My view would be that most people can tell the differnce between entertainment and the world they live in and most do the right thing in life. Maybe it's different where you live.

It's not about neighborhoods or local differences—people everywhere are subject to the same influences, especially in the age of global media. My point isn't really that viewers don't understand the difference between good and evil or confuse entertainment with reality in the literal sense. I'm talking about a more subtle, subconscious level of behavioral normalization.

Take your example of the difference between screen and real life: yes, most people won't start cooking meth after watching Breaking Bad. But the show (and others like it) introduces into cultural discourse the idea that morality isn't absolute, but a matter of risk calculation. As I've written before, the message is: "If you're smart, prudent, and creative enough, you can bend the rules—law, ethics, society—and prosper until chance intervenes."

It's similar to the smoking example: the question "Should I smoke or not?" doesn't even arise if you've never seen anyone smoking and didn't know it was possible. Media expands the "horizon of the possible": they don't force us to directly emulate evil, but they sow the seeds of doubt—"What if I, too, could do anything if I outsmarted the system?" Ultimately, this shifts society's moral boundaries: instead of "This is wrong," we more often think, "This is risky, but if I don't get caught..." And this isn't about "bad" people, but about how culture shapes our questions and choices.

The horizon of the possible has truly expanded. In the 90s, a person who wanted money and respect had three culturally approved paths: education → career, sports/show business, or honest business. Today, a 16-year-old from any suburb has five to seven paths in mind, and two of them are "gray internet schemes" and "crypto scams/dropshipping/onlyfans." He doesn't consider this evil—he considers it the fourth and fifth elevators to the top, simply demonstrated by Netflix and TikTok.

The main trick isn't glorifying evil, but removing shame.

Walter White shows that shame is for suckers. Once shame dies, morality turns into a simple risk calculation. That's why the phrase "if you're smart enough, you can do anything" isn't an exaggeration; it's the precise formula for a new moral code.

I’m not really sure I see the issue. Storytelling (set aside media) has always promoted the extension of our choices and options. One of the first novels, Don Quixote satirises this by demonstrating some absurd outcomes.

What does BB do that Shakespeare or Hollywood or Bret Easton Ellis haven’t done?

They showed a madman and warned: "Don't be like him."
B.B. shows a madman and whispers: "Be like him, only smarter—and everything will be fine."

Ok. Maybe you’re an optimist then. Firstly, I think this is entertainment and it doesn’t have an ultimate moral. But if I had to provide a reading, it looks to me like this: if you turn to crime, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, how clever your plans; or how methodical you are, your life will become a living hell; you will be hollowed out on the inside, estranged from everyone you love, and you will die scorned and alone.

I sincerely sympathize with your way of thinking. Moreover, I assure you that I hold similar views regarding such shows.

The problem is probably something else: I read a few naive books and decided I could philosophize. Don't take the latest town madman seriously.

If evil is privative, why does our culture find it so fascinating? — Leontiskos

It likely has to do with the desirable and associative aspects of autonomic sympathetic arousal. It's like asking why folks enjoy watching scary, suspenseful movies, or going on carnival rides, or jumping off mountains or airplanes in wingsuits.

Evil is arousing, as it entails signs of what is threatening. It arouses a kind of moral/physical activation, to engage to quell the threat, resolve by giving license for us to punish, to feel outrage, or to get away due to danger. To watch a transgression take place quickens the heart, even if its kind of benign. Imagine playing a game and witnessing someone cheat in front of your eyes, or someone drinking the self serve milk at Starbucks as you are waiting behind them to use it.

Not only is evil privative, good is privative, perhaps even moreso, insofar as we deny and constrain ourselves to satisfy arbitrary moral codes. "I'm playing by all the rules and some asshole gets and leg up and goes unpunished by their transgression." Evil might explode out of the agony of kinds of oppression, as a reaction to moral demands, whether legitimate/reasonable or not.

We should also remember that the pressure to provide plays a role in Walt's decision. He's got Jr.'s college to pay for. And we should not forget that he's in the business ofempire.

That would depend on whether there is karmic retribution, in which case one's mortality would not be freeing at all. A lot of modern culture is fundamentally nihilist - nothing matters in the end, right? — Wayfarer

True, but he does attempt to maintain Judeo-Christian moral standards, at least early in the show. It's seemingly not possible once you're in Walt's line of work, as the show portrays it. Walt's initial motivation is a mix of money and ego, but his family is not well off in the beginning.

his wife is an empty shrew living by shallow ideals. — Astorre

i don't think the emphasis is really "shallow ideas" though from the creator's perspective, but just raw and persistent anxiety over the family finances and Walter's cancer. Fairly relatable from a modern american POV, even though as I pointed out before, an extreme exaggeration. I do think they did a pretty remarkable job in creating a sense of anxiety in the show that sets the audience up to accept Walter's incredibly immoral/destructive actions.

it is filmed like an orgasm. — Ast[quote=

This is fairly well put: Breaking Bad was so successful since they mastered the art of climax and cinematic extremes.

The main trick isn't glorifying evil, but removing shame. — Astorre

Shame-based morality has a limited scope and use. It's only natural that people at some point wish to transcend it and base their morality in some other principle.

When a person's morality is based mostly or exclusively on shame, their sense of right and wrong can collapse when they find themselves surrounded by people who don't feel shame. Which is another reason why it's important to base one's morality in something other than shame.

For reference, it can also help to view morality in terms of moral development, as per one of the main theories of moral development, Kohlberg's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Arguably, some fictional characters sometimes exhibit stage 6 of moral development.

In my opinion, modern people have almost forgotten what it's like to "feel shame." Films, books, and philosophers merely document its absence. Perhaps the times are now inappropriate, and shame as a tool is no longer necessary, as it is irrational by nature.

I once had occasion to criticize Kohlberg. The ideas at the time were roughly as follows: the approach is "Western-centric," ignoring, for example, the ethic of care as the foundation of community. In Asia or the East, people may be at stages 3 or 4, while stages 5 or 6 would be completely unacceptable for these societies. Renouncing family for the sake of universal values ​​in Asia is far from ideal.

The second point is this attempt to objectify ethics (cognitivism and logic); its post-conventional level assumes that the highest morality is a cold calculation of universal principles. Whereas a person can be characterized by "choice under uncertainty," for example, when you simply emotionally decide to act. For objectivists, this is a flaw (imperfection). Religion suggests that "bad" choices are not a human error, but part of its "sinful" nature that must be overcome.

I’ve always felt that the basic idea behind the myth of the Fall of Man is indispensable in understanding the human condition (not that I necessarily concur with all of the traditional interpretations placed on it.) But it seems pretty straightforward that the whole reality of shame, guilt, and moral culpability can only come into being with the condition of self-awareness and self-consciousness which humans alone seem capable of. That there is terrible cruelty in nature there is no question, but neither prey nor predator are moral agents in the sense that humans can be. I've always felt that the parable of the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' was a symbolic representation of that self-conscious state of being - of ownership, a sense of 'me and mine' and all of the qualities that accompany it. Humans are capable of extraordinary acts of compassion and empathy and also of dreadful violence and cruelty, and are driven by emotions and desires to act against their own best interests. All of that is implied in 'the Fall', and the want of it seems to me a lack or an absence in many secular philosophies. In fact the very suggestion that the myth of the Fall might still be meaningful or relevant is likely to be met with considerable hostility from a lot of people.

You might be interested in this long review from several years ago, The Strange Persistence of Guilt

A man voluntarily chooses to spend his final days on earth destroying the lives of as many people as possible by getting them hooked on meth - what room for nuance is there in our judgement of such a person? — Tzeentch

He doesn't get them hooked on meth. He is supplying a product that there is a demand for.This could be easily seen as an amoral act. There is an awful lot of nuance between your statement and mine. (I don't necessarily endorse the statement I made.)

Is this your paper? Is there a discussion on this forum?

Oh, no I didn't write it, but I feel it supports the point I was making in my comment. I heard about that article on another forum a couple of years ago, but I thought it was worth passing on. Also notice it has an audio version, whch is good, as it's quite a long read.

In my opinion, modern people have almost forgotten what it's like to "feel shame." Films, books, and philosophers merely document its absence. Perhaps the times are now inappropriate, and shame as a tool is no longer necessary, as it is irrational by nature. — Astorre

Shame is irrational? Perhaps once it is cut off from a traditional metaphysical framework.

I once had occasion to criticize Kohlberg. The ideas at the time were roughly as follows: the approach is "Western-centric," ignoring, for example, the ethic of care as the foundation of community. In Asia or the East, people may be at stages 3 or 4, while stages 5 or 6 would be completely unacceptable for these societies. Renouncing family for the sake of universal values ​​in Asia is far from ideal.

That's a strange thing to say, given that in much of Asia, there are Dharmic religions, in which renouncing family "for the sake of universal values" is regarded highly (such as becoming a monk in a Buddhist country) or normal (like the vanaprastha and sannyasa stages in the asrama system).

The second point is this attempt to objectify ethics (cognitivism and logic); its post-conventional level assumes that the highest morality is a cold calculation of universal principles.

Kohlberg himself posited a possible seventh stage where he linked religion with moral reasoning.

Whereas a person can be characterized by "choice under uncertainty," for example, when you simply emotionally decide to act. For objectivists, this is a flaw (imperfection). Religion suggests that "bad" choices are not a human error, but part of its "sinful" nature that must be overcome.

And yet unless one is born and raised into a religion, one must calculate, most coldly, before one can join a religion. You're speaking from the privilege of someone who was born and raised into a religion.

I get what the OP is saying, and the moral "dilemmas" are part of the story, especially in Season 1, but in my opinion, this sort of story (when taken as a whole) is interesting more for HOW things are addressed than WHY. That is it's more of a crime procedural (to borrow the term), than a morality play.

He doesn't get them hooked on meth. He is supplying a product that there is a demand for.This could be easily seen as an amoral act. There is an awful lot of nuance between your statement and mine. (I don't necessarily endorse the statement I made.) — Malcolm Parry

Oh, one might very well apply nuance, but at that point I would start doubting their capacity for sound judgement.

A man voluntarily chooses to spend his final days on earth destroying the lives of as many people as possible by getting them hooked on meth - what room for nuance is there in our judgement of such a person? — Tzeentch

The intent was to make money so as to gain resources necessary for survival. Let's not pretend your existence was not brought about by selfishness and immoral acts committed by those who came before you. You're literally the spawn of immorality, in a way, we all are. Nothing you do or say will ever change the reality of your existence. This world is not, especially back then, a black and white calm theater of two types of people: those who are decent and worthy of life, and those who are terrible people who inflict suffering for no other reason than to do so. That's a rose-colored glasses type of delusion.

If a government allows a subject to have a child without ensuring they are aware of all the reasonable dangers in this world, that government is at fault. But. They'll be called "tyrannical" or "authoritarian" just for trying to protect the well-being of human life by making the tough decision of who can reproduce and who should not right at the moment. If we say "oh freedom" and let people do whatever they want (as it is currently) we blame the parent for not educating the child as to how to avoid things that are dangerous. Some people have addictive tendencies. This is an indisputably and universally intrinsically negative and disfavored quality over those who can consume an otherwise addictive product that may lead to permanent harm if not used in moderation.

So, all relevant factors considered, what do you do? We have three options. Option 1 is to force government to ensure only those permitted and granted to reproduce do so while others are punished and ultimately disallowed from reproducing freely. Option 2 is to make examples out of parents who raise kids that end up not listening to rational and reasonable warnings and things to avoid that are hazardous. Option 3 is to commit eugenics and ensure people who are prone to addictive tendencies are not born and do not result in those like them being born. Take your pick. Whichever you choose, you'll have more people than you can take at once against you. So. Time to re-frame one's argument—and of course—approach.

I don't necessarily agree with the implied sentiments the average person making the hypothetical argument seriously and outside of the context of philosophy would most likely hold, of course. That said, I doubt anything conveyed is less than truthful as far as real world solutions and cause and effect is concerned.

You're literally the spawn of immorality, in a way, we all are. — Outlander

Speak for yourself.

I bear responsibility for my own actions, and not for those of others.


Sob stories about how drug dealers/traffickers came to be, I don't buy either. Base greed is the principal motivator - people looking to score a quick buck at the expense of someone else.

If you want to look for victims, why look beyond the often-vulnerable people who fall prey to drug addiction and are then ruthlessly exploited? Dealers and traffickers are not victims, they're utter scum.

And no, it's not the government's fault that they lack a moral compass. It's no one else's fault but their own.

It's rather odd you apparently don't believe people ought to take moral responsibility for their own actions, but instead expect the government to take action? The modern mindworm at play, I suppose.

I bear responsibility for my own actions, and not for those of others. — Tzeentch

That's not the point. There would be no "you", period, were it not for immorality. Therefore you have no non-hypocritical position to hold as far as judging others for their own. Human history is a smorgasbord of cruelty, indifference, and suffering inflicted on those who bore no crime other than being not as strong as somebody else.

You're in a position to not be killed (ie. to survive) solely and exclusively by acts of immorality, because those before you did so so that you wouldn't have to. They're dead. They can't be "arrested" or judged. Whereas you, can. We ignore things that happened a long time ago for no other reason than it happened a long time ago. This is not a reliable foundation of morality.

There is nothing odd but your assumption as to what it is I believe seeing as I have said nothing about myself personally other than what applies to all living human beings.

It's not that serious. It's a discussion about facts and the philosophical nature of said facts. Don't take it so personally.

Oh, one might very well apply nuance, but at that point I would start doubting their capacity for sound judgement. — Tzeentch

I agree on a fundamental level that the supply of meth is a bad thing but life isn't as simple for some. People end up doing things that others would consider reprehensible but when put in less comfortable position in life would consider doing bad stuff to survive or even prosper.

That's not the point. There would be no "you", period, were it not for immorality. — Outlander

I doubt we have the same idea of what immorality entails, but even so it doesn't follow that judging the actions of others is somehow inherently hypocritical.

Hypocrisy is to chastise others for moral infringements you yourself are guilty of.

It has nothing to do with what my ancestors did or didn't do without my asking.

People end up doing things that others would consider reprehensible but when put in less comfortable position in life would consider doing bad stuff to survive or even prosper. — Malcolm Parry

Stealing a loaf of bread is something I would consider "doing something bad in order to survive".

The narcotics scene on the other hand runs purely on ego and greed, as do the majority of criminal circuits. Just like a rapist or a murderer, they know what they're doing is wrong but do it anyway, and I would rank drug dealers and traffickers among rapists and murderers in terms of how inexcusable their actions are.

If a government allows a subject to have a child without ensuring they are aware of all the reasonable dangers in this world, that government is at fault. But. They'll be called "tyrannical" or "authoritarian" just for trying to protect the well-being of human life by making the tough decision of who can reproduce and who should not right at the moment. If we say "oh freedom" and let people do whatever they want (as it is currently) we blame the parent for not educating the child as to how to avoid things that are dangerous. Some people have addictive tendencies. This is an indisputably and universally intrinsically negative and disfavored quality over those who can consume an otherwise addictive product that may lead to permanent harm if not used in moderation. — Outlander

I wrote about this before, in another thread, but I'll repeat it here since you brought it up.

Deciding how someone lives carries with it the responsibility for the consequences. Let's say I'm someone in authority over you, and I command you (and the rest of my subordinates): "You must all bow to God number 32, and you will be happy." You begin praying according to my instructions, time passes, and happiness doesn't come. Then you come back to me (with a pitchfork) and ask: "Hey, where's our happiness?"

If I were a wise ruler, I would have foreseen this in advance and told you: "You are free to do whatever you want!" That would relieve me of all responsibility. Basically, this is what the world has come to: the ruler grants such a degree of freedom that only the bare minimum is required of them.

Now a little about the starting point. Modern culture, including popular TV series, assumes that the world is not divided into black and white. Morality is good, but what about it if we don't do everything morally? How are we supposed to live then? What are we supposed to eat, for example? I especially want to ask this of those who attribute the existence of consciousness/soul to plants or animals, which, therefore, cannot be killed today.

You've hit the nail on the head: modern culture gives us the opportunity to rethink everything. Actually, that's exactly what I wanted to say: be morally gray, because you determine your own destiny.

But has the time come when we (humanity) are ready to admit this?

Won't this usher in a "moral decline" we can't even imagine?

Well, the issue is not new. Homer's heros are no angels, by anyone's measure. Even the otherwise rather prissy Aeneas did a bad thing with Dido, and didn't even get the obligatory Hollywood reckoning for it. Milton could be (and has been!) faulted for the aestheticization of Satan, no less, in his Paradise Lost. On a lighter side, the picaresque genre, which has us delight at roguery, has always been among the most popular, going all the way back to The Golden Ass or Odysseus even. Even the word rogue ("a dishonest, untrustworthy person; scoundrel") has long since acquired the connotation of irresistible attraction.

There's a fine line here. Rogues are people who break the rules and thus evoke sympathy (something like Jack Sparrow). They remain within the rules themselves. The current conversation isn't about morally black (bad) people, but about morally gray people. That is, those who live entirely outside the good/bad paradigm. The phenomenon I'm talking about has a somewhat different nature. These heroes seem bad, but they are a reflection of us—they're just like us, with everyday problems. And we no longer know whether they're bad or not, or whether we can justify them (because we're all a bit like Walter White).

Stealing a loaf of bread is something I would consider "doing something bad in order to survive".

The narcotics scene on the other hand runs purely on ego and greed, as do the majority of criminal circuits. Just like a rapist or a murderer, they know what they're doing is wrong but do it anyway, and I would rank drug dealers and traffickers among rapists and murderers in terms of how inexcusable their actions are — Tzeentch

I think life is more complicated for many people than you do. Which is fine. I'm not going to change your mind, so there is little point in bothering.

It's not a sign of intellectual rigor, broad-mindedness or virtuous humanity to empathize with career criminals; it's cowardice masquerading as such.

I can assure you none of you would be pleading for nuance if you had had a single experience of the pitiless malevolence with which such individuals operate.

These people ruin lives, communities, entire societies for petty monetary gain. They deserve no sympathy nor quarter.

The current conversation isn't about morally black (bad) people, but about morally gray people. That is, those who live entirely outside the good/bad paradigm. The phenomenon I'm talking about has a somewhat different nature. These heroes seem bad, but they are a reflection of us—they're just like us, with everyday problems. And we no longer know whether they're bad or not, or whether we can justify them (because we're all a bit like Walter White). — Astorre

Won't this usher in a "moral decline" we can't even imagine? — Astorre

That's presumably exactly what will happen over time... gradually from one generation to the next.

They are a reflection of the world that has created them, and is creating us... The subtext of the series is that the world is an a-moral place, and therefore Walter White's actions seem justifiable to some extend, or at least an improvement on being a moral do good guy everybody takes advantage of.

It's not that different from ancient Greece. Plato also saw the necessity to curb the influence of the poets, and advocated for a turn to rationality to anchor morals anew. In Nietzsche's analysis that turn to rationality was not an improvement on what came before, but a symptom of the Greeks desperately trying to ward off a decadence that had already set in.