Most morally incomprehensible character in fiction?

[McMullen]

Q... seriously Q.

A man who will go into any extremes to test humanity but yet seems to love it's capacity for endless growth, granted Voyager kinda ruined him, but in TNG Q is willing to bet all and then throw infinite odds against humanity for the lulz, the way the series ended though clearly shows despite this, Q is rooting for us to become more than we can be.

So we have a god power who is actively working against us whilst secretly wanting us to win.

If Q was a DnD alignment, he'd be Chaotic Dick.

I don't find that incomprehensible at all. I'm not sure it's effective or wise, since there are many ways it could go wrong, but I have no trouble understanding it. Q tests humanity (or at least Picard and a few others) for weakness and places them in circumstances where they must either grow or be destroyed. I know people who do this. I've had it done to me (though the consequences for failure were not nearly as bad). Of course, the tester has a responsibility to judge whether the person being tested is capable of passing the test. It's fine when they pick people who are likely to succeed when motivated, but it's just cruelty to do this to someone who doesn't respond well to such challenges. I think I may have seen that done too, and it's definitely not a good thing.

It's probably a bad idea to do this unless you are certain that the outcome will be good. Such certainty is usually only available to omnipotent beings. Q is such a being so he gets a pass from me.

OT: The Social Network version of Mark Zuckerberg is the first one that comes to mind. For all his genius there is so much that he just. Doesn't. Get. He has the pettiest of motivations and forms vendettas against people for things that he shouldn't give a damn about at worst, and should make him happy at best.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

He thinks he's sleeping or used to sleep? Because Othello's marrying Desdemona and nothing seems to indicate an unhappy couple. Also, when in the play does Iago conjecture his wife's infidelity, more specifically with Othello?

(Jumps in)

Iago's monologue at the end of Act one, last scene 3'
(about Othello) " I hate the Moor, And it is thought abroad that 'twixt my sheets He?s done my office." ie theres a rumour that he slept with Iago's wife.

(jumps out)

But why phrase it like that? He says "I hate the Moor", then follows with an AND about him and his wife. Wouldn't he hate him BECAUSE he cheated on him, rather than simply tack that reason at the end of a statement? Besides I don't buy that excuse at all. I don't think Othello would betray Iago's friendship, and I don't think Iago would believe such hearsay at all. It feels more like Iago is trying to justify his actions with ridiculous incriminations. Of Cassio he later says "He hath a daily beauty in his life that makes me ugly", again as if trying to justify throwing him into the plot as well.

It's been about six or seven years since I read and discussed the play, but I recall hearing a pretty convincing argument that Iago is actually a closet racist. Iago believing the hearsay about Othello and his wife is more an attempt to convince himself that he is justified in his hate (I'm not racist! He slept with my wife!). I remember arguing this made sense given the context the play was written in and Shakespeare's own talent for subversive commentary on race relations. After all, if race wasn't a factor why would you make the title character a Moor?

Just my two cents. But hey, as I said, it's been fucking ages since I read the damn thing and I never had to put in as much effort into thinking about it as I did other plays like Hamlet, so I'm probably talking out my arse. Happens more often then not.

Racism is the obvious answer, and indeed it is right there in the title. But reading the play I got the feeling that Iago and Othello had a solid relationship at some point in the past, hence Othello's (and everybody else's) "gullibility" surrounding Iago. Race is certainly a motive, but there has to be something else. Why does this man in particular want to bring misery to Othello's life? Racism as an issue is dealt with in the first few parts of Act I, when Othello and Desdemona explain their love to Brabanzio and the Duke, both of whom give the couple their blessing. And I've always thought that was a way of confronting, dealing and removing some of the suspicion off racism, regarding Iago's motives.

 

[McMullen]

I forgot to mention Percy Wetmore from The Green Mile. Especially how he treated Eduard Delacroix, starting from a simple misunderstanding over nothing.

I got the impression Percy was just a spoiled kid with a sadistic streak, something about Delacroix just brought it out (probably his being "weak") interestingly it could be a similar effect to the "standford prison experiment"...some people are just cruel

I thought the findings from the SPE and the Milgram Experiment were that nearly everyone is that cruel when put in the right circumstances.

 

[Vault101]

I thought the findings from the SPE and the Milgram Experiment were that nearly everyone is that cruel when put in the right circumstances.

my wording/interpretation might have been off "given the right circumstances" and Percy had the right circumstances, there doesn't always need to be a solid reason...although I guess its made clear both in the book/movie he's just a plain little shit

also one thing I forgot to mention was Percy was insecure (a secure person wouldn't go that fucking nuts over a mouse), mabye he hated Delacroux because he was what Percy was: "weak" see his run ins with Wild Bill where everyone just pities him because he's so pathetic, so he puts on the bravado act

 

[Rowan93]

I'm assuming you mean morally 'reprehensible' not 'incomprehensible'.

Morally incomprehensible: I'm gonna say Kirito from Sword Art Online, probably for the wrong reasons (or at least ones unintended by the creators). He just comes across as kind of dickish, what with going from:

Spoiler: Spoilers up to the end of the SAO anime

-actively attempting to become the single most powerful person in SAO in order to free everyone to
-taking a holiday, having already become the most powerful person and therefore the one that everyone REALLY needs to stick around and not take a break to
-deliberately causing as much pain as possible for that guy at the end of the elf arc
all the while having a completely unbelievable relationship and simultaneously kind of leading his sister on.

So, to me, Kirito's morals come across as pretty incomprehensible, as in difficult to understand.

EDIT: Put the SAO-related stuff in spoilers, just in case.

He cares about other people, but not actually more than he cares about himself, and trying to become the most powerful player is kind of a thing that he as a gamer would do selfishly for fun anyway. Many moralities claim that it's good and right to punish despicable villains, but also dialling the feedback up so far it can cause brain damage is like the only way he can affect the villain in the real world.

 

[GabeZhul]

OT: Would Tobi from Naruto count? I mean he set up the Akatsuki, started a war and planned to put everyone in an infinite genjutsu all because

Spoiler

The girl he liked died

*face palm*

It's so completely stupid

To be fair to him, he was just the front-man and he was slowly brainwashed through Stockholn-syndrome by an obviously crazy old man... Speaking of which, Madara, full stop.

As paper-thin Tobi's reasons might be, Madara is a million times worse because he apparently has no reason to do this. Kishimoto has dedicated several months worth of chapters to the guy, and he still has no motivation, and he is supposed to be the final villain of the series (well, unless Sasuke decides to hop through the Face-Hell Revolving Door again, that is...)

 

[LongAndShort]

Racism is the obvious answer, and indeed it is right there in the title. But reading the play I got the feeling that Iago and Othello had a solid relationship at some point in the past, hence Othello's (and everybody else's) "gullibility" surrounding Iago. Race is certainly a motive, but there has to be something else. Why does this man in particular want to bring misery to Othello's life? Racism as an issue is dealt with in the first few parts of Act I, when Othello and Desdemona explain their love to Brabanzio and the Duke, both of whom give the couple their blessing. And I've always thought that was a way of confronting, dealing and removing some of the suspicion off racism, regarding Iago's motives.

That's a good point, but I'm not sure it shifted the suspicion of racism away from Iago. Problem with looking for a motivation for Iago as far as I can see is that we aren't given one (that seems plausible). I'll admit comparing him against other examples of Shakespeare subverting 16th century racism is a challenge. Aaron the Moor from Titus Andronicus is an evil bastard, but hints that it is a response to his treatment as a Moor, a black-hued outsider, by the Romans and Gauls. Shylock might be sharpening his knives and waiting for his pound of flesh, but he's been mistreated and stolen from throughout the play (some twat doesn't just run off with Shylock's daughter, he convinces her to rob him blind on the way out. Probably spent it all on drugs).

Maybe that's because Iago is a racist, rather than a victim of racism.

Maybe he's just an evil bastard who finally decided to strike down a boss he's silently hated for years.

 

[GabeZhul]

I thought the findings from the SPE and the Milgram Experiment were that nearly everyone is that cruel when put in the right circumstances.

Just for the record:
-The Milgram Experiment was bullshit. Milgram had an agenda he wanted to further and he had demonstrably manipulated the data by omitting certain experiments and downright lying about the results.

-The Stanford Prison Experiment was such a pile of bullshit it makes the data-manipulation of Milgram look tame in comparison. For starters, Philip Zimbardo (the man leading the experiment) also had an agenda, and a very personal one: he grew up in a ghetto environment where he developed a preconceived notion saying "good people do bad things in bad environments" as a sort of justification for his friends and himself, and he has been promoting this idea from his college days till today regardless of evidence.

Then come the experiment itself, where he cherry-picked the participants, the fact that 80% of the participants weren't affected by said environment, that the most infamous "prison guard" was admittedly roleplaying a character from Cool Hand Luke, something Zimbardo went out of his way to endorse as his own character, the prison intendant (btw, most modern experimental psychologists would throw this experiment out the window just because of this, as active participation in the experiment, especially one where you are directly telling your test subjects what to do makes it completely worthless), and then there is the issue of sample size, no controls and so on.

In other words, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a sham perpetuated by a man with a life-long agenda, and it became well-known exactly because it is so counter-intuitive and because the media picked it up in relation to the Holocaust and in any and all inhuman behavior in general. After all, we would all like to believe that if we do something bad, it's because of authority telling us so or because of the negative environment and absolve us of the responsibility...

 

[Mr_Spanky]

I'm going to be slightly controversial here and say Ezio Auditore.

Spoilers for "Assassins Creed 2" ahead:

Let's face it Ezio pretty much has to kill many (10s if not 100s) of men in his way to reach that "finale" point in which he decides to SPARE THE LIFE OF HIS DEEPEST ENEMY. I'm totally with Machiavelli on this (in Brotherhood) as in why? Why when you have slaughtered your way through so many (most of whom were probably just family men trying to make a living if you think about it) would you stay your blade for the prize of your biggest enemy?

I get the deal with the artifact (or whatever) being the real prize but Rodrigo Borgia was the most difficult and persistent enemy to prevent him from succeeding - and along the way murdered most of his family.

Leaving him alive with so many innocent dead behind him is utterly inconceivable to me and definitely made the whole story of Ezio somewhat tarnished imo.

Ezio is portrayed to be a moral man and yet kills so many innocents whilst sparing the truly guilty.

In short; WTF man?

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Okay, I finally got one: Makarov from CoD: MW2 and MW3.

I seriously don't know what his motivations for him starting a World War were. It seems like he just did it because he hates America, but even that doesn't make sense. Putting aside the shit military strategy portrayed in the games, what was hist endgame? There is no way America, the UK, France, and god knows how many other countries Russia invaded could have been toppled, so why invade at all? If it was for the glory of Mother Russia, then trying (and spectacularly failing) to invade all these countries doesn't come off as glorious. If it was to just stir shit up, then mission fucking accomplished, because nothing was gained and millions of people are dead. Makarov basically just trolled the whole world.

Runner up: General Shepherd from the same games.

While he is given some motivation (increasing America's military power) he goes about it in the most dickish way possible. How to increase America's prominence in the world? Have Russia invade the East Coast! His plan is so ludicrous it makes what 9/11 truthers say seem plausible by comparison. The only difference between him and Makarov is that at least he seemed to have an endgame in mind, however vague it may be.

In summation: The Modern Warfare games have stupid fucking villains and an even stupider plot.

 

[Silvanus]

Ramsay Snow and Pennywise are both pretty incomprehensible in the morality department. Ramsay's relationship with Theon is pretty hard to fathom, as is Pennywise's status as an immensely powerful and ancient entity who spends it's time eating children in Derry.

 

[Hochmeister]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this bastard yet:

Spoiler

Loves his kid brother and country and wants to protect both. So he slaughters his entire family in front of the kid, mind rapes him twice, and encourages him to kill his best friend to obtain power and get revenge. And he's then surprised when Sasuke betrays his country for a shot at revenge.

 

[rutger5000]

I'm going to be slightly controversial here and say Ezio Auditore.

Spoilers for "Assassins Creed 2" ahead:

Let's face it Ezio pretty much has to kill many (10s if not 100s) of men in his way to reach that "finale" point in which he decides to SPARE THE LIFE OF HIS DEEPEST ENEMY. I'm totally with Machiavelli on this (in Brotherhood) as in why? Why when you have slaughtered your way through so many (most of whom were probably just family men trying to make a living if you think about it) would you stay your blade for the prize of your biggest enemy?

I get the deal with the artifact (or whatever) being the real prize but Rodrigo Borgia was the most difficult and persistent enemy to prevent him from succeeding - and along the way murdered most of his family.

Leaving him alive with so many innocent dead behind him is utterly inconceivable to me and definitely made the whole story of Ezio somewhat tarnished imo.

Ezio is portrayed to be a moral man and yet kills so many innocents whilst sparing the truly guilty.

In short; WTF man?

I don't agree with this philosophy, but the game seems to claim that the why is important. Had Ezio killed Borgia it would have been because he hated him, not because it was the best course of action available to him. Assasins are suppossed to only kill because there's no practical alternative. (Which granted is total bull if you look at the games, (it would be a good gameplay mechanic to punish violence). But yeah in my mind he ought to have killed Borgia regardlesss of his personal feelings.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I just remembered today: Captain Scarlett from the Borderlands 2 DLC.

Her personality seems to go completely against her actions. She seems to be set up as a nice, spunky and slightly klutzy young woman. But in her very introduction she greets you nicely and politely and with enthusiasm, then immediately caps a guy in the head at point blank range, though offscreen. Her personality is something along the lines of Amy Wong from Futurama, but she acts like a freaking mob boss. She even flaunts having killed kids and sends you to kill her former crewmates. She seems like two completely opposite characters mashed together. I never figured out if I was supposed to hate her or like her.

 

[hermes]

I'm even more surprised (or am I?) that no one has said Iago from Othello. You tell me exactly what the fuck drives that guy and I'll abscond this place forever.

This amused me because I actually wrote my English lit coursework (only at AS level) on Iago, arguing that at one point he WAS a heroic character (due to how everyone assumes he is) but went a bit mental from jealousy over assuming his wife cheated on him (iirc, was a few years ago now)

just found that an amusing coincidence

What's his beef with Othello though? Why does he keep trying to throw him down? I don't think it's a racist thing, at least he doesn't seem to be impulsed over racism. Act I does away with that as far as I remember. So I'm left wondering if he felt somehow betrayed by Othello, if he loved him or worshipped his friendship and became jealous over his well being, or was simply being "evil for the sake of evil". I can't think of an airtight explanation for his actions.

My memory in this is a little hazy (it was a while since I last read it), but I seem to remember Iago being angry at Othello and Casio because the later was named Othello's lieutenant instead of him.

OT: Littlefinger. I know it is part of the character, but most of the times he seems to be evil just to create chaos around him.

 

[hermes]

Sorry for the double post.

I forgot to mention Percy Wetmore from The Green Mile. Especially how he treated Eduard Delacroix, starting from a simple misunderstanding over nothing.

He is a spoiled, sadistic bully.

He took pleasure in being in a position of safety and power over people that couldn't fight back and whose will was already pretty beaten for being death row inmates. Specially considering he is a small man, and wouldn't dare to attack someone like Coffey if he wasn't behind bars.

 

[Baron Teapot]

Does Dio Brando count? Is there anything else behind his actions apart from
'I'M GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST ASSHOLE POSSIBLE AND WILL RUIN EVERYONE'S LIVES'?

This, first time me and friends watched JoJo, the second the first episode ended, we just said "Dio's a ****!"

OT: Would Tobi from Naruto count? I mean he set up the Akatsuki, started a war and planned to put everyone in an infinite genjutsu all because

Spoiler

The girl he liked died

*face palm*

It's so completely stupid

I was very disappointing with that as well, to the point i can no longer take Tobi seriously as a villain.

My vote however goes to Uchiha Sasuke. He starts out with the ambition to kill his brother for slaughtering his whole clan. That's pretty understandable. Then we find out that his clan where evil warmongers who would start a new world war if they had their way and he still thinks its a great injustice the Leaf village moved to prevent that. When Sasuke wanted revenge against his brother he was at least sane about it, when he wants unjust revenge against the Leaf village he turns into an obsessiveness maniac.

I think it's the part where even innocent children were involved and that the Leaf didn't push for more of a democratic resolution to the situation rather than just slaughtering an entire clan - that and the village enjoys peace from the twisted things that the military does for them - think about it like this - you enjoy products made by (probably a good chance anyways) a third world sweat shop with child laborers - so a person representing that country and those children is angered by how well off you do by what is basically parasitism

at least that's how I see it - it's very reasonable to say the least

I don't think it's that simple. The leaf village tried to reach a democratic solution, but the massacre was their only option. In the end, Itachi agreed with them, that in order to protect his brother, he had to put the good of the village ahead of his clan; he was basically a teenager, but capable of looking at the bigger picture. Whether he agreed to do it for selfish reasons, such as to protect Sasuke, or to protect Sasuke and the rest of the village he loved, I don't know.

It was a classic "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few" sort of situation. Thank you Star Trek.

Meursault, from The Stranger. I mean, thinking that life's meaningless doesn't mean you have to be a total dick about it...

Meursault wasn't an asshole. Have you ever been trapped in a hot room during a heatwave? Heheh.

He just saw his own actions and humanity in perspective: the world is a big place, but it's a speck of dust compared to our universe, and there's no sign of whether anything or anyone exists within that yawning black void to justify our existences and say that we're worth having survived and evolved.

Basically, the fact that he has difficulty experiencing emotion led to his death; he doesn't deserve to live in a world where he can't cry at his mother's funeral, regardless of whether they were close or not - if he'd faked it, nobody would have cared and he'd have been let off lightly for the murder. It probably would've contributed to his being freed, the idea that grief drove him mad.

But because he doesn't see any need to fake it, he's killed? Meh.

I find Humbert Humbert in Lolita to be pretty cloudy, morally-speaking, at least at the beginning of the book. I actually like the character because he's just so hopelessly pathetic, and a lot of the book is quite hilariously funny, but eventually he just becomes a murderer.

He ended up a paedophile after a juvenile romantic experience with another child his same age. Then, as he grew up, he tried to reclaim that first love. He aged physically, but didn't grow at all emotionally, and so he's an older man with a clumsy man's body, but the emotional maturity of a pre-teen. Still, it's a tragic story.

The character of Walter White in Breaking Bad is an obvious choice. He's halfway a smiling, friendly neighbor who takes care of his kids and works hard to provide for his wonderful family, but underneath he can be cold, calculating and ruthless. Well, we've all seen it by now.

 

[BNguyen]

I don't think it's that simple. The leaf village tried to reach a democratic solution, but the massacre was their only option. In the end, Itachi agreed with them, that in order to protect his brother, he had to put the good of the village ahead of his clan; he was basically a teenager, but capable of looking at the bigger picture. Whether he agreed to do it for selfish reasons, such as to protect Sasuke, or to protect Sasuke and the rest of the village he loved, I don't know.

It was a classic "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few" sort of situation. Thank you Star Trek.

of course based on one of the Star Trek movies the needs of the few apparently outweigh the needs of many, I think it was Star Trek 9