I don't know man. Pre season 5, was Walt really the bad guy?
He was manufacturing and selling meth, so yes.
If you told me I had to choose my wife's life over the lives of everyone on a whole continent, I would choose my wife. Does that make me the bad guy?
Yes, absolutely.
He makes and sells it, but he doesn't make people use it. I'm really anti-drugs, and even I don't put the blame on him for the harms the addicts suffer. If anything, he is helping them, but keeping impurities out. If they're gonna use, better to use the blue than something that might have unexpected toxins in it, right?
Wow. People really don't sympathize with someone putting their loved ones ahead of strangers, no matter what the harm to the strangers is?
We never learned what Walt did to leave or be forced to leave Grey Matter, we just know that he made the decision to
sell his share for $5000 because of personal reasons, which we assume is between Gretchen and himself.
But the series is about Walter going from "good" to "bad", and we're constantly having our perceptions of when he turned bad challenged. But this introduces a second line of thought, not everyone can go "bad" the way Walter has, there must be some little seed inside of him that makes him the way he is, and all it needed was a little spark to ignite.
What if we find that the reason he left Grey Matter was because he was being manipulative, possibly even sinister, and was forced out by them? And because of his personality doesn't even realize what he did wrong, even blames himself, but never changes his ways?
I think it would be a real great twist to learn that the Walter we idealize from the beginning of BB has been Heisenberg his entire life, it just takes certain situations to allow that persona to surface and take root.
Wydrion on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
There's been hints that Walt was somehow insulted by Gretchen's rich family (in his head or for real, who knows) and this caused him to walk away from Gretchen and Gray Matter.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
We never learned what Walt did to leave or be forced to leave Grey Matter, we just know that he made the decision to
sell his share for $5000 because of personal reasons, which we assume is between Gretchen and himself.
But the series is about Walter going from "good" to "bad", and we're constantly having our perceptions of when he turned bad challenged. But this introduces a second line of thought, not everyone can go "bad" the way Walter has, there must be some little seed inside of him that makes him the way he is, and all it needed was a little spark to ignite.
What if we find that the reason he left Grey Matter was because he was being manipulative, possibly even sinister, and was forced out by them? And because of his personality doesn't even realize what he did wrong, even blames himself, but never changes his ways?
I think it would be a real great twist to learn that the Walter we idealize from the beginning of BB has been Heisenberg his entire life, it just takes certain situations to allow that persona to surface and take root.
I have little doubt that his personality flaws drove what happened with greymatter. At the very least, we know he doesn't work well with equals (look at how poorly working with Gale turned out). I actually think he became a highschool teacher so that he would clearly always be the most talented and smartest person in the room.
We never learned what Walt did to leave or be forced to leave Grey Matter, we just know that he made the decision to
sell his share for $5000 because of personal reasons, which we assume is between Gretchen and himself.
But the series is about Walter going from "good" to "bad", and we're constantly having our perceptions of when he turned bad challenged. But this introduces a second line of thought, not everyone can go "bad" the way Walter has, there must be some little seed inside of him that makes him the way he is, and all it needed was a little spark to ignite.
What if we find that the reason he left Grey Matter was because he was being manipulative, possibly even sinister, and was forced out by them? And because of his personality doesn't even realize what he did wrong, even blames himself, but never changes his ways?
I think it would be a real great twist to learn that the Walter we idealize from the beginning of BB has been Heisenberg his entire life, it just takes certain situations to allow that persona to surface and take root.
The way the show has been consciously avoiding answering this question thus far make this, for me, the clear answer. His talk to Jesse two episodes ago, where he avoids the question with "well, it doesn't matter why I left" signify that deep down, he knows damn well that Gretchen and Elliot were most likely justified in buying him out, and Walt is knowingly deluding himself into believing otherwise.
I'm just really taken aback by how people are projecting full on Heisenberg, slayer of the chicken man, onto good old early seasons Walt. This discussion prompted me to start watching again (3rd time now) and honestly, he is a good guy facing hard choices in the first few eps at least, IMO. So far (on ep 3) I don't think I am wearing rose colored glasses, and I still think people here are wearing very dark sunglasses when reflecting on early season Walt.
One thing that does trouble me though. In the first ep he thinks he is done after crashing the RV. Based on the tape he records, he does not seem to think he will make it out of there. And yet his reaction is to stand in the street with a gun, prepared to shoot the police when they arrive. I feel like that decision makes little sense at the time. I guess he is supposed to be clinging to a very narrow hope of walking free, even if the price is killing innocent men?
That's because the journey has never been from 'good man' to 'bad man' for Walt. That's not what Cranston's phrasing of "from Mr Chips to Scarface" meant, it means the journey of a meek man to a powerful hedonist. Walt has always had Heisenberg inside of him, he's just been repressed. Learning he was going to die freed him in essence to buck society's norms and go "so long as my family gets what it needs, the ends justify the means, but I'm going to do it my way."
The more success Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. The more adversity Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. Heisenberg is his vengeance on a world that he thinks was unfair to him, and consequences be dammed.
So yes, viewing Walt's early actions through the lens of Heisenberg is completely appropriate.
I guess I don't see why that is so bad. If you don't fear the consequences of being caught (which he doesn't since he thinks he will die soon anyway) you don't have a rational incentive to follow them. So he takes his genius and applies it to something illegal, and all of a sudden he is a winner for the first time in years. Now he has a rational reason to fear punishment again (he doesn't want to lose what he already won) but he also can't go back to following the rules, because his victory comes from an illegal activity. I think it's an understandable spiral to go down, and I don't think it automatically makes you bad. Am I really the only person who can empathize with Walt and his choices now that we know more about him and where they lead? I just rewatched the ep where he kills crazy 8 and my thought wasn't "how can he kill him instead of going to the cops". I just wonder why he didn't give him ricin in his food to avoid being stabbed in the leg or having to physically kill him like that.
Nothing wrong with emphasizing with Walt, it's being self aware that you're rooting for a bad guy. How has the path Walter took not been bad? He's a criminal mastermind who deserves to go to jail for his crimes, no matter how much what his reasons are for doing them. Though it'd be entertaining to watch his trial to "justify" all the crazy shit he's done to a judge and jury.
I don't know man. Pre season 5, was Walt really the bad guy? He was hurting people, but not really innocents. Even if he was hurting innocents, if the goal was to save his family, then I have a hard time condemning him because I would do the same thing.
Whether his victims were civilian or criminal don't matter. Our society doesn't tolerate people shooting criminals on sight because they're criminals. They have rights, loved ones etc like Walt. The difference is they're not the main characters. Even Tucco had good qualities like loving and caring for his grandpa. The police aren't going to be less interested in arresting him because he tells them it was all to save his family (which ends up being bullshit anyway), aside from any corrupt or crooked officers. Saving his family is a worthy goal, except he's done everything wrong at every step ethically and legally. He's actually made things worse by constantly putting them in danger by being a criminal and pissing off any and all criminals he meets on a regular basis.
Elliott's offer would make everything fine, only that would require him to admit he can't help his family on his own and that was never an option. That was a crucial decision that altered his life more then the cancer did, and he chose being a bad guy with no hesitation. It doesn't matter what his motivation was for becoming a criminal once he's one he's a bad guy by definition. When he enters their world he must toughen up since it's literally dog-eat-dog mentality, which is why it's a horrible place to avoid getting into.
If you told me I had to choose my wife's life over the lives of everyone on a whole continent, I would choose my wife. Does that make me the bad guy? His choice wasn't that extreme of course, but fundamentally, I have no problem saying he deserves to be punished under the law, but that he isn't a bad person.
False equivalent. Walt isn't doing what he does purely because someone is holding his family hostage like the Nick of Time movie. After Skyler finding out he's the one holding the family and/or her hostage because no-one tells Walt what to do. Walt being a criminal doen't make him a bad person, it's his actions which he's made many shitty choices, even the well intentioned ones end up blowing up in his face & making things worse.
In season 5. . . well now things are different.
Not that much.
Harry Dresden on
0
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I put it down to simply being about Gretchen leaving Walt for Elliot, and Walt being unable to work with her or him after that. Never really picked up on anything beyond that, since Gretchen seemed genuinely confused by Walt's impression of the event when they met in Season 2; he said they forced him out, she was shocked that that's how he remembers it. Makes it sound like Walt left of his own volition, and never really explained his reasons to Gretchen or Elliot.
Oh brilliant
+1
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
We never learned what Walt did to leave or be forced to leave Grey Matter, we just know that he made the decision to
sell his share for $5000 because of personal reasons, which we assume is between Gretchen and himself.
But the series is about Walter going from "good" to "bad", and we're constantly having our perceptions of when he turned bad challenged. But this introduces a second line of thought, not everyone can go "bad" the way Walter has, there must be some little seed inside of him that makes him the way he is, and all it needed was a little spark to ignite.
What if we find that the reason he left Grey Matter was because he was being manipulative, possibly even sinister, and was forced out by them? And because of his personality doesn't even realize what he did wrong, even blames himself, but never changes his ways?
I think it would be a real great twist to learn that the Walter we idealize from the beginning of BB has been Heisenberg his entire life, it just takes certain situations to allow that persona to surface and take root.
I have little doubt that his personality flaws drove what happened with greymatter. At the very least, we know he doesn't work well with equals (look at how poorly working with Gale turned out). I actually think he became a highschool teacher so that he would clearly always be the most talented and smartest person in the room.
Haha so far he hasn't worked very well with equals.
Or subordinates..
Or people greater than he is..
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So this thread is basically finished. Who is going to make another? Probably shouldn't be me, otherwise the OP will say Breaking Bad is about a person who seems good on the surface, but is revealed to be selfish, obsessed with control and willing to hurt the people closest to themself without much if any compunction, all while thinking they are doing what is best for their family. That person is Skyler White.
I don't know man. Pre season 5, was Walt really the bad guy?
He was manufacturing and selling meth, so yes.
If you told me I had to choose my wife's life over the lives of everyone on a whole continent, I would choose my wife. Does that make me the bad guy?
Yes, absolutely.
He makes and sells it, but he doesn't make people use it. I'm really anti-drugs, and even I don't put the blame on him for the harms the addicts suffer. If anything, he is helping them, but keeping impurities out. If they're gonna use, better to use the blue than something that might have unexpected toxins in it, right?
It's highly illegal and the impurities might be to a superior standard it's still meth he's selling. Which can fuck up people's lives. Remember the couple that took Jesse's gang's drugs? That's the kind of shit Walt produces so I wouldn't say he's "helping" meth addicts. It doesn't matter if they're going to use meth or not, it's Walt choice not only enables that behavior but profits from it. Walt gets rich from their suffering directly.
Wow. People really don't sympathize with someone putting their loved ones ahead of strangers, no matter what the harm to the strangers is?
I don't know man. Pre season 5, was Walt really the bad guy?
He was manufacturing and selling meth, so yes.
If you told me I had to choose my wife's life over the lives of everyone on a whole continent, I would choose my wife. Does that make me the bad guy?
Yes, absolutely.
He makes and sells it, but he doesn't make people use it. I'm really anti-drugs, and even I don't put the blame on him for the harms the addicts suffer. If anything, he is helping them, but keeping impurities out. If they're gonna use, better to use the blue than something that might have unexpected toxins in it, right?
It's highly illegal and the impurities might be to a superior standard it's still meth he's selling. Which can fuck up people's lives. Remember the couple that took Jesse's gang's drugs? That's the kind of shit Walt produces so I wouldn't say he's "helping" meth addicts. It doesn't matter if they're going to use meth or not, it's Walt choice not only enables that behavior but profits from it. Walt gets rich from their suffering directly.
Wow. People really don't sympathize with someone putting their loved ones ahead of strangers, no matter what the harm to the strangers is?
They do. Just not by your definition.
They chose the suffering. I think he isn't even as bad as big tobbaco, who lied about the health effects and adds additional addicitive drugs solely to drive up sales. Walt is just making sure people get something that works as advertised. I don't blame him for that. If I could work in the super lab without worrying about Gus killing me (like as Gale's assistant if Walt was never brought in in the first place), I would do it, no question.
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
New thread rule: If you mention IFT, you have to actually have fucked someone named Ted.
Go!
New thread rule: If you mention Jane choking to death, you have to post an apology girl style drawing.
spacekungfuman on
+1
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I know I probably shouldn't even say this, but if you had a thread rule that you can only discuss the male characters (other than to say "Jesus Christ, Marie, they're minerals") I think 90% of the disagreements would disapear, and we could just talk about how awesome Mike is or how Mr. White made poison out of beans and should have used science to turn the crystal ship into a dune buggy and dune buggied out of the desert all day.
I know I probably shouldn't even say this, but if you had a thread rule that you can only discuss the male characters (other than to say "Jesus Christ, Marie, they're minerals") I think 90% of the disagreements would disapear, and we could just talk about how awesome Mike is or how Mr. White made poison out of beans and should have used science to turn the crystal ship into a dune buggy and dune buggied out of the desert all day.
I would honestly rather hear about that, or speculation on future episodes, than deep ethics battles where people go back and forth with arguments like "Would you rather let your wife die than everyone else on the planet".
Which he profits from. No remorse for him, either. It's generally a bad thing to help people suffer even if they want you to. That's why the drug trade is one of the most reviled activities criminals can do. IIRC the Italian mafia in America originally refused to enter that business because they felt it was unethical. That's how bad it is.
I think he isn't even as bad as big tobbaco, who lied about the health effects and adds additional addicitive drugs solely to drive up sales.
Not only is meth illegal no-one bothers warning because criminals sell it (you think they care about warning labels or regulations? IIRC many illegal drugs sold are cut down with things like baby powder and poisons) and everyone knows it's bad for you. At least Big Tobbaco pretends to care about their customers and operates under government authority.
Walt is just making sure people get something that works as advertised. I don't blame him for that.
An illegal drug that everyone knows will fuck you up.
If I could work in the super lab without worrying about Gus killing me (like as Gale's assistant if Walt was never brought in in the first place), I would do it, no question.
Unrealistic scenario. Gus was an exception. A business professional in a field where he's very restrained. Under normal circumstances the first time Walt acted up the kingpin would put a bullet in his head and replaced him with someone else.
I'm just really taken aback by how people are projecting full on Heisenberg, slayer of the chicken man, onto good old early seasons Walt. This discussion prompted me to start watching again (3rd time now) and honestly, he is a good guy facing hard choices in the first few eps at least, IMO. So far (on ep 3) I don't think I am wearing rose colored glasses, and I still think people here are wearing very dark sunglasses when reflecting on early season Walt.
One thing that does trouble me though. In the first ep he thinks he is done after crashing the RV. Based on the tape he records, he does not seem to think he will make it out of there. And yet his reaction is to stand in the street with a gun, prepared to shoot the police when they arrive. I feel like that decision makes little sense at the time. I guess he is supposed to be clinging to a very narrow hope of walking free, even if the price is killing innocent men?
That's because the journey has never been from 'good man' to 'bad man' for Walt. That's not what Cranston's phrasing of "from Mr Chips to Scarface" meant, it means the journey of a meek man to a powerful hedonist. Walt has always had Heisenberg inside of him, he's just been repressed. Learning he was going to die freed him in essence to buck society's norms and go "so long as my family gets what it needs, the ends justify the means, but I'm going to do it my way."
The more success Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. The more adversity Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. Heisenberg is his vengeance on a world that he thinks was unfair to him, and consequences be dammed.
So yes, viewing Walt's early actions through the lens of Heisenberg is completely appropriate.
I guess I don't see why that is so bad. If you don't fear the consequences of being caught (which he doesn't since he thinks he will die soon anyway) you don't have a rational incentive to follow them. So he takes his genius and applies it to something illegal, and all of a sudden he is a winner for the first time in years. Now he has a rational reason to fear punishment again (he doesn't want to lose what he already won) but he also can't go back to following the rules, because his victory comes from an illegal activity. I think it's an understandable spiral to go down, and I don't think it automatically makes you bad. Am I really the only person who can empathize with Walt and his choices now that we know more about him and where they lead? I just rewatched the ep where he kills crazy 8 and my thought wasn't "how can he kill him instead of going to the cops". I just wonder why he didn't give him ricin in his food to avoid being stabbed in the leg or having to physically kill him like that.
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Meth is a destructive and addictive drug. People often become addicts in situations that do not involve their informed consent. Ergo, it is fallacious and morally repugnant to write off human suffering because "pshh junkies shoulda made better choices".
Liberal arguments for changes in current drug policy, SKFM, do not hinge on 'meth is something that people should have access to', but rather 'meth, a social ill, is currently being made and used. how can we mitigate the social harms?'
I know I probably shouldn't even say this, but if you had a thread rule that you can only discuss the male characters (other than to say "Jesus Christ, Marie, they're minerals") I think 90% of the disagreements would disapear, and we could just talk about how awesome Mike is or how Mr. White made poison out of beans and should have used science to turn the crystal ship into a dune buggy and dune buggied out of the desert all day.
I would honestly rather hear about that, or speculation on future episodes, than deep ethics battles where people go back and forth with arguments like "Would you rather let your wife die than everyone else on the planet".
PEOPLE DYING IS BAD, WE GET IT.
JESUS CHRIST MARIE.
They're not moral allegories. Jesus Christ, Marie, they're episodes!
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm just really taken aback by how people are projecting full on Heisenberg, slayer of the chicken man, onto good old early seasons Walt. This discussion prompted me to start watching again (3rd time now) and honestly, he is a good guy facing hard choices in the first few eps at least, IMO. So far (on ep 3) I don't think I am wearing rose colored glasses, and I still think people here are wearing very dark sunglasses when reflecting on early season Walt.
One thing that does trouble me though. In the first ep he thinks he is done after crashing the RV. Based on the tape he records, he does not seem to think he will make it out of there. And yet his reaction is to stand in the street with a gun, prepared to shoot the police when they arrive. I feel like that decision makes little sense at the time. I guess he is supposed to be clinging to a very narrow hope of walking free, even if the price is killing innocent men?
That's because the journey has never been from 'good man' to 'bad man' for Walt. That's not what Cranston's phrasing of "from Mr Chips to Scarface" meant, it means the journey of a meek man to a powerful hedonist. Walt has always had Heisenberg inside of him, he's just been repressed. Learning he was going to die freed him in essence to buck society's norms and go "so long as my family gets what it needs, the ends justify the means, but I'm going to do it my way."
The more success Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. The more adversity Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. Heisenberg is his vengeance on a world that he thinks was unfair to him, and consequences be dammed.
So yes, viewing Walt's early actions through the lens of Heisenberg is completely appropriate.
I guess I don't see why that is so bad. If you don't fear the consequences of being caught (which he doesn't since he thinks he will die soon anyway) you don't have a rational incentive to follow them. So he takes his genius and applies it to something illegal, and all of a sudden he is a winner for the first time in years. Now he has a rational reason to fear punishment again (he doesn't want to lose what he already won) but he also can't go back to following the rules, because his victory comes from an illegal activity. I think it's an understandable spiral to go down, and I don't think it automatically makes you bad. Am I really the only person who can empathize with Walt and his choices now that we know more about him and where they lead? I just rewatched the ep where he kills crazy 8 and my thought wasn't "how can he kill him instead of going to the cops". I just wonder why he didn't give him ricin in his food to avoid being stabbed in the leg or having to physically kill him like that.
That is the very definition of morally bankrupt.
It is the very definition of a rational reaction to rules. We design rules with rational actor's reactions in mind. Walt has even told us that he sees these sins as putting him in hell, if there is one, but knowing that, he sees no reason to stop when he's already damned. It is only the first step that really requires you to decide whether you will follow the rules or not. Once he started cooking, he had something to lose and so the whole calculus changed from what it was the day before he ever broke the law.
I'm just really taken aback by how people are projecting full on Heisenberg, slayer of the chicken man, onto good old early seasons Walt. This discussion prompted me to start watching again (3rd time now) and honestly, he is a good guy facing hard choices in the first few eps at least, IMO. So far (on ep 3) I don't think I am wearing rose colored glasses, and I still think people here are wearing very dark sunglasses when reflecting on early season Walt.
One thing that does trouble me though. In the first ep he thinks he is done after crashing the RV. Based on the tape he records, he does not seem to think he will make it out of there. And yet his reaction is to stand in the street with a gun, prepared to shoot the police when they arrive. I feel like that decision makes little sense at the time. I guess he is supposed to be clinging to a very narrow hope of walking free, even if the price is killing innocent men?
That's because the journey has never been from 'good man' to 'bad man' for Walt. That's not what Cranston's phrasing of "from Mr Chips to Scarface" meant, it means the journey of a meek man to a powerful hedonist. Walt has always had Heisenberg inside of him, he's just been repressed. Learning he was going to die freed him in essence to buck society's norms and go "so long as my family gets what it needs, the ends justify the means, but I'm going to do it my way."
The more success Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. The more adversity Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. Heisenberg is his vengeance on a world that he thinks was unfair to him, and consequences be dammed.
So yes, viewing Walt's early actions through the lens of Heisenberg is completely appropriate.
I guess I don't see why that is so bad. If you don't fear the consequences of being caught (which he doesn't since he thinks he will die soon anyway) you don't have a rational incentive to follow them. So he takes his genius and applies it to something illegal, and all of a sudden he is a winner for the first time in years. Now he has a rational reason to fear punishment again (he doesn't want to lose what he already won) but he also can't go back to following the rules, because his victory comes from an illegal activity. I think it's an understandable spiral to go down, and I don't think it automatically makes you bad. Am I really the only person who can empathize with Walt and his choices now that we know more about him and where they lead? I just rewatched the ep where he kills crazy 8 and my thought wasn't "how can he kill him instead of going to the cops". I just wonder why he didn't give him ricin in his food to avoid being stabbed in the leg or having to physically kill him like that.
That is the very definition of morally bankrupt.
It is the very definition of a rational reaction to rules. We design rules with rational actor's reactions in mind. Walt has even told us that he sees these sins as putting him in hell, if there is one, but knowing that, he sees no reason to stop when he's already damned. It is only the first step that really requires you to decide whether you will follow the rules or not. Once he started cooking, he had something to lose and so the whole calculus changed from what it was the day before he ever broke the law.
Continuing your criminal behaviour, because *you* are already compromised and fuck the consequences for the rest of the world... is not a rational reaction to rules.
It's a morally bankrupt way of thinking.
Walt is morally bankrupt.
There's an argument to be made (and I think Vince Gilligan makes a reference to that in an interview on AVclub) that Walt already committed an unforgivable act when he started cooking meth.
I'm just really taken aback by how people are projecting full on Heisenberg, slayer of the chicken man, onto good old early seasons Walt. This discussion prompted me to start watching again (3rd time now) and honestly, he is a good guy facing hard choices in the first few eps at least, IMO. So far (on ep 3) I don't think I am wearing rose colored glasses, and I still think people here are wearing very dark sunglasses when reflecting on early season Walt.
One thing that does trouble me though. In the first ep he thinks he is done after crashing the RV. Based on the tape he records, he does not seem to think he will make it out of there. And yet his reaction is to stand in the street with a gun, prepared to shoot the police when they arrive. I feel like that decision makes little sense at the time. I guess he is supposed to be clinging to a very narrow hope of walking free, even if the price is killing innocent men?
That's because the journey has never been from 'good man' to 'bad man' for Walt. That's not what Cranston's phrasing of "from Mr Chips to Scarface" meant, it means the journey of a meek man to a powerful hedonist. Walt has always had Heisenberg inside of him, he's just been repressed. Learning he was going to die freed him in essence to buck society's norms and go "so long as my family gets what it needs, the ends justify the means, but I'm going to do it my way."
The more success Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. The more adversity Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. Heisenberg is his vengeance on a world that he thinks was unfair to him, and consequences be dammed.
So yes, viewing Walt's early actions through the lens of Heisenberg is completely appropriate.
I guess I don't see why that is so bad. If you don't fear the consequences of being caught (which he doesn't since he thinks he will die soon anyway) you don't have a rational incentive to follow them. So he takes his genius and applies it to something illegal, and all of a sudden he is a winner for the first time in years. Now he has a rational reason to fear punishment again (he doesn't want to lose what he already won) but he also can't go back to following the rules, because his victory comes from an illegal activity. I think it's an understandable spiral to go down, and I don't think it automatically makes you bad. Am I really the only person who can empathize with Walt and his choices now that we know more about him and where they lead? I just rewatched the ep where he kills crazy 8 and my thought wasn't "how can he kill him instead of going to the cops". I just wonder why he didn't give him ricin in his food to avoid being stabbed in the leg or having to physically kill him like that.
That is the very definition of morally bankrupt.
It is the very definition of a rational reaction to rules. We design rules with rational actor's reactions in mind. Walt has even told us that he sees these sins as putting him in hell, if there is one, but knowing that, he sees no reason to stop when he's already damned. It is only the first step that really requires you to decide whether you will follow the rules or not. Once he started cooking, he had something to lose and so the whole calculus changed from what it was the day before he ever broke the law.
They're not rules, they're laws. You break 'em you go to jail.
I know I probably shouldn't even say this, but if you had a thread rule that you can only discuss the male characters (other than to say "Jesus Christ, Marie, they're minerals") I think 90% of the disagreements would disapear, and we could just talk about how awesome Mike is or how Mr. White made poison out of beans and should have used science to turn the crystal ship into a dune buggy and dune buggied out of the desert all day.
I would honestly rather hear about that, or speculation on future episodes, than deep ethics battles where people go back and forth with arguments like "Would you rather let your wife die than everyone else on the planet".
PEOPLE DYING IS BAD, WE GET IT.
JESUS CHRIST MARIE.
They're not moral allegories. Jesus Christ, Marie, they're episodes!
Actually it is. Tv shows can and do have morality tales. Breaking Bad's is don't become a criminal/meth manufacturer otherwise you'll become a dangerous criminal and put your family & friends in danger. I mean, why do you think they keep showing
kids
being effected negatively by the drug trade? Why do you think Walt's had to make ethically wrong things when he started cooking meth? He wouldn't have had to
blow up his boss at a retirement home
in the ice cream business.
Harry Dresden on
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm just really taken aback by how people are projecting full on Heisenberg, slayer of the chicken man, onto good old early seasons Walt. This discussion prompted me to start watching again (3rd time now) and honestly, he is a good guy facing hard choices in the first few eps at least, IMO. So far (on ep 3) I don't think I am wearing rose colored glasses, and I still think people here are wearing very dark sunglasses when reflecting on early season Walt.
One thing that does trouble me though. In the first ep he thinks he is done after crashing the RV. Based on the tape he records, he does not seem to think he will make it out of there. And yet his reaction is to stand in the street with a gun, prepared to shoot the police when they arrive. I feel like that decision makes little sense at the time. I guess he is supposed to be clinging to a very narrow hope of walking free, even if the price is killing innocent men?
That's because the journey has never been from 'good man' to 'bad man' for Walt. That's not what Cranston's phrasing of "from Mr Chips to Scarface" meant, it means the journey of a meek man to a powerful hedonist. Walt has always had Heisenberg inside of him, he's just been repressed. Learning he was going to die freed him in essence to buck society's norms and go "so long as my family gets what it needs, the ends justify the means, but I'm going to do it my way."
The more success Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. The more adversity Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. Heisenberg is his vengeance on a world that he thinks was unfair to him, and consequences be dammed.
So yes, viewing Walt's early actions through the lens of Heisenberg is completely appropriate.
I guess I don't see why that is so bad. If you don't fear the consequences of being caught (which he doesn't since he thinks he will die soon anyway) you don't have a rational incentive to follow them. So he takes his genius and applies it to something illegal, and all of a sudden he is a winner for the first time in years. Now he has a rational reason to fear punishment again (he doesn't want to lose what he already won) but he also can't go back to following the rules, because his victory comes from an illegal activity. I think it's an understandable spiral to go down, and I don't think it automatically makes you bad. Am I really the only person who can empathize with Walt and his choices now that we know more about him and where they lead? I just rewatched the ep where he kills crazy 8 and my thought wasn't "how can he kill him instead of going to the cops". I just wonder why he didn't give him ricin in his food to avoid being stabbed in the leg or having to physically kill him like that.
That is the very definition of morally bankrupt.
It is the very definition of a rational reaction to rules. We design rules with rational actor's reactions in mind. Walt has even told us that he sees these sins as putting him in hell, if there is one, but knowing that, he sees no reason to stop when he's already damned. It is only the first step that really requires you to decide whether you will follow the rules or not. Once he started cooking, he had something to lose and so the whole calculus changed from what it was the day before he ever broke the law.
Continuing your criminal behaviour, because *you* are already compromised and fuck the consequences for the rest of the world... is not a rational reaction to rules.
It's a morally bankrupt way of thinking.
Walt is morally bankrupt.
There's an argument to be made (and I think Vince Gilligan makes a reference to that in an interview on AVclub) that Walt already committed an unforgivable act when he started cooking meth.
It absolutely is rational. Emotional concepts like morality (unless you believe God is keeping score or something) have nothing to do with rationality. You can be morally bankrupt and still rational. In fact, it probably helps you to behave more rationally.
I agree that cooking is the first unforgivable act, in that I can't image doing it in his shoes. But if we follow this line of thought, Jessie had already committed an unforgivable act before he even reconnected with Walt. Do we really think Jessie was beyond redemption at that stage?
I'm just really taken aback by how people are projecting full on Heisenberg, slayer of the chicken man, onto good old early seasons Walt. This discussion prompted me to start watching again (3rd time now) and honestly, he is a good guy facing hard choices in the first few eps at least, IMO. So far (on ep 3) I don't think I am wearing rose colored glasses, and I still think people here are wearing very dark sunglasses when reflecting on early season Walt.
One thing that does trouble me though. In the first ep he thinks he is done after crashing the RV. Based on the tape he records, he does not seem to think he will make it out of there. And yet his reaction is to stand in the street with a gun, prepared to shoot the police when they arrive. I feel like that decision makes little sense at the time. I guess he is supposed to be clinging to a very narrow hope of walking free, even if the price is killing innocent men?
That's because the journey has never been from 'good man' to 'bad man' for Walt. That's not what Cranston's phrasing of "from Mr Chips to Scarface" meant, it means the journey of a meek man to a powerful hedonist. Walt has always had Heisenberg inside of him, he's just been repressed. Learning he was going to die freed him in essence to buck society's norms and go "so long as my family gets what it needs, the ends justify the means, but I'm going to do it my way."
The more success Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. The more adversity Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. Heisenberg is his vengeance on a world that he thinks was unfair to him, and consequences be dammed.
So yes, viewing Walt's early actions through the lens of Heisenberg is completely appropriate.
I guess I don't see why that is so bad. If you don't fear the consequences of being caught (which he doesn't since he thinks he will die soon anyway) you don't have a rational incentive to follow them. So he takes his genius and applies it to something illegal, and all of a sudden he is a winner for the first time in years. Now he has a rational reason to fear punishment again (he doesn't want to lose what he already won) but he also can't go back to following the rules, because his victory comes from an illegal activity. I think it's an understandable spiral to go down, and I don't think it automatically makes you bad. Am I really the only person who can empathize with Walt and his choices now that we know more about him and where they lead? I just rewatched the ep where he kills crazy 8 and my thought wasn't "how can he kill him instead of going to the cops". I just wonder why he didn't give him ricin in his food to avoid being stabbed in the leg or having to physically kill him like that.
That is the very definition of morally bankrupt.
It is the very definition of a rational reaction to rules. We design rules with rational actor's reactions in mind. Walt has even told us that he sees these sins as putting him in hell, if there is one, but knowing that, he sees no reason to stop when he's already damned. It is only the first step that really requires you to decide whether you will follow the rules or not. Once he started cooking, he had something to lose and so the whole calculus changed from what it was the day before he ever broke the law.
Continuing your criminal behaviour, because *you* are already compromised and fuck the consequences for the rest of the world... is not a rational reaction to rules.
It's a morally bankrupt way of thinking.
Walt is morally bankrupt.
There's an argument to be made (and I think Vince Gilligan makes a reference to that in an interview on AVclub) that Walt already committed an unforgivable act when he started cooking meth.
It absolutely is rational. Emotional concepts like morality (unless you believe God is keeping score or something) have nothing to do with rationality. You can be morally bankrupt and still rational. In fact, it probably helps you to behave more rationally.
Without morality humanity becomes nothing more then beasts. Actually, we'd be worse animals don't have nukes or get into nationwide (or global) wars with each other. Nor is morality limited to people who believe in religious beliefs.
I agree that cooking is the first unforgivable act, in that I can't image doing it in his shoes. But if we follow this line of thought, Jessie had already committed an unforgivable act before he even reconnected with Walt. Do we really think Jessie was beyond redemption at that stage?
Interesting choice of words there. "Redemption" implies he already did something wrong. Jesse can try to "redeem" himself all he likes but he never paid for his crimes legally by going to jail for them which makes any stuff less than that null & void. He may be morally better than Walt doesn't change the fact he is an ethically bankrupt individual (and full fledged criminal), along with Walt.
I'm just really taken aback by how people are projecting full on Heisenberg, slayer of the chicken man, onto good old early seasons Walt. This discussion prompted me to start watching again (3rd time now) and honestly, he is a good guy facing hard choices in the first few eps at least, IMO. So far (on ep 3) I don't think I am wearing rose colored glasses, and I still think people here are wearing very dark sunglasses when reflecting on early season Walt.
One thing that does trouble me though. In the first ep he thinks he is done after crashing the RV. Based on the tape he records, he does not seem to think he will make it out of there. And yet his reaction is to stand in the street with a gun, prepared to shoot the police when they arrive. I feel like that decision makes little sense at the time. I guess he is supposed to be clinging to a very narrow hope of walking free, even if the price is killing innocent men?
That's because the journey has never been from 'good man' to 'bad man' for Walt. That's not what Cranston's phrasing of "from Mr Chips to Scarface" meant, it means the journey of a meek man to a powerful hedonist. Walt has always had Heisenberg inside of him, he's just been repressed. Learning he was going to die freed him in essence to buck society's norms and go "so long as my family gets what it needs, the ends justify the means, but I'm going to do it my way."
The more success Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. The more adversity Walt has had, the more his inner Heisenberg comes out. Heisenberg is his vengeance on a world that he thinks was unfair to him, and consequences be dammed.
So yes, viewing Walt's early actions through the lens of Heisenberg is completely appropriate.
I guess I don't see why that is so bad. If you don't fear the consequences of being caught (which he doesn't since he thinks he will die soon anyway) you don't have a rational incentive to follow them. So he takes his genius and applies it to something illegal, and all of a sudden he is a winner for the first time in years. Now he has a rational reason to fear punishment again (he doesn't want to lose what he already won) but he also can't go back to following the rules, because his victory comes from an illegal activity. I think it's an understandable spiral to go down, and I don't think it automatically makes you bad. Am I really the only person who can empathize with Walt and his choices now that we know more about him and where they lead? I just rewatched the ep where he kills crazy 8 and my thought wasn't "how can he kill him instead of going to the cops". I just wonder why he didn't give him ricin in his food to avoid being stabbed in the leg or having to physically kill him like that.
That is the very definition of morally bankrupt.
It is the very definition of a rational reaction to rules. We design rules with rational actor's reactions in mind. Walt has even told us that he sees these sins as putting him in hell, if there is one, but knowing that, he sees no reason to stop when he's already damned. It is only the first step that really requires you to decide whether you will follow the rules or not. Once he started cooking, he had something to lose and so the whole calculus changed from what it was the day before he ever broke the law.
Continuing your criminal behaviour, because *you* are already compromised and fuck the consequences for the rest of the world... is not a rational reaction to rules.
It's a morally bankrupt way of thinking.
Walt is morally bankrupt.
There's an argument to be made (and I think Vince Gilligan makes a reference to that in an interview on AVclub) that Walt already committed an unforgivable act when he started cooking meth.
It absolutely is rational. Emotional concepts like morality (unless you believe God is keeping score or something) have nothing to do with rationality. You can be morally bankrupt and still rational. In fact, it probably helps you to behave more rationally.
I agree that cooking is the first unforgivable act, in that I can't image doing it in his shoes. But if we follow this line of thought, Jessie had already committed an unforgivable act before he even reconnected with Walt. Do we really think Jessie was beyond redemption at that stage?
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Huh, come to think of it, yeah. I do hold Jesse at a lower standard than Walt, and see his cooking of meth less morally bad than Walt's. Legally speaking it's exactly the same thing, but I dunno. Jesse just seems less culpable somehow? It might be down to him being a total screw up at the start of the series, while Walt was an intelligent guy who 'should know better'
Oh brilliant
0
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
edited August 2012
Morality and rationality are not mutually exclusive. People that believe that become serial killers.
And, as an atheist, the idea that morality is a purely theological concern ("god keeping score") is downright insulting.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
+1
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Morality and rationality are not mutually exclusive. People that believe that become serial killers.
And, as an atheist, the idea that morality is a purely theological concern ("god keeping score") is downright insulting.
Who said mutually exclusive? You can be moral without being rational or rational without being moral, but that doesn't mean you can't be rational and moral.
Well, I don't understand what objective morality divorced from consequences for immoral acts really means. I already had this conversation in ethics in science thread:
If I can borrow from your earlier post, I think when someone says they are behaving in a certain way because it is moral that they are speaking in terms of the "list" of true statements you described. They have a personal list of "moral" rules to follow BECAUSE they are on the list of moral rules, and a variety of social pressures, shame, and the satisfaction of being what one considers a "moral" person all act together to motivate one to follow the list. To demonstrate otherwise, I think you would need to identify something which is viewed as moral but which a person would not choose to do otherwise (there is no enjoyment), and which is done wholly in private, without any societal pressure to so act or recriminations if one did not so act. The closest thing I can think of is a private religious ritual followed by someone who does not get any pleasure from following his religion or fear punishment on earth or afterwards for failing to observe. Unless we can demonstrate that people actually follow morality in these zero benefit (even the benefit of feeling good about being moral) zero fear situations, I don't see how morality can be demonstrated as having independent existence from all our other motivations, in which case it seems to me that morality can always be reduced to those other motivations
0
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Huh, come to think of it, yeah. I do hold Jesse at a lower standard than Walt, and see his cooking of meth less morally bad than Walt's. Legally speaking it's exactly the same thing, but I dunno. Jesse just seems less culpable somehow? It might be down to him being a total screw up at the start of the series, while Walt was an intelligent guy who 'should know better'
Jesse cooks meth for profit (and shitty meth that probably kills or hurts people worse than Walt's, at that), doesn't seem to care at all when his partner is arrested, steals Walt's money (literally every penny Walt had) and blows it at a strip club, then gets lucky and steals an RV from his friend's mother. He racks up a lot of purely selfish activitives very fast on the show, but since his transformation is into a better person over the course of the show, and since he clearly has morals and standards (he won't abide children being hurt and is sick over killing people) I think he is easier to identify with than Walt at this point (and probably for a while now).
Huh, come to think of it, yeah. I do hold Jesse at a lower standard than Walt, and see his cooking of meth less morally bad than Walt's. Legally speaking it's exactly the same thing, but I dunno. Jesse just seems less culpable somehow? It might be down to him being a total screw up at the start of the series, while Walt was an intelligent guy who 'should know better'
Jesse cooks meth for profit (and shitty meth that probably kills or hurts people worse than Walt's, at that), doesn't seem to care at all when his partner is arrested, steals Walt's money (literally every penny Walt had) and blows it at a strip club, then gets lucky and steals an RV from his friend's mother. He racks up a lot of purely selfish activitives very fast on the show, but since his transformation is into a better person over the course of the show, and since he clearly has morals and standards (he won't abide children being hurt and is sick over killing people) I think he is easier to identify with than Walt at this point (and probably for a while now).
Jesse is better morally than Walt. Not that it's a difficult bar to reach considering how fucked up Walt is. That said, he's still a career criminal whose done horrendous things over the series from cold blooded murder to selling meth to AA groups for drug addicts. For far too long he's enabled Walt's criminal activities despite knowing more than Walt about how things work in the drug trade.
So this thread is basically finished. Who is going to make another? Probably shouldn't be me, otherwise the OP will say Breaking Bad is about a person who seems good on the surface, but is revealed to be selfish, obsessed with control and willing to hurt the people closest to themself without much if any compunction, all while thinking they are doing what is best for their family. That person is Skyler White.
Do you need any more nails for that cross?
+2
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So this thread is basically finished. Who is going to make another? Probably shouldn't be me, otherwise the OP will say Breaking Bad is about a person who seems good on the surface, but is revealed to be selfish, obsessed with control and willing to hurt the people closest to themself without much if any compunction, all while thinking they are doing what is best for their family. That person is Skyler White.
Posts
He makes and sells it, but he doesn't make people use it. I'm really anti-drugs, and even I don't put the blame on him for the harms the addicts suffer. If anything, he is helping them, but keeping impurities out. If they're gonna use, better to use the blue than something that might have unexpected toxins in it, right?
Wow. People really don't sympathize with someone putting their loved ones ahead of strangers, no matter what the harm to the strangers is?
We never learned what Walt did to leave or be forced to leave Grey Matter, we just know that he made the decision to
But the series is about Walter going from "good" to "bad", and we're constantly having our perceptions of when he turned bad challenged. But this introduces a second line of thought, not everyone can go "bad" the way Walter has, there must be some little seed inside of him that makes him the way he is, and all it needed was a little spark to ignite.
What if we find that the reason he left Grey Matter was because he was being manipulative, possibly even sinister, and was forced out by them? And because of his personality doesn't even realize what he did wrong, even blames himself, but never changes his ways?
I think it would be a real great twist to learn that the Walter we idealize from the beginning of BB has been Heisenberg his entire life, it just takes certain situations to allow that persona to surface and take root.
I have little doubt that his personality flaws drove what happened with greymatter. At the very least, we know he doesn't work well with equals (look at how poorly working with Gale turned out). I actually think he became a highschool teacher so that he would clearly always be the most talented and smartest person in the room.
The way the show has been consciously avoiding answering this question thus far make this, for me, the clear answer. His talk to Jesse two episodes ago, where he avoids the question with "well, it doesn't matter why I left" signify that deep down, he knows damn well that Gretchen and Elliot were most likely justified in buying him out, and Walt is knowingly deluding himself into believing otherwise.
Whether his victims were civilian or criminal don't matter. Our society doesn't tolerate people shooting criminals on sight because they're criminals. They have rights, loved ones etc like Walt. The difference is they're not the main characters. Even Tucco had good qualities like loving and caring for his grandpa. The police aren't going to be less interested in arresting him because he tells them it was all to save his family (which ends up being bullshit anyway), aside from any corrupt or crooked officers. Saving his family is a worthy goal, except he's done everything wrong at every step ethically and legally. He's actually made things worse by constantly putting them in danger by being a criminal and pissing off any and all criminals he meets on a regular basis.
Elliott's offer would make everything fine, only that would require him to admit he can't help his family on his own and that was never an option. That was a crucial decision that altered his life more then the cancer did, and he chose being a bad guy with no hesitation. It doesn't matter what his motivation was for becoming a criminal once he's one he's a bad guy by definition. When he enters their world he must toughen up since it's literally dog-eat-dog mentality, which is why it's a horrible place to avoid getting into.
False equivalent. Walt isn't doing what he does purely because someone is holding his family hostage like the Nick of Time movie. After Skyler finding out he's the one holding the family and/or her hostage because no-one tells Walt what to do. Walt being a criminal doen't make him a bad person, it's his actions which he's made many shitty choices, even the well intentioned ones end up blowing up in his face & making things worse.
Not that much.
Haha so far he hasn't worked very well with equals.
Or subordinates..
Or people greater than he is..
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
It's highly illegal and the impurities might be to a superior standard it's still meth he's selling. Which can fuck up people's lives. Remember the couple that took Jesse's gang's drugs? That's the kind of shit Walt produces so I wouldn't say he's "helping" meth addicts. It doesn't matter if they're going to use meth or not, it's Walt choice not only enables that behavior but profits from it. Walt gets rich from their suffering directly.
They do. Just not by your definition.
Go!
They chose the suffering. I think he isn't even as bad as big tobbaco, who lied about the health effects and adds additional addicitive drugs solely to drive up sales. Walt is just making sure people get something that works as advertised. I don't blame him for that. If I could work in the super lab without worrying about Gus killing me (like as Gale's assistant if Walt was never brought in in the first place), I would do it, no question.
New thread rule: If you mention Jane choking to death, you have to post an apology girl style drawing.
I would honestly rather hear about that, or speculation on future episodes, than deep ethics battles where people go back and forth with arguments like "Would you rather let your wife die than everyone else on the planet".
PEOPLE DYING IS BAD, WE GET IT.
JESUS CHRIST MARIE.
Which he profits from. No remorse for him, either. It's generally a bad thing to help people suffer even if they want you to. That's why the drug trade is one of the most reviled activities criminals can do. IIRC the Italian mafia in America originally refused to enter that business because they felt it was unethical. That's how bad it is.
Not only is meth illegal no-one bothers warning because criminals sell it (you think they care about warning labels or regulations? IIRC many illegal drugs sold are cut down with things like baby powder and poisons) and everyone knows it's bad for you. At least Big Tobbaco pretends to care about their customers and operates under government authority.
An illegal drug that everyone knows will fuck you up.
Unrealistic scenario. Gus was an exception. A business professional in a field where he's very restrained. Under normal circumstances the first time Walt acted up the kingpin would put a bullet in his head and replaced him with someone else.
Hell its about Walts ethics even more than it is about drugs per se, the drugs are just the means by which it happens.
That is the very definition of morally bankrupt.
Liberal arguments for changes in current drug policy, SKFM, do not hinge on 'meth is something that people should have access to', but rather 'meth, a social ill, is currently being made and used. how can we mitigate the social harms?'
I'd appreciate some properly labeled spoilers, guys.
They're not moral allegories. Jesus Christ, Marie, they're episodes!
It is the very definition of a rational reaction to rules. We design rules with rational actor's reactions in mind. Walt has even told us that he sees these sins as putting him in hell, if there is one, but knowing that, he sees no reason to stop when he's already damned. It is only the first step that really requires you to decide whether you will follow the rules or not. Once he started cooking, he had something to lose and so the whole calculus changed from what it was the day before he ever broke the law.
Continuing your criminal behaviour, because *you* are already compromised and fuck the consequences for the rest of the world... is not a rational reaction to rules.
It's a morally bankrupt way of thinking.
Walt is morally bankrupt.
There's an argument to be made (and I think Vince Gilligan makes a reference to that in an interview on AVclub) that Walt already committed an unforgivable act when he started cooking meth.
Seriously, if its not the show in the topic header, mark your spoilers. Common courtesy and all that.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
They're not rules, they're laws. You break 'em you go to jail.
Actually it is. Tv shows can and do have morality tales. Breaking Bad's is don't become a criminal/meth manufacturer otherwise you'll become a dangerous criminal and put your family & friends in danger. I mean, why do you think they keep showing
It absolutely is rational. Emotional concepts like morality (unless you believe God is keeping score or something) have nothing to do with rationality. You can be morally bankrupt and still rational. In fact, it probably helps you to behave more rationally.
I agree that cooking is the first unforgivable act, in that I can't image doing it in his shoes. But if we follow this line of thought, Jessie had already committed an unforgivable act before he even reconnected with Walt. Do we really think Jessie was beyond redemption at that stage?
Without morality humanity becomes nothing more then beasts. Actually, we'd be worse animals don't have nukes or get into nationwide (or global) wars with each other. Nor is morality limited to people who believe in religious beliefs.
Interesting choice of words there. "Redemption" implies he already did something wrong. Jesse can try to "redeem" himself all he likes but he never paid for his crimes legally by going to jail for them which makes any stuff less than that null & void. He may be morally better than Walt doesn't change the fact he is an ethically bankrupt individual (and full fledged criminal), along with Walt.
I'm starting to feel like Skyler here.
I'm out. See you guys after the next episode.
And, as an atheist, the idea that morality is a purely theological concern ("god keeping score") is downright insulting.
Who said mutually exclusive? You can be moral without being rational or rational without being moral, but that doesn't mean you can't be rational and moral.
Well, I don't understand what objective morality divorced from consequences for immoral acts really means. I already had this conversation in ethics in science thread:
Jesse cooks meth for profit (and shitty meth that probably kills or hurts people worse than Walt's, at that), doesn't seem to care at all when his partner is arrested, steals Walt's money (literally every penny Walt had) and blows it at a strip club, then gets lucky and steals an RV from his friend's mother. He racks up a lot of purely selfish activitives very fast on the show, but since his transformation is into a better person over the course of the show, and since he clearly has morals and standards (he won't abide children being hurt and is sick over killing people) I think he is easier to identify with than Walt at this point (and probably for a while now).
Jesse is better morally than Walt. Not that it's a difficult bar to reach considering how fucked up Walt is. That said, he's still a career criminal whose done horrendous things over the series from cold blooded murder to selling meth to AA groups for drug addicts. For far too long he's enabled Walt's criminal activities despite knowing more than Walt about how things work in the drug trade.
It's also impossible to read this thread and not get unexpectedly spoiled on the endings of The Shield and The Sopranos. What the hell guys.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/166285/breaking-bad-past-season-spoilers-ok-but-dont-spoil-mad-men-the-shield-the-sopranos
Do you need any more nails for that cross?
?
Breaking Bad a Malcolm in the Middle prequel confirmed!
EDIT: ...and I accidentally posted this in an earlier, dead thread. Sorry.
EDIT2:...and apparently it's just going to be a DVD/Blu extra thing, not in the actual show. Never mind.