Miscellany: Good -n- Evil, comic books, etc.

Now that finals are over and the spring semester is put to bed, I can concentrate on the work of doing as little as possible. Well, there are always books to read. I have a List of Books that I've Been Meaning to Get To. It's so long you can see it from space. School has been out five days and I've already devoured the first one: Wicked, by Greogry Maguire. It's an absolutely addictive, clever read about the *real* story of the Wicked Witch of the West. Y'know... from The Wizard of Oz. It reads like J.K. Rowling got together with Wally Lamb to write Wizard of Oz fanfic. When all is said and done, you will care for Elphaeba. (That's the Witch's real name.)

I've been writing on Unified, the comic book project me and my friend Aaron have been putting together. The first issue is written and Aaron is pencilling and lettering it. It's coming together quite nicely. I've started on the script for issue two, which has been somewhat of a bear. Comic books seem simple, but they have a basic structure or format that is quite tricky to master. How many panels go on a page? How much dialogue should you have? What actions do you leave out, letting the reader get the implication? It's been a learning experience, but I think I'm getting it down.

One of the themes of the book is the nature of good and evil, a classic theme for a super-hero adventure book if ever there was one. The protagonist, Arestia, is in a cosmic struggle with her brother, Gregor, the antagonist. It was important for me to ascribe motivations to both that would go beyond good and evil (apologies to Nietszche). Wicked really started me thinking on that particular subject. Maguire teases reader expectation by taking the antagonist of The Wizard of Oz and transforming her into the protagonist. Her struggle to overcome circumstance and fate is clearly something that everyone can identify with. Are we locked into predetermined roles? And more importantly, is there good and evil?

I've got friends and family who are at various ends of the religious spectrum, and inevitably discussions will hit on absolute values vs. moral relativism. My mom listens to James Dobson, a conservative christian talk-show host/activist, and one of his favorite rallying points is to shrilly cry out against moral relativism. The liberal college professors are teaching our kids that there is no God and that there is no good and evil, he warns. Well, he's probably misinterpreting a philosophy class (which, by all acounts, should have a variety of philosophies, not just one.) His main error, as I see it, is that he is vilifing all college professors as godless and amoral. In my experience I have yet to see a professor who advocated one specific way of seeing the world. Yes, I've had a professor assign me Nietszche. I've also had to read Samuel Huntington, noted conservative. I've read everything from Thomas Paine to C. S. Lewis. I'm not sure what ultra-liberal school James Dobson went to, but he seems quite scarred by it.
But what about moral relativism? Is there good or evil? Dobson bristles at the question. In my experience the only time you do not like the question is when you fear the answer. Are there absolute values?
For the sake of argument, let's discuss the big sin: killing. A solid majority will state that killing is wrong. A more ephemeral grouping might state that killing is wrong, except in certain circumstances. I'm not looking at statistics here, I'm just typing outloud. But talk to three or four people you know and I believe my statements will prove correct. What are some possibilities? It's okay to kill in self-defense. As punishment for people who kill. In times of war. etc. This to me smacks of moral relativism. I mean, if it's an absolute sin to kill, than NO justification should be able to absolve anyone. None of this, it was wartime crap. If you subscribe to that, that's all I'm saying. Which many Christians vehemently say they do. This is a big argument, the battle between absolutes and relativism. And most Christians' faith is intertwined with a solid notion of good and evil... and yet, while they decry relativism, quite casually, they quite often *practice* it by supporting war, the death penalty, etc. So, the idea seems to be: there are absolutes, but they are unattainable or inconvienent to adhere to.
My point being, if we can't be consistent on killing, what's going to happen with other sins, such as lying or stealing?
This is not an invitation to kill or steal or whatever. It is an invitation for those who dislike the idea of moral relativism to start first by holding themselves to a higher standard. I find that the most useful bit of advice is "Do unto others what you would have done unto you." So much of Chrisitianity becomes dogmatic, a Pharisee's dream, but that particular line cuts through it all.