Breaking Bad
[[Breaking Bad is a television series that premiered in January on AMC. If you haven’t watched it, I highly recommend giving it a spin.]]
Breaking Bad is a discussion on the definitions of morality and societal normalcy disguised as primetime drama-cum-comedy. The series holds that its protagonist’s illegal actions are justified based on his circumstance and discounts the wider societal and ethical repercussions resultant from his descent into crime. I agree that normally unethical behavior may become permissible in trying situations, but I cannot abide the fact that said repercussions are unaddressed and brushed off as insignificant. The philosophical discussions in Breaking Bad are relevant to daily life and as such should not be treated lightly, but the show’s jocular treatment of serious dilemmas does nothing for answering the proverbial “hard questions”.
The protagonist of Breaking Bad is a 50-year-old, formerly brilliant high school chemistry teacher named Walter White whose catch phrase is that his subject is “all about change”. He has a teenage son with cerebral palsy and a wife who is pregnant with a daughter. He finds out he has late-stage, terminal lung cancer and only a few years to live, and without solid finances he starts looking for a way to leave his family with “something better than a huge pile of debt”. Growing desperate, he decides to partner with a former student, Jesse, to “cook” the purest crystal methamphetamine ever seen on the streets of Albuquerque. Walter’s skills are soon in hot demand and after the money starts rolling in he ends up killing two drug dealers who were trying to steal his secrets. He lies to his family and friends, even telling his wife he was smoking pot when in reality he was cooking meth. He neglects his duties as a father and role model to his son and starts coming in late to work. Walter’s abrupt change in behavior from a mild-mannered, pushover scientist provides the show’s title; the idiom “breaking bad” signifies his turn from a straight-laced citizen to the “meth king” of New Mexico.
Walter’s actions bring up interesting dilemmas as to what is moral. He is put in hard positions and left to fend for himself. For example, when the two drug dealers are forcing Walter to show them his recipe for meth he knows they will kill him after they get what they want. He creates a dangerous chemical reaction to escape, effectively gassing them and killing one of them immediately. The second doesn’t die though; unsure of what to do, Walter chains him to a pole in Jesse’s basement for several days. Wrestling with his next step, Walter knows he can’t let the dealer go but can’t bring himself to commit murder. Though the obvious morality dictates setting the dealer free, Walter is certain he will be targeted afterwards and fears for the safety of his family. Walter’s inherent goodness is apparent – he brings the dealer food and water and tries to make him somewhat comfortable. He only musters the gumption to kill the man after he realizes the dealer stole a shard of broken plate to use as a weapon.
Clearly the above situation is not an everyday occurrence for most Americans, but it illustrates the gray area inherent to making difficult decisions involving morality. Is it acceptable for Walter to murder the man who would undoubtedly do the same, and worse, to him? Is it acceptable for Walter to do so to save his family? Where do common ethics leave the picture? I think Walter’s decision was justified – my easiest reasoning involves his family. Since earliest human history the patriarch of a household would do anything to protect it – hence why the oldest male was always called to fight in wars. The question would be much harder if Walter were alone in the world; then a question of who is more valuable, more deserving of life, between Walter and the dealer would arise. Even as it stands, the show brings the case that the dealer was ready to kill Walter in cold blood with the plate shard and therefore Walter acted in preemptive self-defense. In my opinion, however, this takes away from Walter’s realization that he committed murder. The show doesn’t do this single fact anywhere near enough justice and seems to imply it doesn’t matter; Walter’s later thoughts on committing murder are completely ignored.
Besides the illegality of Walter’s new part-time job and the assorted crimes that go with it, Breaking Bad also focuses on the tensions that erupt within Walter’s otherwise together, nuclear family. This is not a household with longstanding tension or drama, but Walter’s illness (when he eventually reveals it) and his suspicious behavior act as destructive tendencies driving him apart from his wife and son. Though they still support him in his battle with cancer I see a wedge forming, separating Walter from the very people with who he should be united. This is a common theme in a cancer-ridden American society and Breaking Bad focuses in on it as if with a microscope.
I agree with the show’s characterization of Walter, as being unable or unwilling to share his illegalities and uncertainties about the future with his family but whether this is ethical on his part is another matter. The show doesn’t seem to condemn Walter at all, which is fine because his actions make sense, are justified and are backed with logic. He doesn’t want to get his family involved in illegal drugs and wants to protect them from both his weakness and the dangerous people he deals with. So though his actions are legitimate they have a poor effect on society at large and his family as a microcosm. Breaking Bad doesn’t address this at all and leaves the emotional trauma resonating through Walter’s family as a background echo to what it clearly considers the more worthwhile plot line, meth cooking. I think this is a misguided notion at giving viewers more action at the expense of valid philosophical discourse – the hurt running through Walter’s relationship with his wife is left untouched, as if unworthy of a primetime audience’s viewing.
Walter White does not break what I term low-level social norms and ethics because all his actions have basis in good, valid truth and normalcy. He is a man pushed between a rock and a hard place, with not enough to leave behind for his family (and a strong sense of pride) and no time to do anything about it thanks to terminal cancer. When he breaks a norm he does so selflessly, not just for his own benefit as some miscreant on the edges of society but as a man with a purpose bending the rules to save himself and those who he loves. What’s murder to save his family from slaughter, especially when the subject exhibits few redeeming traits and a definite threat? What’s lying to his wife, saying he’s smoking marijuana instead of cooking meth, to excuse his late nights? What’s taking time off, albeit duplicitously, from a low-paying job to break the law and ensure his family a nest egg as a legacy? When standing alone Walter’s actions seem unconscionably bad. When put in context they seem understandable and perhaps even excusable. The only problem with Breaking Bad’s treatment of these situations is its focus on plot and pacing and lack of conversation on the greater ripples of the effects Walter is having on those around him. If this could be achieved then the show’s writers would have covered their every contingency but as it stands Breaking Bad rings a bit hollow.
A question regarding who lives and who dies out of two men is deep. It requires the answerer to “play God” with lives, hopes and dreams. A man lying to his wife so he can save her from misery after he’s dead is moving, but raises questions of marital fidelity and full disclosure. This combination isn’t usual fare for a mainstream television show, which is what makes Breaking Bad so unique. Where it falls short, though, is that it doesn’t address wider implications of such far-reaching acts. If the show devoted even a small amount of time to the results, both good and bad, of these criminal acts and ethical breaches it would be a far deeper and more worthwhile program. Chemistry may be all about change, but Breaking Bad ignores the emotional change inherent to its subject matter.
