Ozark and the underlying moral question

 Somewhat famous Netflix series ‘Ozark’ has come to an end. Right from the start, Ozark has been hailed as next in the line from ‘Breaking Bad’. Ozark does not come close to the cold-blooded excellence of ‘Breaking Bad’, but it managed to create a world of its own, mostly due to impactful portrayal of Wendy Byrde. The end was quite classic, where Wendy has dialogues which capture the essence of her and Marty’s actions and of the theme of the series.

            What captivates us in series like ‘Breaking Bad’ and ‘Ozark’ (and spin-off likes ‘Better Call Soul’) is supposed descent into the cesspool of immorality of the characters, the way they break into world of being bad. The way central character makes apparently ‘wrong’ choices, starting with justified ends like self-survival or helping the family, but eventually realizes the power that such wrong choices can confer and then takes that path to the end story has. The story is clearly not for those who can divide world in neat sections of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, but I think such people are always in extreme minority.

            ‘Breaking Bad’ or ‘Ozark’ essentially show is the power of self-delusion or convincing oneself to one’s own story that one has. What I like from such stories is how little we are bothered by apparent ‘right-wrong’ demarcations once we realize that we do not have any fundamental need to keep doing moral evaluation of own actions. The stories typically have a part where character breaks down, often for a short period, under moral analysis of choices and consequences. But it hardly happens that any character crushes itself under the burden of harms one has caused to others. The character eventually gets back to the path.

One can always spin a story where harm caused to others has a justification or sometimes one does not need a story since we are not bothered by what we have done to others. We are disguised or unabashed amoral creatures.

            This ‘amorality’ is a hallmark of the modern storytelling. Even if we live in world where ‘do no harm’ is a defining principle of my frame of freedom bordered by law, we find a resonance with a ‘amoral’ world of stories that we enjoy. Apart from what my mind tells me, there is no external judgement. And my mind is hardly going to give me a ‘guilty’ verdict, even if I must accept one that world might confer upon me.

            This is a powerful realization. And it has helped me to understand many individuals around me, who display a stunning mix of two personalities, one with considerable moral uprightness in the domain of their livelihood and one which justifies any immoral act as a required mean to an end in sphere of their political or social preferences. For example, there are individuals who have conservative (read ‘monogamous through heterosexual marriage or even celibate’ if it suits) in their sexual behaviour but will be ready to defend threats of sexual violence, incidences of such violence, or non-conservative sexual choices as a collateral-damage when it suits their politics. But we I ask these individuals that such dissonance makes them ‘amoral’, most of them will not accept it.

            I am not claiming I am different. What I am claiming is we are by design ‘amoral’ or more specifically can spin moral norms which suits our ends or capable not needing morality at all. But we hardly accept that. We understand the tremendous utility of having a moral framework in which lot of people believe. The key part of this ‘useful’ moral framework is ‘do no harm’, especially serious life-altering or life-taking harms.

           So, we live in a world of contradiction. I want others to behave the moral norms of the social-political-economics structure we have built, but I understand that these norms are essentially make-believe, like a currency note. If I can find courage, ability, and accomplices then I can tremendously benefit by being ‘amoral’ in an apparent moral structure.

           This property of being ‘amoral’ – of being able to commit ‘immoral’ act and yet not being perturbed by them – is very crucial and is not limited to gangsters and financial scammers. It is a property we all need to live, since it allows us to tunnel our vision on our own survival. If we take up moral analysis of each of our choice, we will soon have to conclude that eliminating our existence is perhaps the best moral choice we can make for ourselves. But we are not designed that way, we are designed to choose to pick our bothers, to choose to make our stories, or to become so peaceful with one’s life that we do not need bothers or need for stories, the ultimate amoral bliss.