Decrypting My Brain

If the title scared you a little, it just shows you know me. :)

Since Jeff asked when I wrote the previous post, I'll go into some examples that might help clarify things for Relax Max, given that he thought I was being too politic/cryptic. Perhaps I was. He's written some posts on this subject that are quite complementary and worth reading if it's a subject that interests you, as it is one that interests me. You can find them here, here and here.

First, to explain my moral ambiguity. I'm basically a pacifist, but I'm not a true pacifist like Gandhi or King, who would not kill even to save their lives (if we assume their words reflected their true beliefs). And I know there are other true pacifists out there. No, I would, I think be willing to kill to save myself, certainly to save someone else...but I don't think I would kill just anyone. In other words, I'd kill a direct threat to my life or someone trying to kill someone else "innocent," but I couldn't kill, say, another poor schmoe trapped in the lifeboat with me. In that case, since I'm not afraid of dying, I'd probably ask they kill me kindly in my sleep and eat hearty.

That I would kill at all argues that my morals aren't fixed (though I believe they are); what they really are is complex and depend on circumstances. The thing is, most people, I believe, do the same thing. Most agree killing is wrong, but most also don't look at soldiers as murderers (nor do I, unless they really enjoy it for their own pleasure), even though they go into harm's way with the intent to kill to do what they are ordered to do. (I'm not suggesting soldiers are bad guys or the same as murderers, just pointing out the rationalizations most of us do.)

I know I couldn't personally kill someone for wearing a different uniform (though I could do defend myself - can't do it preemptively because I'm well aware the other side may have no more personal interest than I do). I couldn't drop bombs or accept collatoral damage. I'm not saying soldiers are villains because they can. I understand that, if they weren't willing to, there are worse things that can happen as a result. If everyone felt as I do, Hitler would never have been stopped. That's a pretty compelling argument that I should be grateful others are willin to do the dirty work. Everyone must make peace with their own necessities and find out where the lines are they can't cross. They aren't the same for all of us.

Although I think all of us do this to a certain extent - set out what's right and wrong, but lace it with caveats and circumstances that we implicitly understand mean we can accept breaking the rules in ourselves, that we can accept others for doing things we couldn't do, I'm not sure everyone really thinks about that, realizes that we do that. I think that's why it so easy for many people to judge, see some bit of this or that sensationalized story in the news and make a judgement on it. I rarely do that unless I'm very cognizant of the specifics and, even then, I'm always aware of the limitations of my understanding. Without having lived in those shoes, I'm very wary of presuming I know what their necessities, their morals should have been. There are exceptions. There are actions I can't bring myself to be open-minded about, like rape and sexually abusing children, true slavery. Or, in those cases where the motive was pathetic and utterly selfish, I'm unlikely to be sympathetic. And hypocrisy leaves me cold.

I made several points near the end and I wanted to provide examples as I promised. I told Relax Max, on his blog, that I revel in writing characters that challenge my own beliefs in right and wrong, and likely those of my readers. I like creating societies and circumstances where what was "good and bad" is far different than we're used to. I'm going to list several things my protagonists (or allies that stay allies of my protagonists) do that many would have a problem with. In all cases, I feel I've made a strong case that what they've done, even in those cases where it violated their moral code, were justifiable, even laudable. I'm not particularly fond of antiheroes. You might be surprised at what can be justified.

• Kill for hire.
• Let your daughter die when you could have prevented it.
• Murder with premeditation.
• Seduce someone with the intention of killing him.
• Torture someone for information.
• Kill someone who is not a direct threat.
• Create weapons of mass destruction (including a deadly biological weapon).
• Abandon slaves you've just freed.
• Have sex in public with a stranger.
• Pay for sex (I'm not sure I actually have a character doing so, but someone thinks about it.)
• Kill people on suspicion of threat.
• Mandate someone's death if they found out a secret.
• Kill your own brother.
• Kill your own children in cold blood.
• Beat someone up for the satisfaction of it.
• Lie.
• Abandon someone you love.
• Drink "green bug shit."
• Look the other way when others do things you think are evil.

Think it can't be done? I think a surprisingly large list of ostensibly heinous acts can, if not made into laudable actions, be things that could be understood, even sympathized with, under the right circumstances. And, yeah, I like playing around with the notion of doing just that.

The ironic thing is that Relax Max is right in a way. There are lines I won't have a protagonist cross. Nor do I think anyone would have a problem differentiating my "good" guys from my "bad." And, depending on the circumstances and the particular characters, there are some actions that one character can do quite handily and another could never do, even if circumstances were similar. That's what makes playing with characters and dealing with people in real life so very very interesting.

Read more...

Going Gray

When if comes to morals, I'm pretty hard to pigeonhole. On the one hand, I'm among the most rigidly moral people I know. Not just rigidly moral in that I have a strong opinion on what is and isn't right or wrong, but I actually live within that sense of right and wrong. If I slip on something minor, I take responsibility and atone (it doesn't happen much). Always. No exceptions. I believe, if I do something inexcusable to my set of moral values, I'd either turn myself into the cops or kill myself. I don't know, for sure. It hasn't come up yet. The right and wrong I'm talking about are moral limits I impose on myself to better myself and to make sure I can live with myself. They are not imposed by anyone other than myself. More on that later.

On the other hand, I do not impose my own set of morals on anyone else (with a very few notable exceptions). I do not expect others to behave like I do or see things as right or wrong the same way I do. Nor do I assume someone is amoral or immoral if his values are far different than mine or flexible. I do not make judgement calls on someone else's moral values under most circumstances. I'm also well aware that there are circumstances where people would do things that they would normally never do without violating their moral values (caveats built in). I have some of those, too.

Note also that my moral values don't map nicely to many people's, even most people's. I don't pretend they do. It's one reason I'm not a member of any organized religion. I don't necessarily see the same rights/wrongs they do and I'm not willing to compromise my own values. Not so much because I allow things they don't, ironically enough. Far more often the other way around.

There are things that are accepted by one society (or all of them) that I consider wrong or immoral. I make an effort not to judge the individuals involved, but I will also be vocal in my opinion that it's wrong (and frequently other things like stupid or short sighted, etc.). And I won't do that particular thing even if "everyone" is.

So, what I'm saying is that I'm both rigidly moral and morally flexible at one and the same time without conflict because I don't base right and wrong strictly on the act, but also the circumstances and I don't assume morality is absolute from person to person. In fact, I'm pretty sure morality isn't the same from person to person, even people who have the same religion, grew up in the same culture, or siblings in the same family.

I do consider someone immoral if they have moral values they don't apply to themselves (often hoping not to get caught or because they don't recognize the implication of their own action). I also find it sadly ironic that these same individuals are also the people most likely to want to impose their moral values on other people. I also think someone is amoral if there is nothing they wouldn't do to suit themselves.

I also believe there are certain activities society (in the form of laws) must outlaw for the greater good, even if there are circumstances that might make such activities justifiable (which is why I think jury trials are still reasonable). However, I generally only think this should apply people hurting one or more other people (stealing, cheating, beating, raping, killing, etc.) rather than people making decisions for themselves (drug use, suicide, lifestyle choice, etc.).

Why am I even talking about this? A couple of reasons. One, I'm called upon, once in a while, to deliver a judgement value on some current event. Generally, I refrain from doing so, particularly if I'm not acquainted with an unsensationalized version of the factors involved. For instance, dramatic criminal trials are often covered by the media, but usually only the most inflammatory "facts" show up in mass media with any number of mitigating factors left undisclosed. To base a judgement on that set of data would be, in my opinion, premature. I, at least, won't do so. There are a few cases, often involving confession, where I will offer an opinion, such as the Netherlands father who imprisoned his own daughter, raped her repeatedly, and effectively killed their children. Yes, I think he's a monster. I cannot, however, make an effective value judgement regarding his wife. I don't know the circumstances well enough.

Secondly, this is an important thing to understand when it comes to writing characters. Protagonists in any number of books can do a number of things generally considered "wrong" without violating their moral code (or even having readers object). Circumstancial conditions, you see. But readers are far more accepting of this if it's not hypocrisy, so the writer needs to be aware of the moral values of the character and the reasons why the character is violating them (if she is). In my case, I frequently have at least one character who shares my own values. I frequently have one that has the ambiguous values my husband has. It's interesting to contrast them. This understanding also helps me as a reader because things that could be black/white to someone else, I can sympathize with and accept if I understand the circumstances.

Thirdly, well, I have come to the opinion that many people are far too quick to rush to judgement without seeing the whole story or making broad-based assertions that really haven't been thought through. I think it helps with understanding the limitations available in laws (which must address the needs of large communities of people of varying moral values and can't really address gray areas without being utterly diffused) and the enforcement of said laws.

If I feel like it later, I might discuss some examples of what I'm talking about. If anyone expresses interest.

Read more...