Who's Bad

The ideas of “good,” “evil,” “bad,” “right,” and “wrong” have long been debated throughout human history. Those debates range from the Platonic Ideal, where some ultimate Truth about something exists in the ether, to Relativism, where nothing is ever exactly alike and needs to be judged on its own merits.

Every culture, philosophy, religion, government and law code has touched upon them in some aspect, yet there has never been one clear, definitive answer to what is right, what is wrong, what is good, and what is evil. Making things more complicated is that sensibilities and norms change over time, so what was once considered good (or at least okay) now is seen in a different light.

Homosexuality was against the law in England, and prosecuted as such up until the mid-1960s. Majiuana possession and use is still technically a federal crime in the U.S., but in the past decade medicinal marijuana has become legal in more than 40 states, and recreational use is legal in almost half the country as well. On the other hand, what was once deemed “acceptable” has gained more scrutiny in recent years, notably regarding sexual matters, or language aimed at degrading underrepresented minorities.

Examining these ideas has been a staple of various forms of popular culture since writing began.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, Greek and Roman myths, and Confucian sayings, all dig into tales of what it means to be “good” or “bad,” relative to the times in which they were composed. Those ideas still influence society today (ahem, Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey, for example), more than 2500 years after they were originally written down.

There is no easy answer to what makes someone good or bad. Generally people are a mixture of both, though people try to strive toward one end rather than another. Of course, everyone is the hero of their own story, and can justify their actions to be “good” from their point of view.

One enduring archetype in Western pop culture that embodies this morally ambiguous dichotomy is the “outlaw hero.” Usually a singular individual, or a small group of people with their merry band, the “outlaw,” as the name implies, often goes against the codified laws of the land to uphold their own sense of justice, sometimes also for their own personal reward.

Robin Hood encapsulates this model perfectly. He commits the crimes of stealing, though examples abound. In the American mythos, the rugged, lone cowboy such as the Outlaw Josey Wales, Jesse James, or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid show the fascination has long endured. More modern examples include Dirty Harry, Han Solo, and Katniss Everdeen from the Hunger Games series. These are characters who sometimes do bad things—threaten violence, smuggle, or attempt to overthrow a despotic regime—though they do so with a “heart of gold.”

Whether or not that makes them “good” people is up for debate.

Dirty Harry is a police officer sworn to uphold the law. But he often breaks laws, or at least bends them in a generous interpretation. Han Solo reluctantly joins the Rebellion against the evil, fascist Empire, but not before demanding money for rescuing Princess Leia. Katniss wants to protect her sister and ends up becoming an inspiration to an uprising in the process. They all break “laws,” though whether those laws are just is a different question altogether.

So are these “good” people who do bad things, or just bad people?

Particularly relevant to this discussion are superheroes. For all the “good” they do in fighting crime, aliens, monsters, and supervillains, they often cause just as much destruction to people and places. In the movie Avengers: Age of Ultron, for example, the superheroes are at least partially responsible for the destruction of an entire city in Sokovia.

Should superheroes be held accountable for the destruction they help cause? Good people take responsibility for their actions, but we’re almost never shown how our favorite heroes help clean up the destruction they wreak.

The flip side of the “good” superheroes are epitomized in The Boys. Those “supes” care about image, not right or wrong. Indeed, Homelander, with Superman-like powers of flying, superhuman strength, laser vision, and exceptional hearing, kills a human in broad daylight, in front of a crowd, and gets cheered for it. The protagonists of the show, the eponymous “Boys,” do plenty of bad things themselves, all in the name of trying to take down Homelander.

Are any of them truly good?

In some sense, these characters are at least attempting to do good, however loosely defined and applied. But what about “bad” people?

About the only thing most societies throughout history have agreed on that is “bad” is murder (there are, of course, some exceptions even to this day, as war, the death penalty, and “justifiable homicide” are all “legitimate” reasons to kill someone according to some law makers). Characters who kill are arguably “bad,” then.

I don’t think anyone would argue that Tony Soprano is a “good” person, though he is certainly an interesting character. Whatever Walter White’s redeeming qualities at the start of Breaking Bad—he desperately wants to provide for his family after his death, a noble cause—those redeeming qualities fade away fairly quickly into the show. He kills people to solidify his power, long after he’s amassed enough wealth to provide for his family.

But what about a character like Dexter Morgan from Dexter (and its various spin-offs)? He kills plenty of people. He’s “bad” for that. Yet he has a Code, which directs him to only kill “bad” people—serial killers. Getting rid of serial killers is arguably a “good” thing. But is Dexter a “good” person? I don’t think even Dexter would claim he’s a good guy. He’s a bad person doing bad things, but for good reasons.

Similarly, devotion to country, aka patriotism, is an idea many around the world embrace whole-heartedly. Especially during sporting events such as the Olympics or World Cup (okay, even non-Cape Verde people were rooting for them, right?) So being a patriotic character is arguably “good” in many eyes. Thus the murder, blackmail, sabotage, and more that Elizabeth and Philip Jennings from The Americans commit, all in the name of Mother Russia, is for a “good” reason.

But they’re still bad people. Right?

Still, to be clear, Dexter, Elizabeth, and Philip are bad people, who do bad things, but for good reasons.

They’re “outlaws” in that they literally operate outside the bounds of written laws. They’re “heroes” in that they are the protagonists of their respective shows. But they don’t quite fit into the definition of “outlaw heroes,” for those tend to be “good” people fighting for some higher ideal, only breaking the law because the laws are unjust in the first place.

The laws against murder, blackmail, and sabotage aren’t unjust—they’re the tenets that uphold a just society. People who break those laws are generally seen as “bad” and go to jail (or worse). And yet … Sometimes even bad people end up doing good.

Like the ancient Yin-Yang symbol, there’s light in the darkness, and darkness in the light, and people have both qualities.

*Feature image by psychoshadow (Adobe)