Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've been seeing a lot of stories that have been getting assholian with their morals, and it's really been pissing me off.

Before we start, I'm not talking about "duh" morals. What I mean by a "duh" moral is a moral along the lines of "You should not kill people who did nothing to you." The kind of moral that would make most people go "duh".

No, I'm talking about the kind of moral that could be subject to dispute, such as abortion, Capitalism v. Socialism, etc. This could also be applied to ones irrelevant to our society, such as the UgolHugol elves vs. the HankyShanky elves. But I'm primarily referring to the kind applicable to real life.

If you can avoid putting this type of moral into your story, you probably should. However, if it absolutely positively MUST be done, there are several ways which I believe will make it less annoying.

And if I used a book you like as an example of what not to do or a show you don't like as an example of what to do, please don't take it personally.

The other side DOES have some kind of an argument.

Too often have I seen stories that only present one side of an issue, and act as if the other side has no side at all.

In the Sword of Truth series, someone (can't recall who) wants to have an abortion after being raped. Terry Goodkind is anti-abortion, which is very apparent by his protagonists' reactions to this woman wanting an abortion. When they ask her why, she says that the morals of the father might be hereditary.

Okay, what? This is not a legitimate argument. It, more likely than not, was never actually used in the real world by anybody. It makes it seem like the woman wanting an abortion was a complete nitwit. And, more importantly, it made it seem like the author was going, "SEE? Look at that? Aren't you pro-life NOW? You have to be, because the other side is completely stupid?" Regardless of whether or not Goodkind actually wanted to convert his readers to a pro-life stance, it seemed that way.

Try getting into an argument with a few eloquent people over your issue. If there is another side presented at all, it will make your opinion look so much less assholian.



The other side is not 100% supported by depraved dumbasses. Likewise, your side is not 100% supported by angelic geniuses.

““I deny nothing, only ask what good might be accomplished if your wealth were spread among the needy, the starving, the homeless, or even to buy supplies for the Varden. Instead, you’ve piled it into a monument to your own wishful thinking.”
“Enough!” The dwarf clenched his fists, his face mottled. “Without us, the crops would wither in drought. Rivers and lakes would flood. Our flocks would give birth to one-eyed beasts. The very heavens would shatter under the gods’ rage!” Arya smiled. “Only our prayers and service prevent that from happening. If not for Helzvog, where—”
Eragon soon lost track of the argument. He did not understand Arya’s vague criticisms of Dûrgrimst Quan, but he gathered from Gannel’s responses that, in some indirect way, she had implied that the dwarf gods did not exist, questioned the mental capacity of every dwarf who entered a temple, and pointed out what she took to be flaws in their reasoning— all in a pleasant and polite voice.” (From Eragon)

No. Aside from being an offender of the first point, this also has several other problems. First and foremost, the dwarf was losing his temper while Arya remained cool and collected. Our society generally views losing one's temper as a sign of immaturity. The fact that he lost his head over something said in a "pleasant and polite voice" further suggests immaturity. And the fact that Arya was actually questioning the morals and intellect of every one of the dwarves in a "pleasant and polite voice", itself, is a problem. Let's recap. Arya is calm and collected. Her speech is the more eloquent, and she is speaking in a polite tone of voice. The dwarf seems to be throwing a hissy fit. Who, exactly, does the author want us to side with, here?

But that's the problem. We're not going to side with Arya just because Paolini tells us to. Readers are not the humble servants of writers, believing whatever the author wants us to. This holds quadruple for real-world applicable morals, many of which we have already adhered to our own side. If you present the other side to make it look like it might possibly endear someone, then it will make a lot of difference. It's like the difference between a friend who will pester you to join their belief about something all day long and a friend who will occasonally get into an argument over it with you but will usually just agree to disagree. The latter is just less annoying.

An example I'm going to give of where morals were done correctly is South Park. Yes, South Park. In particular, the two-part Go, God, Go episode. In the first part of this episode, it was basically showing the arguments of Atheism v. Religion. Richard Dawkins represented the atheism side of the equation. His argument was eloquent, and he was presented as being intelligent and having morals. The Wise Otter and Stan represented the religious side of the equation, and their arguments were likewise intelligent and they had morals. Mrs. Garrison had been on both sides of this issue, and she represented the amorality and ridiculousness of both sides. I enjoyed this episode.

Virtually every argument has some people on each side who are intelligent and kind, and some people on each side who are depraved and stupid. "But," you may say, "people on their side of the argument are ALL evil dipshits, that's why they picked the other side instead of the Good Side." Sorry, no. You might want to think that but there are about three arguments in a billion that are subject to legitimate dispute and have all the good people on one side and all the bad people on the other.

You want all people to be able to enjoy your story. Not just people who adhere to one particular belief about something.



In short: Please stop being obnoxious with your morals. Thanks!

EDIT: By the way, your CHARACTER may not believe there is no one on the other side with any intellect or any of it, but your narration shouldn't (excepting, of couse, first person narration). And, even then, your character will probably run into a few legitimate arguments for the other side. While he or she may not be persuaded by them or think highly of the people presenting those arguments, they should at least be there.

In the first part of your rant.

Okay, about "morals being hereditary." Now, I'm just splitting hairs, but if your story was based around a society that demanded the genocide or sterilization of anyone they deemed morally unfit because they did see morals as hereditary and anyone with undesireable views had to be killed, that would be a totally legitimate reason not to want the baby, by that the woman was raped and did not want the baby to inherit the father's morals, you know, which would be bad ones because he raped her.

I dunno, this was the first thing that came to mind when I read the first part of your rant. That's not a stupid reason if that's what the society believes.

But, that's probably not the way it was, was it?

Yeah, I agree with this rant, though.

For me, morals are playthings and I let the reader take away whichever side they want.

I'd like to actually like to point out another example in television media, the Justice League Unlimited episode 'The Terror from Beyond,' also two episodes long. Although it portrays gods as real, it shows many different point of view, from Shyera (Hawkgirl) on the side of rejecting religion, Diana (Wonderwoman) on the side of casual religion, Dr. Fate as a Deeply religious person, Arthur Curry (Aquaman) as a very militarisitc and warrioresque devout, and Solomon Grundy as the not having a real theology, but has some sort of faith to the end.

I'm not sure what Superman represented (or why he was there in the first place honestly).

In the end, the story didn't say which faith to go with, pantheism, spaghetti monsterism, atheism, Greek mothology, etc. In fact, it doesn't even say you need faith, it just says it's there and it's not exactly to be understood, whatever one it is.

Just so you know, that example from Goodkind also occurred after the woman had been raped repeatedly for something like nine days, beaten up, and kept in extremely harsh conditions.

She wants to abort the baby not because it's a constant reminder, not because she doesn't want to be stuck with the consequences of the men's actions for fifteen years, but because she worries that the baby might be bad like the fathers.

Say what?


Goodkind is basically the epitome of what this rant is against. He's also very, very scary.

The best morals are the kind in the sci-fi literature. It's obvious what the author is saying, but he doesn't attack you with it. He makes you think and reconsider without telling you to do so.

Meh...I read some of it but it was too hard on my eyes. I'm so sorry.

All I can say is that I feel as though people can add their beliefs into a story if they want to. If they want to express their beliefs on a controversial subject using their writing, why not? Is writing not really just expressing our beliefs? Also, these days, most people like reading stories with a strong moral theme behind it; its usually the most popular books. Even if you don't add morals to it purposely, you may do it accidentally or people will read into your story more than they should and PUT morals in them.

However, I do agree that it should be tastefully done. No one really wants to just read about your view on the issue, period (unless that's honestly what they're looking for). No one wants a rant in story format. It should be incorporated subtly using symbols, metaphors, and other literary devices that aid in progressing the thematic idea of the story and not just blatantly poured into the plot without much substance. Like in Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. It expresses Ellison's views on Marxism, Black Nationalists, and other things. Though it isn't a book of literary merit, the comic book X-Men and many other Marvel comics focused a lot on prejudice.

So yeah, I think morals in books are good. I put my morals in my stories all the time. Afterall, I can't really express them any other way without being penalized for it.

Ommiting morals would be like... ommiting anything else major to characterization. XD

I think what you're talking about is when you start getting up on that ol' soap box. I personally think it's great to show your characters have morals, since it can show how they are, but it's not great to use them as a mouthpiece.

And if you do, to view it as objectively as possible.

As an example:

I researched a lot on the liberal view and conservitive view on Christianity and homosexuality before implicating it in one of my stories.

This gave me a firmer grasp as to why the ******** consveritives Christians were all huffy about it. surprised It seriously helped.

Through this, I didn't make my character who disagreed a total bigot. In fact, he was the one who stayed mostly calm in the debate with the other character, because I knew that it was more realistic for him as a person to do so, even though I completely disgareed with what he was saying.

I wasn't trying to make my point; mainly because I knew anyone reading it should already share my opinion. XD It IS slash.

I just needed to apply for a specific reason; for character development and characterization.

I just happened to agree with one of them. All that needed to happen was for the other character to get over his pretensions, and politics had to come up since he was a very religious person. Politics = religion, yes, sadly. sweatdrop

But yeah. XD