The Grey Area

            Recently, my wife and I have started re-watching the show Boston Legal, which is an excellent comedy that deals with many issues that are still prominent today. However, the one thing I like the most about this show is how it makes us look at the grey area. Not that mushy grey area that rests between our ears, but the grey area of morality resting between right and wrong; good and evil.

            We, as humans, are often very quick to judge most things, grouping them into “right” and “wrong”. The problem is that, when it comes right down to it, there isn't a strict dividing line between the two. In fact, there’s a very big mass of grey right in the middle.

            For example, in one episode of Boston Legal, an elderly woman with no relatives had fallen under the legal guardianship of a man who put her in a home and was living off of her assets. When the main character (a lawyer) tried to solve the problem legally, the man was able to stall – and then put the old woman’s house up for sale.

            The main character – a man with a strong sense of justice but is not above unscrupulous methods – hired some thugs to break into the man’s house (stolen from a different senior) and leave him tied up in a chair so he’d know what it was like to feel as helpless as the old woman did. Then, after about an hour, the main character came in and forced the man to sign papers to release the lady from his control, returning her assets to her.

            As an audience, we can’t very well condemn the main character for his actions. He, himself, regrets them, but good won out in the end. The man was clearly in the wrong, victimizing seniors. He was a terrible person. Yet, at the same time, what the main character did was wrong as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but everything turned out for the best.

            The more we look at what’s right and wrong, the more we can see falling into the grey area. We tell ourselves that there are universal laws of good and evil, but there are other cultures out there with their own universal laws of what’s right and wrong. Everything shifts a bit, from place to place, religion to religion, even from person to person. Who are we to declare that our set of universal laws are the ones that are true?

            When I think about what rules must be universally accepted, the first thing that comes to mind is killing another person. I simply cannot fathom how anyone could say that, morally, killing a person isn't wrong. Yet, there are people who don’t see a problem with it. There are countries with capital punishment, cultures that reward killing people and so many people fighting wars and killing each other. Clearly, it is not a universal truth that killing a person is bad.

            For everything that is truly bad, a justification can always be found somewhere. Likewise, for everything that is truly good, a reason can always be found to explain why it was bad. Examining things closely enough, everything blurs. Eventually, everything becomes grey. Does evil really exist? Does good?

            Perhaps there really is a universal law of right and wrong out there. I could be that it’s ours. Or, maybe, we simply haven’t found it yet.

            We’re too lost in the grey area – the mushy one that rests between our ears.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Is Charlie Freedom?

            I have said many times before that I live under a rock – as such, it takes something really big in the news to find its way to me. Such is the case with the Charlie Hebdo attack this past week.

            For those who haven’t heard of it yet, last Wednesday two gunmen attacked the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo (a weekly satirical newspaper in France), killing twelve people and wounding another eleven. The attack led to a global cry to support free speech.

            On the surface, it is a very simple matter. People were silenced for the ideas they expressed and the world has spoken up saying we’ll stand behind Charlie Hebdo and the right to free speech. I thought it was incredible, at first, until I looked into more facts and the matter became far more complicated.

            As I mentioned earlier, Charlie Hebdo is a satirical paper – more than that, it is a far left-wing one, openly poking fun at all religions and politics, sometimes in very vulgar ways. This particular attack was carried out by a pair of Muslims who saw their Prophet being made fun of in the paper.

            Now, does that justify murder? No, of course not – nothing does. Their religion wasn't the only one being made fun of and none of the others took this sort of drastic action. However, I think that this is a good time to stop and think on what freedom of speech actually means.

            I'veblogged before about freedom and how complicated it actually is, and this situation goes to demonstrate that fact. You see, the freedom to say anything you want doesn't mean you should say it. A big part of freedom is responsibility and the biggest responsibility is respecting other peoples’ freedom. The freedom to think, believe, say and do as they will.

            When you take that freedom of speech and start throwing it in people’s faces, you are expressing your freedom by denying others’ theirs. That is what Charlie Hebdo does, at least as far as I can gather. They make jokes about whatever they can and, when people say they get hurt, they claim “free speech!” This same claim is regularly made all over the internet by people who have hurt others. “I have free speech, so you aren't allowed to get mad at me for what I say, even if I am stomping all over everything you believe.”

            I'm confident that the contents of Charlie Hebdo have never been intended to hurt anyone. Quite the opposite – it’s meant to make people laugh! Words are powerful, though. That’s why people try to ban certain books. We’re taught from childhood that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. It’s a lie. Words hurt – we just tell ourselves that they don’t to try and make them hurt less.

            Humour is all well and good, but why must it come at the expense of others? It’s important to be able to laugh at yourself, but not everyone has been able to acquire that skill. All some people can see are others laughing at them and what they care about. Of course they’re going to retaliate.

            Following the attack, a huge campaign has started: “Je Suis Charlie”, or “I Am Charlie” - the support of free speech. On one level, I completely support it because freedom is so important. At the same time, I cannot condone the content of Charlie Hebdo which, while intended to be funny, can also be inflammatory and insulting – taking freedom of speech to the extreme that spits in the face of others’ freedom.

            Now, there is a simple solution to this sort of conundrum: simply don’t read things that offend you. Is it Charlie Hebdo’s fault that the attackers read their paper? No. That doesn't stop people though – it seems to be in human nature to poke at wounds; to seek out that which causes us pain. We’re drawn like bugs to lamps, with this dread fascination, toward things we know we should keep away from.

            In the end, it doesn't really matter, though, does it? The cards have been played and there are only two possible outcomes: we raise our voices in support of Charlie Hebdo or we are seen to be bowing to the wishes of the attackers – a success for them that will spread the word worldwide that violence can end free speech and more attacks will quickly follow until everyone is afraid to say anything. It’s ironic, really, that this attack has led to the exact opposite of what the attackers intended – partially because we've been left with no other options. We have to stand behind Charlie, or witness the death of freedom.

            So, I guess I don’t have a choice. I am Charlie. I have to be, or I encourage more tragedies.

            I wish that this situation could have been resolved without anyone being hurt or killed. I wish that Charlie Hebdo hadn't become the face of freedom. I wish there was more humour in the world that didn't rely hurting people.

            I wish I lived in a world where I didn't have to support something I don't believe in to support something I do believe in.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.