Of course, we can all complain and ridicule the current moral code our society (neighbors) have adopted. We can opine how stupid and silly their moral code is and how we would write the code differently, but that is really only saying "My personal moral code is better and society would do well to adopt my values. By God." In short, it does no good to opine about the smartness or dumbness of society's rules. Doing so is only a theoretical argument. One must work to get the rules that one dislikes changed. It could happen. Society's code can change. It has happened before.
Another place we learn our moral code is through religion. I state the obvious. Religion is, more or less, one big moral code, and if one learns it from early childhood, one accepts it tenets, whether it be Islam or John Calvin's version of Christianity. Religion is more like society's rules, though, in that you HAVE to go by it's rules if you want to be a part of it. Religion is different than society in that you can't really change it; you can only leave.
There is a lot more I could say about morals and morality, but I would probably only start getting intrusive, and that isn't my intent in these posts. As usual, I only seek to research truth and to restate what I think I have found that truth to be, for my own benefit mostly.
Man cannot live in society without a moral code; he can't just go around doing as he pleases.
Allowing people to come CLOSE to doing as they think best is the best kind of society to live in, don't you think? As soon as I wrote the preceding sentence, I realized I don't really believe it; man needs structure and order to thrive, and sometimes that means a certain structure must be imposed upon us.
What are your own thoughts about that?
Do you believe that the moral code you have formulated for yourself, based on what you have learned so far in life, is the best moral code?
Do you agree that when you ridicule certain "dos and don'ts" that society tells us we must abide by, you are really only comparing them to your own set of values?
I personally believe one cannot judge the goodness or badness of a society's moral code without, at the same time, comparing that code to one's own personal moral code, and noting flaws or excellence - defined by how society deviates from our own personal values or how society is congruent with our personal values. I also think the exact same process takes place when an author creates a fictional character in a book: that fictional character has "good points and admirable qualities" only when those "good qualities" are in harmony with the author's true real-life code of morals; and the character can only have "bad or even despicable" qualities when those acts deviate from the author's personal view of what is good and acceptable. In other words, the author, without perhaps even thinking about it, defines what is bad behavior for the fictional character by contrasting it to personal definitions of "goodness and acceptable behavior" in the author's real life.
You think your morals are ambiguous? The dictionary tells me ambiguous means undefined or open to more than one interpretation.
Really?
I certainly believe a person can consciously refrain from judging the morals of other people (a lot of the time.) I certainly believe a person can have a very broad live-and-let-live personal moral code. But I also think that no matter how broad it is, it is still defined - else one day you could murder and rape without remorse, and the next day you would be horrified to do the same thing. And you would countenance horrible and hurtful acts by others, because you had no opinion on the subject.
I believe we all have a moral code. Some people's list is longer than others'. But what things, long or short, are on our list, they ARE defined.
Wow! So much here to comment on.
ReplyDelete"Religion is different than society in that you can't really change it; you can only leave." Sometimes you can't even leave, given a number of theocracies (which also do not necessarily allow for change since they're usually not democracies).
"Allowing people to come CLOSE to doing as they think best is the best kind of society to live in, don't you think? As soon as I wrote the preceding sentence, I realized I don't really believe it; man needs structure and order to thrive, and sometimes that means a certain structure must be imposed upon us."
I think structure can be helpful under the right circumstances (or destructive), but society is more than a set of laws; it's attitude and expectations taught down the lowest level. Crime isn't low in Japan because they have fewer laws (though I bet they do), but because the citizenry is expected to behave and imposes it's own sanctions (above and beyond the law) when that happens. In some things, they might seem morally lax to Western eyes. In others, hard data on crime, courtesy and responsibility argue strongly they far more effective in promoting their society's social mores than we are.
In other words, I'm not sure I can endorse or refute your statement you had problems with. It's too complex a question and depends on what you mean by structure and how it's imposed.
"Do you believe that the moral code you have formulated for yourself, based on what you have learned so far in life, is the best moral code?"
I believe it is the best one FOR ME. And I'm not being sly. I know where mine comes from and why I'm unwilling to change it. I can't imagine feeling so superior as to tell someone who built their differently they must conform to mine.
"Do you agree that when you ridicule certain "dos and don'ts" that society tells us we must abide by, you are really only comparing them to your own set of values?"
I compare them to the premise: "hurt no one else unncessarily" and only that. Restrictions/laxness that cause unnecessary ill I regard as "bad" and work to correct.
I'll stop there so your comment thingee doesn't eat my comment, but I'll be adding more.
"I personally believe one cannot judge the goodness or badness of a society's moral code without, at the same time, comparing that code to one's own personal moral code, and noting flaws or excellence - defined by how society deviates from our own personal values or how society is congruent with our personal values. I also think the exact same process takes place when an author creates a fictional character in a book: that fictional character has "good points and admirable qualities" only when those "good qualities" are in harmony with the author's true real-life code of morals; and the character can only have "bad or even despicable" qualities when those acts deviate from the author's personal view of what is good and acceptable. In other words, the author, without perhaps even thinking about it, defines what is bad behavior for the fictional character by contrasting it to personal definitions of "goodness and acceptable behavior" in the author's real life."
ReplyDeleteHere, I disagree with you. I have a handful of characters (less than five?) that share my exact moral character but at least twice as many that share part of it at least and allow many things I do not. Some have restrictions I don't personally abide by. A number are, at best, "do no unnecessary harm" but pretty much allow themselves anything else. I few don't even limit themselves on causing harm.
In fact, I delight in creating societies and circumstances that challenge our (and my own) sense of moral values, finding values that fit a particular past and environment. I also like to learn and pass along the reasoning on why I make some of the choices and values I do (which my characters will demonstrate).
Are they all duplicates of me or heading toward an all knowing me-ness? Hell no. Some, in fact, make no move in my direction.
That's what makes it all so interesting.
How do you know when your character is doing something bad? Bad, compared to what, if not to your own morality code? How do you write "bad" without have a standard of good to contrast it to?
ReplyDeleteAn author who is himself a serial rapist would not necessarily portray a rapist character as doing something wrong or bad. Instead, his character is simply participating in normal behavior. For THAT author, maybe having his character going to church would seem heinously despicable.
I stand by my contention that a character is good or bad depending only upon what his puppetmaster personally things is good or bad, or adverse to either.
If the author's values are, in the main, congruent with the mores of the larger society, then the reader will have the same general values as that society and the author, and will agree with the author that the character is repulsive.
ReplyDeleteWhen you seek to separate your personal values from a character's, you are merely thinking up stuff that YOU think is bad for him to do. And what YOU think is bad is your personal opinion, inflicted by proxy upon your character. You could not write otherwise and still be honest.
ReplyDeleteRelax Max, it's called imagination. I know what my code is, for me, and where I got it, what experiences, what examples, what lessons formed it.
ReplyDeleteSomeone with DIFFERENT lessons, powers, experiences, societal rules, etc won't have my moral values. He or she could do any number of things I would consider immoral for myself to do without me, as the author, treating them as bad (or, for that matter, good). Part of what I personally love to do is put characters in positions that challenge our notion of right and wrong.
An example: I have a character kidnapped and made an unwilling slave at the age of sixteen. She is used for sex against her will, tortured and beaten when she is disobedient as she frequently is, and has three children through her interactions with the tyrant who owes her. (I think the tyrant is "bad"). When she is tricked into killing her twin brother (who she had thought was dead), she realizes the tyrant will use anyone and anything to hurt her, including the three children she has with him. He's already hinting around at sexual interest with the two girls. She CAN'T physically kill him (yet). So, to save her children her fate, she kills them.
Right or wrong? I can say, with confidence, that killing one's own children violates my personal moral code (and society's). But, hell, I've never lived that life. Would she be more an accessory if she let them live, knowing what kind of life they'd lead? I know she meant it for the best for them, even though she's chosen to continue living her own life.
I have a discussion between many characters on whether she was right or wrong some centuries after the fact, but the point was that it wasn't a clear cut good/bad answer.
If she kills the tyrant in cold blood and with malice aforethought (honest to God murder), believing her children at risk, would that have been right? Even if she had no proof?
History is full of exigencies I've never faced. I've never faced a famine where my entire family could die where I might let some survive by drowning one of my daughters. I'm against drowning daughters, but, never having faced that kind of reality, I'm in no position to judge someone else any more than I could condemn someone else who let the entire family starve.
I often don't even tell my readers what's right and wrong. I let them decide for themselves.
You said, "When you seek to separate your personal values from a character's, you are merely thinking up stuff that YOU think is bad for him to do. And what YOU think is bad is your personal opinion, inflicted by proxy upon your character. You could not write otherwise and still be honest. "
ReplyDeleteNot so. The world is full of issues that don't fit neatly into a box, that are different degrees of good and bad. Selling one's body might be wrong (violates my personal moral code, but not something I consider inherently immoral for someone else) or steal to feed her children. Which is worse?
I am confident I can write characters that think and act outside the relatively humdrum and privileged bounds of my own life without being dishonest (other than the inherent dishonesty in being fiction).
So, I respectfully disagree with your assertion and offer up my own work as proof it CAN be done.
Well I KNOW it's called imagination. More importantly, I know wherefrom the imagination springs: the author's brain.
ReplyDeleteNo matter WHATEVER is portrayed in a novel, the thought originates with the author. But you are free to disagree, and I thank you for your thoughtful comments.
@Stephanie Barr - some of your points are logical and well-taken, though. Especially your point about sometimes you can't just walk away from a religion (in some countries, or, I suppose, in some fringe Mormon - or other - sects in the U.S. who routinely keep young girls in bondage.) I didn't even think of that, and you did. That point needs to be remembered.
ReplyDelete*standing ovation* :)
ReplyDeleteI love it... thx.
ReplyDeleteI have nothing of value to add to this debate!
Nice read!