unspeakablehorror (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
unspeakablehorror) wrote2019-04-14 10:29 pm
unspeakablehorror) wrote2019-04-14 10:29 pm
Entry tags:
Fandoms and Morality
I think a very common thing that people do in fandoms is, unfortunately, constantly conflate people's fictional preferences with morality. This is done in a lot of ways, but a really common one that I see is people trying to prove that they like the right characters, in the right way, or that their enemies don't, or deciding who is their enemy or moral inferior on the basis of their aesthetic preferences. And I really think this is very insidious. I think it's done out of this need to feel righteous and flawless, but the act of doing of this will never make a person a better person. Goodness cannot be obtained by declaration, only the words and deeds of a person towards other real people can be the sum of their moral fiber. And loving or hating a character will never in itself alter someone morally, for better or worse, in any way. You cannot claim any good this character has done as your own, nor is it necessary (or in any way support the idea that one is a better person) to resort to apologism for any evils they may have committed.
And perhaps there is the thought that one must prove oneself morally superior to another to criticize them, but this implies that only some subset of overall 'morally superior' people can ever meaningfully criticize anything. It also precludes the possibility of someone being a very good person in one respect and really quite lacking in another. But if people are not uniformly skilled in any other area of life, why should we presume morality to be any different? If this morally superior group exists, so many seem to clamor to place themselves in it, to feel the need to not just be a person, trying to do the best that they can, but to cast themselves as uncritiquable and anyone they disagree with as their moral inferiors.
I reject this belief. I reject even the idea that all of my enemies are equally bad people, or that they are bad in the same way. I reject the idea that someone who I may be unable to bond with socially is necessarily bad because I don't like them. I reject the idea that any criticism they level at me has to be flawed and that I have to assume I'm morally better than them in every way, or even in any way, to have valid criticisms of their behavior. The only thing all of my enemies share in common (from the deeply annoying to the deeply depraved) is that I don't personally like them.
And so I reject even more strongly the idea that people's morality should be tied to their personal aesthetic preferences. This is not to imply that aesthetic preferences are value neutral, but that travelling the convoluted thread from someone's aesthetic preferences and their morality is an inherently inadequate and unnecessary step to determining their beliefs or behaviors towards real people. And it's certainly not possible to put people in boxes based on characters or tropes that they enjoy.
And perhaps there is the thought that one must prove oneself morally superior to another to criticize them, but this implies that only some subset of overall 'morally superior' people can ever meaningfully criticize anything. It also precludes the possibility of someone being a very good person in one respect and really quite lacking in another. But if people are not uniformly skilled in any other area of life, why should we presume morality to be any different? If this morally superior group exists, so many seem to clamor to place themselves in it, to feel the need to not just be a person, trying to do the best that they can, but to cast themselves as uncritiquable and anyone they disagree with as their moral inferiors.
I reject this belief. I reject even the idea that all of my enemies are equally bad people, or that they are bad in the same way. I reject the idea that someone who I may be unable to bond with socially is necessarily bad because I don't like them. I reject the idea that any criticism they level at me has to be flawed and that I have to assume I'm morally better than them in every way, or even in any way, to have valid criticisms of their behavior. The only thing all of my enemies share in common (from the deeply annoying to the deeply depraved) is that I don't personally like them.
And so I reject even more strongly the idea that people's morality should be tied to their personal aesthetic preferences. This is not to imply that aesthetic preferences are value neutral, but that travelling the convoluted thread from someone's aesthetic preferences and their morality is an inherently inadequate and unnecessary step to determining their beliefs or behaviors towards real people. And it's certainly not possible to put people in boxes based on characters or tropes that they enjoy.