So we've been over all these various moral and theological issues of right and wrong. We've talked about sacrifice, suicide, assassination, torture. So, having made up our minds (or not, just play along) as to the right and wrong of things; what is your take on breaking all those rules and doing it anyway?

I am not advocating violating moral principles in real life, nor attempting to justify them. I'm discussing the exceptions; when in fictional writing you use something that's morally dubious to acheive a virtuous goal.

Can you justify murder without condoning it? Can you have your MC kill himself, for the right reasons, and not be saying that suicide is acceptable? Is having a character do something wrong to accomplish good, and portraying it as such, condoning wrong? Or simply exerting your artistic license?

*um's and ar's and ponders and finally posts*

I believe that anything morally dubious or sinful can be written in a way that makes the reader understand the reasons why a character did them. However this should also be accompanied strongly by the fact that it is recognized that he did the wrong thing. Or you could change the character's point of view: in which when they committed the deed they justified themselves, but by the end of the book realize what they did was the wrong thing.

I could probably expand on that... but I'm a little foggy right now so I'll leave it there.

In my head I could justify killing someone (in real life and in my story) if it was in self defense. Obviously in real life I would want to avoid ever having to do that, but there's a point where you have to look out for your well being.

It's also somewhat tricky because you look in the Old Testament and see all the wars God sent the Israelites off to. Did God think killing was right? Did He want to kill something He created and loved? What did the Israelites think about killing people? How did they justify it? Especially when the Lord himself wrote the 6th Commandment, "Thou shalt not murder."

Some of those questions are rhetorical, I know, but some are honest questions that I actually hadn't thought about until I started typing.

I hope I didn't derail or go on a random tangent.

~Calen

I was watching a TV show once and there was a little narration. I'm not entirely sure this is the exact quote, but it went something like, "Sometimes people do bad things for good reasons."

Anyhow, something snapped and I got an idea for six books, but, yah, that's what came to mind here. I've watched plenty of TV shows (but sadly I am lacking in books) where the main characters do something that is bad because, to them, it seems good. Obviously, they aren't justifying bad, but rather showing that even the main characters make mistakes and can be deceived. So their sad mistake of confusing right for wrong can be used to teach a moral lesson. Perhaps, for half the book you can have the main character telling themselves they did the right thing, but in the end it turns out they did the wrong thing.
Not exactly sending mixed messages, but trying to get a point across that right and wrong can be confused and jumbled together to the point of some really big mistakes.

In the end, though, I don't think you can really justify pure evil. There are certain scenarios where murder is okay (self-defense like Calen said or maybe the main character thought it was the right thing to do, but learns it was wrong.), but if we are talking out of those scenarios there is no justification for that. Repentance and forgiveness, yes, but pre-meditated, cold-blooded murder is not right. That would just be one example, though.

Okay...so that's the only answer I could come up with. Feel free to contradict me.

Bethany Faith

Must get to a computer!

Do Airi.

Thank you, Aussie, I now have a computer, and you reminded me that I was supposed to post in here

Now, first of all, I think that this can be done, but it has to be done the right way so that there is no question what is right and what is wrong. I don’t think we should portray something wrong as being right. However I do think your character can do something “wrong”, and be right in doing it. Did I confuse you? I have a tendency to do that, but I will hopefully explain it all so that you are no longer confused. Now, let us begin.

Okay, how many of you have seen the movie National Treasure? If you haven’t, go watch it! I absolutely love this movie. It is one of my all time favorites.

Now, why do I bring this movie up? Because this movie has the perfect example of what we are discussing. In the movie NT, Ben (main character) views himself as a treasure protector. We love Ben Gates. Why? Because Ben worships history and has led a life that was dedicated to protecting the history of America. The founding fathers are his idols. He looks to their standards to help shape his life. And he is search for a treasure, one of great historical and intrinsic value. What is the problem? He finds out, through a series of clues, that the invisible map is on the back of the Declaration of independence. That’s right people, one of the most important and heavily guarded documents in our nation. Now here is the problem. Ian, the bad guy, says for Ben to let him deal with this. He will… how did Ian word it?... anyways, Ian is gonna steal it for them. Now, Ben, being the wonderful character that he is, says “no, Ian, I’m not going to let you steal the declaration of independence.” A gun fight and lots of action and explosions ensue, yadayadayada, I won’t make you all sit through my ranting on how wonderful this movie is

Now what happens next is interesting. This is what Ben says to the delightfully lovable Riley:

Ben Gates: Of all the ideas that became the United States, there's a line here that's at the heart of all the others. (reads the Declaration of Independence) "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security." People don’t talk that way anymore.
Riley Poole: that’s beautiful… And I have no idea what you just said.
Ben: It means if there's something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action. (continues to stare at the Declaration) I’m going to steal it.
Riley: (chuckles like it is a joke, looks at Ben, sees he’s not joking and his eyes get big). What?
Ben: I’m going to steal the Declaration of Independence.
Riley: (nervous disbelieving chuckles as Ben walks away from the display). Uh, Ben-

NEXT SCENE

Riley: This is... huge. Prison… huge. You are gonna go to prison. You know that, right?
Ben Gates: Yeah, probably.
Riley: Well... that would... bother most people.
Ben: Ian is going to try to steal it, and if he succeeds, he’s going to destroy it. The fact is that the only way for me to protect the Declaration of Independence, is for me to steal it. It’s upside down. I don’t think there is another choice.
Riley: Ben, for goodness sakes, It’s like stealing a national monument. It can’t be done. Not just that it shouldn’t be done, it can’t be done.

From here the story goes on. But the line I really want to hit in on is this one. Ben says this to Abigail (who doesn’t know his plans) right before he steals the Declaration. He cryptically says this to her, in a toast:

Ben: A toast. To high treason. That's what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. Had we lost the war, they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and-Oh! Oh, my personal favorite- had their entrails cut out and burned! So... Here's to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right... what they knew was right.

And that statement is so true. There are times in our lives and histories when we do have to do what is considered wrong. Our founding Fathers did. But they did it because it was right! Jews were hidden from the Nazis because they knew it was right! I think that we can deal with these subjects, but there is a right way to do it. Make sure that what your character is doing is right. They may break laws and commit crimes to do it, but it is the right thing to do. I am a firm believer that breaking the law when something is right, is the right thing to do. And I will do it, if our world comes to that point before I die.

However, I don’t think we should allow our characters to do wrong for something that is not necessarily right. It needs to be right. I don’t think it is beneficial for us to mix messages and blur the clear lines of scripture.

Yay! Long Airi post!

*reads* *agrees* *realizes she just said the moral of one of my books better than I can* *skippity skips away whilst humming random tune*

That was the beautiful part of National Treasure. *refrains from a long rant on the subject*

But your last sentence is kind of more what I'm driving at.

*chuckles * I'm glad it helped, Bethy. I think this is a complex issue, and a very poignant one. I'm glad Katie brought it up.

I agree with your wonderfully long post.

That was a great post, Airi. *is fellow fan of NT* And I entirely agree with you on the point of breaking the law if the said law contradicts what is truly right.

However, in my view, I don't think this thinking corresponds to human life. I've been pondering this before I posted, and I can't think of a single instance where taking someone's life (either directly or indirectly) could ever be the "right" thing to do. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

(sorry if that sounded a little harsh; I couldn't think of a better way to word it...)

The attempts to assassinate Hitler. They weren't self-defense. They were thought out, premeditated, intentions to kill someone in cold blood. (And yes, they all failed )And I think that most would agree that it was doing a wrong thing for a right reason.

Or we could go Old Testament (*is surprised this hasn't been brought up yet*) and look at Rahab who flat out lied to protect the two Israelite spies.

There's of course the old question of stealing to feed one's family. Ironically, the sermon in church this morning was about how what's wrong is wrong no matter what and it used this example. I think we could all agree that the action is wrong in spite of right motives. The same thing applies women who enter wrong professions in order to support their families. There is an extent to which our world is so fallen that even right and noble motives can be warped into yielding sinful actions.

But I think the issue that Katie's original query and Airi's post seem to be pointing to is when characters are put in situations in which none of the available choices are "right" choices, but one has "the right reasons". And they do not trick themselves into thinking that what they're doing is right, but know full well that what they're doing is wrong. Situations of choosing the lesser of two evils. How God views these situations and choices? I think we'd have to ask Rahab.

Thanks for those thoughts, Seer.

I think I have finally pinpointed why I view this differently: I believe that the Old Testament ways of doing things, (aka killing, stealing, lying for the right reasons) was nulled when Jesus died on the cross. From then on, when people killed, stole, or lied for the "right reasons", those reasons were man's solutions to the problem, not God's. Could God have had a better solution to the problem if more people were on their knees when Hitler reigned? Instead of solving the problem with the only way out they could see, could God have done something differently if there were more prayer warriors?

I'm sorry, I'm going off topic. This is a tough topic, one I view differently, so I think I'll sit by and watch the conversation instead of shaking the ladder.

All murder is wrong. But, not all killing is wrong. For example, killing animals for food is not wrong. God gave us His permission to do that (Genesis 9:2-3).
And executing murderers is not wrong. God commanded us to do this, way back in Noah's time (Genesis 9:5-6). This basic law is what has kept things from getting as bad as they did before the Flood.
Now, God commanded us not to murder, in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). But, doesn't that forbid standing by, doing nothing, while a murderer is murdering somebody? That is almost like helping him do his dirty work. What if he is about to murder you? That is just as wrong as it is for him to murder somebody else. You have to try to stop him. Thus, killing in self defense is not wrong, either.
YES, we should pray. But we should also take action. Why did God give us commandments like Genesis 9:5-6 if He did not want us to do anything to defend ourselves, and stop the schemes of the wicked?

Aemi, that's where my view clashes. I don't believe stepping in to kill someone in self defense is necessary since Jesus died on the cross. Jesus is the "way" in more then one way. He has opened the door for God to do things in our lives. He has also given us authority. Where if someone witnessed a person being killed, they might step in and kill the killer. However I believe if that person was walking in the Christian faith, they would have the authority to say, "In the name of Jesus, leave that man alone!" and they would.

It's a hard view for me to explain this view, and there may be places you can point out holes, but I feel this is what the New Testament teaches. I'll shush now, but if anyone wants to ask a question, feel free to PM.

Yeah, I disagree on that one, Aussie.

However, I think your recommendation to PM you is wise. This isn't really what Katie intended for this thread to be about, so I'd say let's steer it back, since it is beginning to veer a little.

*totally forgot about this*

Yeah, what Katie is saying is deliberately making your characters make the wrong choice, and giving them no other choice, I think... anyway.

Thanks for all of ya'll's input. It's definitely very thought provoking.

There are situations that come close to that in life, too.

Sometimes, when authors do that sort of thing, it bothers me. It bothers my sense of Biblical accuracy (there is a way of escape out of all temptation: we don't HAVE to do evil, no circumstance can force us to).

But something the author can do is make it appear (to the character and probably the reader) that there is no right choice. You do this using what is called (pardon the expression) a Sucker's Choice.

An pertinent example: for reasons not known to me, you are perched atop a building, with a sniper rifle. It is loaded, and you know how to operate it. In an alley below you a man is about to violate a woman. You assume that you have two options (let him, or shoot him). You just forgot that there are ways of using weapons that don't kill people.

That's true...You could distract him by shooting the wall next to him, or you could yell to him not to move or you'll shoot, and hold him at gunpoint until police arrive.
And if you absolutely had to shoot him, you could shoot him in the arm or something.

Very nice sumary, Brendan. Thanks.

I like some of the dramatic situations that 1 sets up, but it would never be a real life situation for me. I've had it drilled into my head that "The end never justifies the means."

I think I use, or would use, 2 a lot just because I like non-typical MCs who do the wrong things for the right reasons or the right things for the wrong reasons...



I've been wanting to write that for a while...

Anyway, 3 is the one that makes me most curious, and is the one I think I talk about the most. Moral dilemmas with no real answer.

I do not think it was wrong at all. And I do not know that what Rahab did was lying. In Websters Dictionary lying is to utter a falsehood with immoral design, and what Rahab did was uttering a falsehood with moral design, as different as marriage and adultery.

David did the same, multiple times; and Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees, when they accused the disciples of breaking the sabbath, because they did not remember that David ate the shewbread, which was not lawful: at the same time that David ate the shewbread he told a complete falsehood to the priest of God, to protect both himself and the priest.