Moral Ambiguity vs. Moral Complexity

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Ämting]

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.

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]

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 Ämting]

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.