards for good ones, though there might be punishments for those naive enough to put in some effort and figure out what the right thing to do is. Choices don't have consequences. There is only the whim of chance. Everyone's equally right because "right" doesn't exist.


Is the difference more clear now? In a morally _complex_ story the Protagonist may suffer greatly or even die, but if the correct choice is made all will eventually be well. If the wrong choice is made, then a downward spiral begins. 

As I said, I'm not advocating heroes who are good "just because" or villains who are evil "just because." I think that _is_ too simplistic. Nobody is born pure, for good or evil. We are a product of our _choices_. At the large scale cosmic level there is absolute good and evil but as humans we sway back and forth between them because our short and finite existences make us incapable of perfection. No one is beyond corruption. No one is beyond redemption. But at any given moment we are moving towards one or towards the other.


Caveat: Yes some common choices, like what color of shirt to wear for example, are morally indifferent. But those kind of things are beside the point here.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

In all the stories that I have read, which I would classify as morally ambiguous, I don't know of a single one where there are not dire consequences for characters making the wrong choices. It may take some time before they get theirs but it happens nonetheless.

The biggest difference I see is where the character may make the right choice & still face dire consequences. That's life.... Sometimes life isn't fair.


----------



## Mindfire

T.Allen.Smith said:


> In all the stories that I have read, which I would classify as morally ambiguous, I don't know of a single one where there are not dire consequences for characters making the wrong choices. It may take some time before they get theirs but it happens nonetheless.
> 
> The biggest difference I see is where the character may make the right choice & still face dire consequences. That's life.... Sometimes life isn't fair.



I think the biggest difference between "ambiguous" and "complex" now that I think about it is the existence of a standard. In a morally complex stories, even if the protagonist doesn't quite measure up or tries but can't quite reach it, the moral standard is still there. It is real and exists. In morally ambiguous stories there is no standard, an idea I'm very uncomfortable with.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Mindfire said:


> Morally Ambiguous Story: Thoroughly human Protagonist is faced with an agonizingly difficult moral decision, but says "hand the hard work of sorting out the right thing to do here, I'll do as I please, morality be damned!" And then proceeds to pillage and rape and maybe give bread to orphans once in a while, but mostly pillage and rape. And (here's the key) _the story/author is 100% okay with this_. There are no consequences. No punishments for evil deeds, and certainly no rewards for good ones, though there might be punishments for those naive enough to put in some effort and figure out what the right thing to do is. Choices don't have consequences. There is only the whim of chance. Everyone's equally right because "right" doesn't exist.



It's clear that you don't like stories with amoral characters who do as they please, morality be damned, and never suffer consequences for it. That's your prerogative, and that's fine; but that isn't the same thing as "morally ambiguous."

Moral ambiguity usually means that characters' morality is -- wait for it -- _ambiguous_. As in "not clearly defined." It does not mean they have no moral framework; it does not mean they always do as they please without considering the consequences.

Han Solo is morally ambiguous. (At first, anyway.) Spike. Jayne Cobb. Tyrion Lannister. Wolverine. Rorschach. Jesse Custer. Hell, Holden Caulfield is morally ambiguous. Milo Minderbinder. Jay Gatsby.

Morally ambiguous characters don't exist in a world where everyone's equally right; they're just characters who don't fall into easy categories. If you want to apply a little D&D-style alignment theory, they're the Neutral characters (on the Good-Evil axis, not the Lawful-Chaotic axis). It seems like mostly what you're decrying is badly-written stories, not moral ambiguity.


----------



## Frog

Mindfire said:


> Morally Complex Story: ......whatever choice you make there are direct consequences.
> 
> Morally Ambiguous Story: .....Choices don't have consequences.



I gotta say, I agree with Mr. Clayborne on this one.  That's not a question of moral complexity or ambiguity.  That's just a choice between good writing and bad writing.  Even if you're dealing with a totally amoral character, their choices still need to have consequences of some form.  If you hang a choice on the wall in the first chapter, then by the second or third chapter it must absolutely have a consequence.  If it doesn't have a consequence, it shouldn't be there.

But since we're talking about consequences, let me throw a hypothetical situation out there:

Protagonist is a doctor in a hospital.  Protagonist has, at this very moment in time, a number of different patients.  These patients need a new heart, a new liver, new lungs, and two patients need new kidneys.  Into Protagonist's ER, there comes a man who has suffered some mild head trauma.  He needs to be monitored, but he is otherwise perfectly healthy.  He is also blood type O-negative, and a compatible donor with all of the above patients.  What does Protagonist do?

This is the classic example of where the obviously "good" moral choice has a negative consequence.  Few people will look at this situation and say "kill the healthy patient to save the other five people."  Why?  Because it is terrifying for us to think of a world in which, at any moment, we can become a parts stock for other people.  

But look at the scenario from another angle:  this doctor has the chance to save five lives for the price of one.  Isn't that a net gain?  If he murders his healthy patient, doesn't he get a positive consequence?  Five people get life.  Isn't that worth something?

There's negative consequences too, don't get me wrong.  He could be criminally charged, lose his medical license, be hunted down by a mad relative of the healthy patient.  My point is this; I think things get more interesting and more realistic when there are both positive and negative consequences for any given choice.  

But I stand by my statement that a simple good-v-evil story can still be a fun read.


----------



## Lorna

> What do you guys think about this issue of moral simplicity, moral ambiguity, and moral complexity?



I'd probably say moral simplicity and moral ambiguity are on a par for me. Neither provoke a questioning of morality and value. 

Moral complexity? 





> I reject moral ambiguity in favor of moral complexity. Rather than think that there's no real right or wrong, I prefer the idea that there is a right and wrong choice in a given situation, but you have to put in some effort to sort it out and be able to tell the difference.



I'm not sure about your definition here. You're talking about moral complexity on the one hand, but still talking about 'right and wrong' choices. Isn't this the same black and white good vs evil thinking as moral simplicity? Take for example a plot that is morally complex like _Oedipus Rex_. Oedipus' actions- killing his father and sleeping with his mother unwittingly can't be judged as right or wrong. I'd say morally complex stories throw moral categories into question / break them down. 



> You have to wade into the quagmire and wrestle with the crocodiles rather than just wallow in it and let them eat you alive.



Must say, I like this phrase. But to me that's what we do when we question morality itself and explore new ways of thinking rather than searching for the ressurance of being right or wrong. 



> With moral complexity, choices are difficult, but they have meaning and purpose. This makes victories all the more triumphant and losses or falls to corruption all the more tragic, because ultimately our choices make us who we are.



As a race it's us who create morality and values, meaning and purpose. To take responsibility for our choices and live with honour in a society that is morally complex- where there is no right and wrong, only consequences- that's one of the biggest challenges of modern life. Few modern fantasy novels seem to confont these issues. I think that's why I always end up going back to ancient literature or the Romantics for inspiration. 

So yeah, I favour moral complexity / moral depth.

Can anybody name some modern fantasy novels they consider to be morally complex?

I'd say:

David Lindsay _Voyage to Arcturus_
Storm Constantine _Wraeththu Trilogy_


----------



## Mindfire

Lorna said:


> As a race it's us who create morality and values, meaning and purpose.



This quote just about sums up all that I find wrong with your statement. I don't see how a moral system developed only by humans, selfish creatures who are here today gone tomorrow, can have any lasting value.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> This quote just about sums up all that I find wrong with your statement. I don't see how a moral system developed only by humans, selfish creatures who are here today gone tomorrow, can have any lasting value.



I think this is the age-old question, right? Is morality whatever humans determine it to be at any given time, or is there some external source of morality that is unchanging, and humans at any given time are either more in line with it or less in line with it.

(as an aside, the Wraeththu books are good; anything by Constantine is).


----------



## Christopher Wright

My basic theory on morality in literature:

1. If you write  story with clearly defined good and evil, you will be criticized by a jaded, cynical hipster who complains your work is "shallow" and "old fashioned."

2. If you write a story consisting of shades of gray, you will be criticized by a jaded, cynical hipster who complains your work is "too trendy" and "uninspired." He will then go on to mention that he was one of GRRM's original fans, and further add that it's "really sad to see so many people trying to cash in on his work."

3. If you write a story that deals with concepts of good and evil (column a) but in a way where the people who wrestle with them are imperfect (coumn b), you will criticized by a jaded, cynical hipster who will call your work "shallow, trendy, uninspired,  and old fashioned." He'll then forget what he was talking about and start writing about his fanfic where he ships GRRM and Ursula K LeGuin.


----------



## Christopher Wright

Oh! I want to add that I'm not calling anyone in this thread a cynical, jaded hipster. WHen I think about how morality is portrayed in a book I always wind up thinking about book critics... and I tend to think of book critics as cynical, jaded hipsters.

Just wanted to clear that up, because this is the Internet.


----------



## Jabrosky

Mindfire said:


> This quote just about sums up all that I find wrong with your statement. I don't see how a moral system developed only by humans, selfish creatures who are here today gone tomorrow, can have any lasting value.


If humans really were as inherently selfish as you claim, we wouldn't consider selfishness a bad thing to begin with. Hell, we wouldn't even be such social primates if we were that selfish.

Digressing back to topics that couldn't potentially ignite an unwanted religious debate, I like my good and evil clearly defined. I don't mind if the protagonists have a few flaws or if the villains have a few redeeming factors, but I do need someone to root for. If you must have a Conan-style anti-hero, at least pit him against an even greater evil.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Christopher Wright said:


> My basic theory on morality in literature:
> 
> 1. If you write  story with clearly defined good and evil, you will be criticized by a jaded, cynical hipster who complains your work is "shallow" and "old fashioned."
> 
> 2. If you write a story consisting of shades of gray, you will be criticized by a jaded, cynical hipster who complains your work is "too trendy" and "uninspired." He will then go on to mention that he was one of GRRM's original fans, and further add that it's "really sad to see so many people trying to cash in on his work."
> 
> 3. If you write a story that deals with concepts of good and evil (column a) but in a way where the people who wrestle with them are imperfect (coumn b), you will criticized by a jaded, cynical hipster who will call your work "shallow, trendy, uninspired,  and old fashioned." He'll then forget what he was talking about and start writing about his fanfic where he ships GRRM and Ursula K LeGuin.



So what you're saying is, the only true morality is one that condemns hipsters? I'm on board with that!


----------



## Amanita

This is a difficult. There are some acts we're probably all viewing as evil. Sexual abuse of children is the thing that comes my mind first when thinking about this category. Other actions are evil in my opinion but for the cultures that do perform them, they're actually supposed to be some sort of moral obligation. So-called honour killings or further back in history, human sacrifices fall are among these for me. I can't see how someone can justify this, but the people who do it/have done it, probably have found ways to do so for themselves.

There are other situations where this isn't easy. Imagine country A waging war against county B because B's government has been training terrorists to attack A. A city in B might get bombed because there are terrorists supposed to hide there. The bombs also hit innocent civilians however. (Or they're actually supposed to hit civilians so they'll stop to support their government's war as has been common at least up to WWII.) 
If this was part of a story, it could be told from the point of view of a woman trying to survive their with her children. In her eyes, the actions of country A would be evil and the reader would feel this way as well if this story was all there was. The story could also be told from the point of view of one of the bomber pilots who wants to do the best he can for country A and tries to avoid being shot down and captured by B knowning he'd be tortured and probably killed if he was. From his point of view, country B would be evil and his actions justified. If both characters have their parts in the story, we've got moral ambiguity and I fail to see why that's supposed to be a bad thing. Might be, because similar situations are quite common in my stories. 

If you use Orcs whose lives don't matter as opponents, these problems are gone away of course, but I still don't think this should be done to make moral decisions easier. 

I don't think writing war and especially pre-industrial war can be written realistically without both sides committing cruel acts. It can be done despite of it to show the special honour of the heros, but I don't know if it has to be.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I don't know what you call it, but this is the thing I have a problem with:  

When we played D&D (many years ago), say we stumbled on a treasure trove and I'm a thief that just found a +2 magic two-handed sword of I don't have enough strength points to wield it...

I stick it in my bag of holding to sell later, and my party member turns to me and says, "Our paladin should get that."

Dilemma.  I want to sell it.  I'm a thief who wants the money.  Do I have to give it to the party member it is best suited for just because I cannot make the most of the item right now?

This is how I view morality.  Some people think in that situation you ought to do the thing that will help everyone out the most, whereas I simply told my friend he hadn't seen me take the sword in game and didn't know I had it, thereby forestalling any debate in character of whether I had to give my prize to someone else.

Was my action evil?  Immoral?  Illegal?  No.  I made the choice that was right for me, sticking to my character's nature.

I'm so tired of people debating these points using murder or some other heinous situation as the foundation, because it turns the whole debate into a black and white moral debate AGAIN. If history has taught us anything on this forum, it's that some people think it's really easy to pull a trigger in someone's face, when in reality, it's harder than they think, even if they believe they are doing the right thing in some way.  It's how a character acts everyday that defines their moral code, not one decision made under duress which might haunt them the rest of their ordinarily moral life.


----------



## Lorna

> This quote just about sums up all that I find wrong with your statement. I don't see how a moral system developed only by humans, selfish creatures who are here today gone tomorrow, can have any lasting value.



I'm not sure what you mean when you say you are unable to see how a 'moral system developed only by humans... can have any lasting value.'  Morality and value are human constructs. You don't see trees and animals procrastinating over right and wrong. Sure, other races in fantasty novels might create moral systems, but humans made them up.

If you're saying that moral systems that are anthropocentric are flawed, I'm with you. Over the past few decades deep ecologists have been putting into question the 'go forth and multiply and dominate nature' attitude mankind have taken since Genesis and was reinforced by Bacon and Descartes in 16th and 17th C. There's alot of thought going into developing ethical systems from an ecocentric perspective- where man is part of the nature, not the one dominating it. But they're still human creations.

No moral system lasts forever. Look at how many different ones we've tried- virtue ethics in ancient greece, a variety of religious systems, utlitiarianism, 'duty' (Kant), now there's more ecocentric systems coming into existence. Like the human race moral systems are ever changing creatures.


----------



## Steerpike

Lorna said:


> Morality and value are human constructs.



That's one view. But religious people would say they are divine constructs that are ascertainable by humans, and that left to their own devices humans would not develop them. Even as you look at developing moral systems and values over time, one can credit the hand of god for guiding humanity if one is so inclined. I've heard often, from religious people, the idea that without god there can be no morality.


----------



## Kit

JonSnow said:


> The right and wrong is for the readers to decide. I don't think by creating characters with "moral ambiguity" you are making them all equally moral. I'll use George R. R. Martin as a perfect example of this. There is not a single "perfect" character, who makes every morally "right" decision, nor are there any characters who are 100% evil, and not capable of doing the right thing. Even Cersei Lannister loves her children and does everything she can to protect them (even if her methods are morally questionable).
> 
> This is called reality. No real person is morally perfect. Everyone is tempted to do bad things for personal gain (though they may resist doing it), and even horrible people will do good things for those they love. And everyone has their vices, whether it be whores or gambling or alcohol. I think you are confusing ambiguity with equality. Nobody thinks Jaime Lannister and Ned Stark are equals morally (to use a Song of Ice and Fire reference), but to say Jaime is purely evil and Ned is morally perfect is just as wrong.



One of the things I like about ASOIAF is that I can't make up my mind about those Lannister boys. I really like Tyrion, but I think he crossed a line by murdering Shae (Not that I don't understand his mindset at the time). I hated Jaime for what he did to Bran, and was appalled with myself later when he started becoming a little more of a sympathetic character (although I must say that pushing a seven year old out a tower window is just one of those things you just can't come back from, sorry).  George has got me jumping back and forth between "I like him, I hate him, he's evil, he's relatable" That makes for interesting characters.


----------



## Kit

Frog said:


> Protagonist is a doctor in a hospital.  Protagonist has, at this very moment in time, a number of different patients.  These patients need a new heart, a new liver, new lungs, and two patients need new kidneys.  Into Protagonist's ER, there comes a man who has suffered some mild head trauma.  He needs to be monitored, but he is otherwise perfectly healthy.  He is also blood type O-negative, and a compatible donor with all of the above patients.  What does Protagonist do?
> 
> This is the classic example of where the obviously "good" moral choice has a negative consequence.  Few people will look at this situation and say "kill the healthy patient to save the other five people."  Why?  Because it is terrifying for us to think of a world in which, at any moment, we can become a parts stock for other people.
> 
> But look at the scenario from another angle:  this doctor has the chance to save five lives for the price of one.  Isn't that a net gain?  If he murders his healthy patient, doesn't he get a positive consequence?  Five people get life.  Isn't that worth something?
> .



Ah, but they try to take this dilemma out of your hands by making you swear the Hippocratic Oath- "First do no harm".


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Kit said:
			
		

> One of the things I like about ASOIAF is that I can't make up my mind about those Lannister boys. I really like Tyrion, but I think he crossed a line by murdering Shae (Not that I don't understand his mindset at the time). I hated Jaime for what he did to Bran, and was appalled with myself later when he started becoming a little more of a sympathetic character (although I must say that pushing a seven year old out a tower window is just one of those things you just can't come back from, sorry).  George has got me jumping back and forth between "I like him, I hate him, he's evil, he's relatable" That makes for interesting characters.



Right on Kit.... I'm totally with you there!


----------



## Lorna

Steerpike, 


> That's one view. But religious people would say they are divine constructs that are ascertainable by humans, and that left to their own devices humans would not develop them. Even as you look at developing moral systems and values over time, one can credit the hand of god for guiding humanity if one is so inclined. I've heard often, from religious people, the idea that without god there can be no morality.



Admittedly, that's only one view, and probably quite a minor one. It's only a couple of centuries since the authority of the church has really come into question. Less people question the authority of the state, institutions and law to decide right and wrong. I guess it all goes back to 'the divine right of kings.' 

The belief that moral systems are divine constructs, works of the 'guiding hand of god' might encompass religious people of monotheistic faiths but what about polytheistic religions? I'm religious, but I'm pagan and the gods and spirits of my local land differ widely in what they expect. Some expect certain recognisable codes of conduct, others are idiosyncratic and some don't give a hoot about morality so long as they're treated with respect. 

Interesting topic


----------



## Helen

Mindfire said:


> What do you guys think about this issue of moral simplicity, moral ambiguity, and moral complexity?



I don't mind morally simple.

Moral complexity and ambiguity are more or less the same IMO ; you have to be careful not to preach unless the topic lends itself to ambiguity/complexity.

I like some of my characters to be morally simple and others to be morally elastic.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

I'm all for complexity. Will use ambiguity very sparesely, though. Too much ambiguity signals an unwillingness to commit.

I like my villains to have sensible reasons for acting the way they do, but they still need to be distinctly villainous. I also want my heroes to be heroic and admirable, but not to the point of being unrealistic.



Caged Maiden said:


> I don't know what you call it, but this is the thing I have a problem with:
> 
> When we played D&D (many years ago), say we stumbled on a treasure trove and I'm a thief that just found a +2 magic two-handed sword of I don't have enough strength points to wield it...
> 
> I stick it in my bag of holding to sell later, and my party member turns to me and says, "Our paladin should get that."
> 
> Dilemma.  I want to sell it.  I'm a thief who wants the money.  Do I have to give it to the party member it is best suited for just because I cannot make the most of the item right now?
> 
> This is how I view morality.  Some people think in that situation you ought to do the thing that will help everyone out the most, whereas I simply told my friend he hadn't seen me take the sword in game and didn't know I had it, thereby forestalling any debate in character of whether I had to give my prize to someone else.
> 
> Was my action evil?  Immoral?  Illegal?  No.  I made the choice that was right for me, sticking to my character's nature.



Give the sword to the paladin. The paladin now owes you money, which he will of course pay you because he is lawful good. Or, you ask him to give you an equivalent share of the loot in return for the sword.

See, moral choices are all good and well, but one also has to consider common sense. It doesn't always have to be a dichotomy.


----------



## Kit

Caged Maiden said:


> I don't know what you call it, but this is the thing I have a problem with:
> 
> When we played D&D (many years ago), say we stumbled on a treasure trove and I'm a thief that just found a +2 magic two-handed sword of I don't have enough strength points to wield it...
> 
> I stick it in my bag of holding to sell later, and my party member turns to me and says, "Our paladin should get that."
> 
> Dilemma.  I want to sell it.  I'm a thief who wants the money.  Do I have to give it to the party member it is best suited for just because I cannot make the most of the item right now?
> 
> This is how I view morality.  Some people think in that situation you ought to do the thing that will help everyone out the most, whereas I simply told my friend he hadn't seen me take the sword in game and didn't know I had it, thereby forestalling any debate in character of whether I had to give my prize to someone else.
> 
> Was my action evil?  Immoral?  Illegal?  No.  I made the choice that was right for me, sticking to my character's nature.
> .




From a practical point of view, it could be argued that if your party got attacked around the next bend, you might be wishing you had put that weapon in the hands of one of your allies who could use it!


----------



## ALB2012

Interesting debate. I suppose it depends on the world and the characters. Very few people are totally good or totally evil and good and evil are relative terms.  For example, in my novel world, which is pretty dark and corrupt the male MC kills a WH, who he could actually release- he has the information he needs, he is there to rescue the mage who has been kidnapped and brutally treated by the Witch-Hunters. Whether this particular Witch-Hunter was involved is not specified but the MC kills him. There is no  mercy for the mages within those walls so he will provide no mercy to those inside. He does not claim to be a good man but he is fighting against a greater evil and an evil system. In this case the WH was following orders or at least did not object to a corrupt and brutal regime.  He however believes he is in the right.
The  MC  is I think at best in the D and D scheme of things NE or CG. 

My characters are complex (I hope). Even the good characters become darker but provide a "good" moral code for the darker ones.

In response to the above post with the D and D example- As a DM I would have said if the thief was not seen by the other characters grabbing the sword then they as characters couldn't say anything. Taking the item is in character.
Player wise- a little more tricky.  The Paladin could use it but what else did he have, was this item that much better? What did he have? What did he find? I think it is up to the player- if you decide to hand it over then do so BUT if it is within the character to keep it then do so.  I would assume the Pally had a weapon of his own and could deal with any monsters "around the next bend."  If you hadnt handed it over and you did get attacked then you can morally rebuke yourself

I think the difference here is player and character are not the same person.  I would say though why is thief wielding a 2 Handed sword- too slow, Thief needs a fast blade


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Kit said:


> From a practical point of view, it could be argued that if your party got attacked around the next bend, you might be wishing you had put that weapon in the hands of one of your allies who could use it!



Hence why selling or trading the sword to the paladin makes the most sense. 

Heck, if the paladin is the honorable sort, as paladins are supposed to be, you could simply _borrow _him the sword if he promises to give it back after the dungeon crawl. 

Being greedy and selfish isn't the same thing as being short-sighted and unreasonable, is what I'm saying. In fact, being greedy and selfish should make you _more _inclined to maximize your advantages in a given situation.


----------



## JonSnow

Steerpike said:


> That's one view. But religious people would say they are divine constructs that are ascertainable by humans, and that left to their own devices humans would not develop them. Even as you look at developing moral systems and values over time, one can credit the hand of god for guiding humanity if one is so inclined. I've heard often, from religious people, the idea that without god there can be no morality.



Yeah, this is actually a debate for an entirely other issue (probably a different forum, actually). I think the idea that "without God there can be no morality" is a load of garbage. Whether or not you believe in God, if you think people who don't accept God aren't capable of morality, your head is up your anus. Morality is definitely a human construct, and therefore what is and isn't moral is all a matter of perspective. Look at marriage as a perfect example. In the middle ages (and long before it), as soon as a girl could menstruate (usually around age 13-14), she was fit for marriage and having babies, usually with an older man. Now, these girls would be considered minors, and a man over age 18 having sex with a 14 year old girl would go to jail. 

This wasn't even a moral decision in their eyes, that far in the past. It was a practical and economic way of life. Now that other factors have changed (like women's rights, less need for child labor, etc.), morality has changed with it. Again, its all about perspective. That's why black and white morality is faulty.


----------



## Steerpike

JonSnow said:


> Whether or not you believe in God, if you think people who don't accept God aren't capable of morality, your head is up your anus. Morality is definitely a human construct, and therefore what is and isn't moral is all a matter of perspective.



The way I've heard it presented is that whether you believe in God or not, you are still capable of morality, but it is because God created you with that capacity. So the believer would say "Look, God still created you with that moral sense. The fact that you don't acknowledge he exists doesn't change that."

I don't agree that all morality is a matter only of perspective. Certainly much of it is, but I think we can all come up with hypotheticals that would be pretty universally reviled.


----------



## JonSnow

Steerpike said:


> The way I've heard it presented is that whether you believe in God or not, you are still capable of morality, but it is because God created you with that capacity. So the believer would say "Look, God still created you with that moral sense. The fact that you don't acknowledge he exists doesn't change that."
> 
> I don't agree that all morality is a matter only of perspective. Certainly much of it is, but I think we can all come up with hypotheticals that would be pretty universally reviled.



You may live in a less conservative part of the country than I do... I have actually had this discussion with a lot of people (religion is one of my favorite topics), and they have outright said on many occasions, without God, you can't be moral...which I take offense to since I am a non-believer, but consider myself a moral person. 

There are aspects of morality that I believe are instinctual, or that we are "wired with", such as protecting your young, not killing your own species unless they are a threat to you (in the animal kingdom they might threaten your food source, your mate, your cubs, etc, which would warrant killing). Mentally stable humans, obviously, have the capacity to find other solutions to these conflicts. And for the most part, we all have a basic sense of right and wrong. But each individual is going to differ on finer points of those.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

JonSnow said:


> You may live in a less conservative part of the country than I do... I have actually had this discussion with a lot of people (religion is one of my favorite topics), and they have outright said on many occasions, without God, you can't be moral...which I take offense to since I am a non-believer, but consider myself a moral person.



People _do_ say that, and it's self-evidently not true. But Steerpike's point still stands; the argument is _also_ made that without a deity to have inculcated us with a moral sense to begin with, we wouldn't have one. (I don't buy that argument at all, but it's out there.)


----------



## Mindfire

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> People _do_ say that, and it's self-evidently not true. But Steerpike's point still stands; the argument is _also_ made that without a deity to have inculcated us with a moral sense to begin with, we wouldn't have one. (I don't buy that argument at all, but it's out there.)



The point Steerpike presented happens to be the side of the issue I stand on. But I don't think debating the issue further will be terribly constructive. The topic will inevitably devolve into a believer vs non-believer shouting match. I've seen it happen before on other forums. Please let's not have that here.


----------



## Steerpike

JonSnow said:


> You may live in a less conservative part of the country than I do... I have actually had this discussion with a lot of people (religion is one of my favorite topics), and they have outright said on many occasions, without God, you can't be moral...which I take offense to since I am a non-believer, but consider myself a moral person.



Jon, it is true that people make that argument. I was limiting my comments to what I've heard from thinkers on the issue - educated, thoughtful people who know atheists aren't necessarily immoral (as Benjamin pointed out, it is self-evident). So the position they take is that a deity exists and imparts morality, whether you know it or not. At that point, the argument boils down to two opposing and unprovable propositions, so it is hard to take things much further.


----------



## JonSnow

Mindfire said:


> The point Steerpike presented happens to be the side of the issue I stand on. But I don't think debating the issue further will be terribly constructive. The topic will inevitably devolve into a believer vs non-believer shouting match. I've seen it happen before on other forums. Please let's not have that here.



very true. and I have too much respect for the intelligence of people in here to have this argument. because it never ends well, and people get really angry really fast.


----------



## Steerpike

JonSnow said:


> very true. and I have too much respect for the intelligence of people in here to have this argument. because it never ends well, and people get really angry really fast.



If it looks to go in that direction, I think the discussion should be stopped immediately. We can turn it back toward morality, which was the original subject. Religious discussion is a natural consequence of that, especially when you delve into areas of ambiguity or subject v. objective morality, but let's not let religion become the focal point. I have faith that everyone in this thread can keep a respectful and rational discourse going.


----------



## JonSnow

Steerpike said:


> If it looks to go in that direction, I think the discussion should be stopped immediately. We can turn it back toward morality, which was the original subject. Religious discussion is a natural consequence of that, especially when you delve into areas of ambiguity or subject v. objective morality, but let's not let religion become the focal point. I have faith that everyone in this thread can keep a respectful and rational discourse going.



So back to morality, I will sum up my thoughts on it like this.... the very definition and source of human morality is grayed, and is different for everyone. Therefore, I would say that the very idea of moral purity (either purely good or purely evil) is a false premise. In that regard, any realistic character is morally ambiguous to a certain extent, whether the author wants it that way or not. You could have a character that makes every "good" decision throughout an entire book, and never show any evil tendancy. But he might have pre-marital sex with his girlfriend. This, in some readers' eyes, would make him a morally poor character. Other readers might not even think twice about it. There are literally endless examples of moral gray.... in addition to the "universal" morals, like throwing a child from a window or raping a woman, being evil.


----------



## Feo Takahari

JonSnow said:


> There are literally endless examples of moral gray.... in addition to the "universal" morals, like throwing a child from a window or raping a woman, being evil.



I think the only universal we can point to is "don't harm members of the tribe." For instance, rape of one's wife was generally considered acceptable in times and places where women weren't considered full members of society.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

JonSnow said:
			
		

> I would say that the very idea of moral purity (either purely good or purely evil) is a false premise.



For the vast majority of people (and therefore characters) this statement holds true. However, as we are in large part, defined by our actions, this generality cannot extend to everyone. As you stated there are certainly evil acts that should be construed as evil regardless of viewpoint. 

In terms of character's though, I feel that the gray immoral types are more interesting because we as people can feel and sympathize with the character arc. They can spiral further into evil, moving towards the pure evil or they can have a chance a redemption. It's this possibility of change (either way) which makes a gray character inherently more interesting than the purely good or purely evil. Either of the extremes would, by definition, be impervious to change.... And to me, that's boring.


----------

