Black and White Insanity Part 2: Scales of Justice and Morality

Morality is such a fascinating concept. So much so that I could go on about how it is somehow both subjective and objective at once. If something is objectively correct, then it should apply to everyone, but if it is subjective, morality then only applies to those who adhere to it. Let's take theft for example. We can agree it is wrong, but is it wrong to steal under any circumstance like trying to feed your starving family?

It's something to think about. I'm not here to argue moral objectivity, but I'm here to argue against turning it into some kind of scale.

Yep, Lady Justice. The scales of justice as a metaphor baffled for a long time.

Let's say you go out and kill some guy on the street, but you have recently had a child. One life gained; one life lost. By the logic of the scales, that would mean no crime would have been committed. The scale would be even. It would be as if the crime didn't happen at all. There is no need to atone. There is no need to improve. There is no need to treat it as anything else.

This logic, known as Stupid Neutral, goes like this as per Tv Tropes:

'Stupid Neutral' people tend to think of morality as balancing a metaphysical checkbook; any evil deed can be 'cancelled out' by committing an equally good deed. No remorse or atonement is needed; to these people, there is no Moral Event Horizon past which their actions cannot be forgiven by good works (or evil works, as the case may be). In short, these people are the types who will build an orphanage and then "balance it out" by burning down the orphanage across the street (so that people won't think they're sissies). This pattern of kicking the dog and then stopping to pet it immediately afterwards just results in a very neurotic dog... and a very confused audience.

So this leads me into this:

I made several characters over the past couple of years follow up on this inspiration when they have been hurt or betrayed. (Sick and tired of people pushing them, or TELLING them how to live or what is right and wrong) and just the same I follow that in real life.

Your faults and flaws don't tip the scales to the middle.

Whether you have a job or not
Whether you went to college or not
Whether you contribute to society in whatever way you do or did.

...that means nothing to me. Only your attitude and behavior decides the good or bad.

"You're either ALL good... or ALL bad... Pick one!"Whatever you've done MORE OF (Good or Bad) That's how I see you as you are.

Morality does not work this way. If it did, we would let people who were a part of my aforementioned example walk free which we do not. It simply does not work that way. This also pushes people into a small checklist of their sins which people simply are not.

I would refute the rest of Mykan's post, but let's be honest, it's an extended rant about characterization which is reserved for another blog. I'm just going to leave this here with something a classmate of mine said:

The first day at my Catholic high school, I walked into my theology class with a question on the board. It say 'is it easier to get to heave or hell and why?' The class concluded that it was simply easier to get to hell because we're the sum of our sins. The teacher asked us this, does anyone desire misery and woe from their lives? We answered, 'well, some people harm themselves'. He then brought up this point: all people who harm themselves do it for several reasons

1. Honor - they believe they are wrong and wish to atone
2. Power - they do it because it gives them some feeling of control
3. Pleasure - believe it or not, people do get sexual gratification out of it

No human seeks the bad, the misery, the woe. All of us seek the good, the kindness, the happiness, and the Agape love. We are not all inherently bad or constantly trying to find the light. We sit in the light and try not to fall into the darkness. We do not sin because we wish for bad; we sin because we see the illusion of good in places we know there is no good.