Did Walter White Break Bad?

Carter Wenger

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Spring 2014

Wenger 1

Did Walter White Really Break Bad?

1. Introduction

Breaking Bad garnered a vast and widespread following from the first season. Many were

allured by its macabre nature and how vile it all seemed that a cancer-ridden high school

chemistry teacher would turn to cooking the world’s purest meth. However, behind all of the

grittiness and sinister humor lies an existential moral dilemma that perfectly exemplifies just

how subjective morality is. As I discussed the episodes with many other viewers throughout the

series, the most intriguing recurring topic of discussion was whether or not Walter White’s

actions were permissible even in the light of his provisional intentions. Aside from the

conflicting nature of Walter White as an individual, Breaking Bad has much more to say about

the elusive subject of morality. This paper will therefore function on two adjacent yet related

planes. In attempting to vindicate Walter White of all indictments, we are also seeking to dismiss

the acceptance of not only a legislated, law-enacted moral code, but also the existence of a

concrete moral code at all.

I first feel it of great benefit to provide a precursory profiling of what will likely become

obvious in my construction of a response. I am an avid reader and eternal student of the writings

of history’s greatest intellectuals and philosophers. I hold no religious affiliations, and I am,

while attempting to be very diplomatic, much in opposition to religion. I’m very averse to the

term atheistic and I much prefer the term “anti-theistic”. As for a worldview, I suppose I’m

something of an absurdist, which, despite its sound, I find immensely and magnificently

liberating. My writing in reference to those who subscribe to the dualist approach (that we

possess a body and a soul) solely because of religion will possibly seem vitriolic, but I readily

also say that as a dear lover of the great religious debate, I intend no offense. I only aim to

Wenger 2

present my views as passionately as possible to a respectful recipient who will, in their response,

receive my utmost respect in return. Nobody knows the answer, and I confidently rest in the fact

that it’s very likely that nobody ever will.

Now in regards to the show itself, one is most likely to naturally believe that Breaking

Bad was an example of subjective view-point inversion where the viewer is most exposed to the

struggles and victories of the literal antagonist, but through the development of an emotional

connection to this literal antagonist, the character thereby becomes the protagonist and, in turn,

all who are nobly trying to thwart the main character’s operations thereby become antagonists.

As a viewer, I very rarely felt that I was viewing Walter White’s actions as though I was an

accomplice to a crime. In fact, I was also very rarely in opposition to his behavior. Those who

troubled me most were those who posed a threat to Walter White’s family, life or empire. One

may follow my logic to this point, for I’ve never spoken with a viewer of Ocean’s Eleven, Fight

Club or even Pulp Fiction who was in opposition to the overtly deviant main characters. In the

event that there are those who root against them, they are members of a very miniscule minority.

However, my moral analysis extends to an even more radical place, for I say the actions of

Walter White can be justified. Herein lies the most pressing question I aim to tackle in this

paper. Can the actions of Walter White be justified?

2. Literature Review

Walter White’s actions in Breaking Bad are undeniably illegal, however the question I

aim to explore in this paper is whether there are grounds for believing that his comportment is

justifiable due to his motivation to provide for his family. It will be of great utility for the reader

to be brought up to speed on both current and historic discourses on morality. This supplemental

section will also ubiquitously define and delve into the inescapable themes, motifs and questions

Wenger 3

regarding Walt’s behavior that need to be discussed when determining the worth and

implications of his actions.

In the event one is unfamiliar with Breaking Bad, a previous paper of mine entitled

“Breaking Bad: An Analysis” outlines the events of three episodes from the show’s second

season. Compulsory reading for full comprehension of that article is Bartlett and Holland’s

article “Theorizing the Space of Literacy Practices”. Their definitions of figured world, literacy

practice, artifact, actor and discourse community are integral to my notes. The gist of the paper

is that Walter White, a high school chemistry teacher, learns he has cancer and his time is

quickly fleeting. He decides to continue to front as a teacher and begin cooking meth in his spare

time to provide for his family in the event of his death. He tells nobody about his enterprise

except those in the drug world, thus lying to his family and friends.

I will first seek to dismiss what is obvious about methamphetamine abuse. It is

undeniably unhealthy both mentally and physically. We’d be hard-pressed to find an argument

for the benefits of the use of such a harmful drug, and though we could possibly construct a

libertarian-esque argument that the individual should be left with the right to decide what they

consume, that is outside of the sphere of relevancy when it comes to health concerns. We need

look no further than government-issued pamphlets about the medically detrimental effects of

methamphetamines. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institute on

Drug Abuse released a booklet in 2006 entitled “Methamphetamine Abuse and Addiction” in

which the drug’s qualities and modes of ingestion were outlined along with both short-term and

long-term effects commonly experienced by users. Amongst the short-term effects were the

following: Increased attention, decreased fatigue, increased activity and wakefulness, decreased

appetite, euphoria and rush, increased respiration, rapid or irregular heartbeat and hyperthermia

Wenger 4

(4). Amongst those effects, some appear beneficial, yet consider them alongside the long-term

effects faced by users: Addiction, paranoia, hallucinations, repetitive motor activity, changes in

brain structure and function, deficits in thinking and motor skills, increased distractibility,

memory loss, aggressive or violent behavior, mood disturbances, severe dental problems and

weight loss (4). This should all cause little to no shock to the reader, and I only employ it as a

means of showing a professional, medical analysis of the deleterious drug that meth is. With that

task completed, we can waste no time frivolously discussing what is apparent and avoid such

banalities, providing us with more of a canvas to paint on in order to more thoroughly explore

the paper’s objectives.

I’d like to digress a little longer from what is central to the paper’s focus and incorporate

an article that casts another unfavorable light on the moral worth of Walt’s actions. An article

published in 2007 elucidated many to the great bounds being made towards a more abstinent

society in regards to teenage drug use, alcohol consumption and sex. The most relevant excerpt

here names the statistics directly regarding teenage drug use. “Teenage drug use, which moved

relentlessly upward throughout the 1990's, declined thereafter by an impressive 23 percent, and

for a number of specific drugs it has fallen still lower. Thus, the use of ecstasy and LSD has

dropped by over 50 percent, of methamphetamine by almost as much…” (Wehner and Yuval

20). Obviously these statistics are very hopeful, namely for the upcoming generation. Walt’s

actions must also be read in lieu of these numbers. As his product is more widely distributed, he

could very well cause a great retrogression in these numbers that could ultimately affect the lives

of generations to come. Now let us move on to the central topic of morality.

Morality lies at the root of the paper. It will be important to bear in mind the subjectivity

of morality. To ensure that this happens, I have employed an overview and analysis of the works

Wenger 5

of Kant and Aristotle, two immensely important philosophical figures that wrote extensively on

morality in two completely different time periods and cultures. “The differences between Kant’s

ethics and Aristotle’s are profound; they reflect and express ideological cultural colors…”

(Hudson 3) At the root of Kant’s ethical philosophy is the belief that it is never justifiable to lie

or to use someone for personal gain. Meanwhile, central to Aristotle’s teachings is the belief that

there is no concrete law and every case must be surveyed individually. Thus, we have two

divergent thoughts, one of which says Walt’s use of people as a means to an end is entirely

unjustifiable while the other leaves room for the possibility that Walt could be justified.

One more defined view of morality is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

and Oskar Piest defines this school of thought as deeming actions “right as they tend to promote

happiness, and wrong as they tend to produce the opposite of happiness.” (Mill and Piest).

Within this framework, morality becomes contingent upon a majority result of happiness from

those affected by an action. One of the main arguments against Utilitarianism is that it generally

functions only pragmatically and solely employs logic, thus negating the emotional influence of

the doer. Essentially, one sacrifices personal opinions and feelings in order to only benefit the

whole through their actions. This third view is also susceptible to be manipulated by subjective

interpretation. If morality is contingent upon happiness and the drug users are happier to have

Walt’s meth, would it be, then, amoral for Walt not to cook? The subjectivity of morality cannot

be emphasized enough, and every minute nuance and tangential possibility must be surveyed in

our analysis of the presence or absence of morality and justifiability in Walter White’s actions.

One of morality’s most common inhibitors is power. Those possessing either earned or

achieved authority are often provided with ways to manipulate their positions to appropriate

more power or carryout their tasks in self-subservient manners. A study conducted in 2010

Wenger 6

interviewed many authoritative figures in workplaces and assessed their statements on the

challenges they often face in their pursuit of ethical behavior in the workplace. It was concluded

that corrupt status-quos existing in the inner circle of those with authority often override personal

values due to expectations and fear of deviation from norms regardless of their amorality.

“Power does not rest in one’s belief about one’s locus of control only, but action emanating from

such belief is often required.” (April, Peters, Locke and Mlambo 169). Therefore, conscious

contextually “good” action is required in overcoming the challenges faced by those with power.

For Walter White, he is constantly at odds with the indulgent possibilities of his enterprise, and

he must always be tactful in ensuring that his actions seek to benefit his family and aren’t

motivated by a self-benefitting mindset.

Central to the temptations faced by those with power is the temptation to alter or

withhold the truth in dealings with coworkers and clientele. While the promulgation of

information devoid of factual integrity is most commonly accepted as immoral, there are many

who argue that, upon closer inspection, there do exist logically sound instances where lying

could be justified. The determining factor in the test of morality in actions seems to lie in the

domain in which they’re conducted. This is to say that many separate business morality from the

morality exercised in their social and private lives. In 2001, The Harvard Business Review

published an article entitled "What Goes Around - Is Lying Good Business?”, it was stated that it

is not only permissible, but it is nearly imperative for one to lie in order to get ahead in the

business world, stating, “I think it is fair to say that if the individual executive refuses to bluff

from time to time, he is ignoring opportunities permitted under the rules and is at a heavy

disadvantage in his business dealings.” (172). The article goes on to compare business deals to a

game of poker in which one is, within that setting, provided with an understood right to lie. By

Wenger 7

this logic, Walt is entirely permitted to lie in his business deals.

As for Walt’s personal life, he constantly has to cover the traces of his empire while also

being blatantly dishonest with those whom he loves. For this reason, we must also conduct an

analysis of the functionality and emotional effects of lying in personal relationships. In intimate

relationships, the dynamics of the costs of deceit are only amplified. However, there are again

writers who will give lying its space for permissibility. “Actually using deception, however, is

related to negative outcomes for oneself, but it has a modest positive impact on a partner, unless

of course it is detected.” (Cole 125). Cole’s article leaves judgment in the hands of the acting

individual, setting up a series of ‘ifs’ that measure the detrimental impacts made by revelations

of charlatanry alongside the possible benefits that could result from successful, undetected

deceit. However, this logic finds its end in the article’s final sentence, which states, “While some

deception may be functional, the extensive use of deception appears to be an indicator of overall

relational stress.” (125). Cole’s assertions provide grounds for the possibility that Walt’s

deceptive behavior could provide his family with much more peace of mind than if they were

enlightened to his methamphetamine empire, and I dare say that Walt prefers to be the sole

bearer of all of the disconcerting knowledge he possesses regarding his pass-time’s implications.

Having built a possible case for lying in both business-oriented and intimate domains,

we’ve not yet encountered a piece offering the most common perception of lying being always

and inherently wrong. Immanuel Kant, whom we’ll also be referencing in our subjectification of

morality, also wrote extensively on the morality of lying, and his published works on the topic

are highly regarded as inescapable and immensely important.

Kant’s position, as I understand and accept it, according to which the norm “Do not lie”

Wenger 8

has absolute meaning and makes no allowance for exceptions, constrains the actions of

the individual only by this norm, leaving him completely free outside these limits and

ethically sanctioning this freedom. The norm “Do not lie” outlines a moral space within

which the situation of each individual is not only distinct but also unique. (Guseinov 37)

Thus, under this ideology, given even the vastness of one’s freedoms and permissions, the

“moral space” governed by the aversion to lying still greatly exceeds the freedoms of the

individual. So free is the individual, yet impermissible still is lying. It is with this train of thought

that we must pursue strong grounds for an indictment of Walt, all while pursuing, with equal

vigor, a reprieve on the grounds of the preceding paragraph.

3. Entering The Conversation

We live in a world of subjective contexts. When faced with the question “Is it okay for an

individual to cook methamphetamines?”, one would very likely immediately be inclined to

respond with a confident and assured no. Paying no mind to other factors that may be in play,

individuals often define morality based only on what has been revealed to them. However,

morality is far too intricate and subjective of a topic to be able to ubiquitously define. Take, for

example, the function of religion in one’s daily choices and enterprises. Even provided with

doctrinal texts conveying rigid dogmas, many affiliates of the same religion still hold greatly

divergent views based on their interpretations of their religion’s foundational texts. Consider also

how the absence of religion informs one’s comportment. The supreme locus from which one’s

worldview hails often makes questions of morality remarkably laborious.

Seemingly present in all worldviews is a desire to see the prolonged thriving of the

human race and a corollary understanding of how certain practices tend to assure that our

Wenger 9

species’ existence is also somewhat tolerable or subjectively ‘meaningful’. This inherent quality,

if existent, preceded the advent of language, and before one could linguistically account for what

they felt when watching a close acquaintance suffer or die, they would be able to easily deduct

that what they’ve experienced is counteractive to the promulgation and survival of their species.

In light of the absence of an omnipresent moral code that governs behaviors outside of the realm

of the most primitive functions, one must remember that we also must not allow tangential

emotions to gather more power than they’re entitled, thus skewing our judgments of what is and

isn’t moral.

A case could very easily be made for the inherent and possibly even unconscious

elevation of blood relatives over those to whom we’ve no biological relation. This stratification

in affection with a preceding predilection towards those of the same bloodline can be found in

nearly all somewhat intelligent species. With such a primitive, biological basis for judging

morality as a nearly anarchistic concept, following a deconstructive omission of religion, law and

all other fabricated structures that affect the actions of humans, White’s actions could be argued

for as permissible, justifiable and even necessary in his pursuit of assuring the sustenance of his

blood line. This argument still precedes even the employment of pathos (which will be necessary

only when emotion is present) in determining whether or not his actions are justifiable.

Understandably, many will remain devoutly averse to the thought of drugs ever being

permissible. What of the malignant health effects weathered by those who use White’s

methamphetamines? This is a challenge that requires an answer from the same biological root.

There is no possible denial of the negative effects of hardcore drugs, but who possesses the

authority to admonish an individual for noxious behaviors? What is left in a purely biological

worldview is likely sickeningly nihilistic, reckless and frightening to one whom has been well

Wenger 10

conditioned by society. We’ve obviously made great strides in our ability to subjugate masses

and quell the barbarism that would likely ensue if the majority were to truly subscribe to a purely

biological worldview. However, consider that we are a species. Consider that there is no

universal code outside of attempting to prolong the existence of our species. Shocking as it may

sound, survival of the fittest (a concept I employ not out of complete reliability but out of

widespread appeal) has no exclusive bounds to only removing those who are ailed. Survival of

the fittest would assure not only the survival of a species, but also the intellectual and physical

progress of a species. We’re left with an obligation to consider also that through a purely

biological scope, the survival of hardcore drug users could have a very detrimental impact on the

lives they’d be left to live and to, even more troubling, raise in the event of procreation. Macabre

as it is, perhaps the termination of the reproductive lines of degenerates is beneficial from a, and

again I emphasize, purely biological perspective.

However, many feel still that we are more than merely biological bodies. When questions

of morality are placed alongside preexisting beliefs in the existence of a concrete moral code,

there is often an accompanying rigidity that stifles the hopes of compromise. Absolutism is

common in these minds, and this is the most arduous quality one in opposition can be tasked to

dethrone when faced with those adhering rigidly to predefined codes. Most trying are those who

believe in both the sole existence of right and wrong as well as their mutual exclusivity. It could

very well be a lost cause trying to reason with such an uncompromising mind, but I don’t believe

it impossible. The hope is that when encountering individuals like these, they still give some

degree of credibility to pragmatism and what is confirmed to be concrete. Regardless of the

degree of inflexibility present in an individual, there nearly always exists a belief in emotion as a

powerful, guiding force that sets a moral standard. Thus enters pathos.

Wenger 11

The case of Walter White is most vexing due to the constant balancing of humanism and

affection one must conduct in their moral analysis. He’s not the vicious monster of a drug lord

that we’ve seen portrayed repetitively in film and television and his appearance is a distant cry

from the snarling visages displayed by news channels following the busts of large-scale drug

rings. He’s a man faced by a hapless reality. With his cancer looming and his health in rapid

decline, he is ever plagued by the possibility that his family could be left devoid of not only a

beloved leader, but also an indispensable provider. So how far does compassion extend? At what

point is one no longer warranted in their personal pursuit of doing what they must in order to

help those whom they love? As a man with an uncanny aptitude as a chemist, the quickest

avenue to massive financial gains is to cook meth. He has absolutely no desire to dive headfirst

into the depravity of the drug world. He has no history as a criminal. He is a family man with an

obligation to assure his family’s needs are provided for. Is there a foolish belief present that if his

empire were eradicated there would be no more meth accessible to users? It would surely result

in the emergence of another drug lord whose money went towards a lifestyle rampant with

hedonism and debauchery. So, between the two, meth is indeed still present in either scenario.

Would it not be better that the end result of the inevitable provides a family with sustenance?

Again I ask, can the actions of Walter White be justified?

4. Conclusion

It is a very arduous task to even begin to consider that one is merely the product of their

upbringing and that despite a lifelong exposure to a culture of dualities, the most prevalent of

which is “right and wrong”, it all may have been due to an arbitrary system that could’ve come

together differently if left to the hands of different individuals. However, the hope is that one

always leaves room for flexibility in moral evaluations. Many will likely readily dismiss the

Wenger 12

biological argument that I outlined. Perhaps many of us have loved ones who deal with chemical

dependencies and it seems entirely insensitive and dehumanizing to leave them to their vices for

the purpose of survival of the fittest. We want to continue to enjoy their presence, holding out

hope that they will find sobriety. However, would there not still be those who readily dismiss the

users due to perhaps a radical utilitarian interpretation that engenders feelings of complete

indifference towards those who struggle with addiction yet are disillusioned by their belief that

they haven’t a drug problem? There are certainly groups who align themselves with both of those

views. I dare say also that there are even separate religious groups who align themselves with

those divergent views. Suffice also to say that there are Christian churches that would readily

even find, through subjective readings, doctrinal justifications for their divergent views on the

topic of God loving or hating the sinner. Even within the realm of religion there will always

remain great discord. We are absolutely a world of subjective contexts. So what remains?

What remains is our unity as a race, for even the largest monotheistic religions, despite

their elevations on claims of unbounded, eternal compassion and love, still can’t wholly live up

to their promises. With the advent of language, we became more connected as a species. We

were better able to love, and we were better able to hate. We were better able to convey and

literally articulate our thoughts, and emotions very quickly became heightened. We saw an influx

of expression, and what we’ve become is nothing short of incredible. Our roots never have and

never will change. The subjectivity of our existence is the most magnificent gift we’ve been

given, and it is one that must always be respected and protected. Drugs will not be eradicated any

time soon, but there is a family that will be provided for in the event they lose their lifeline. As a

member of our species, Walter White acted the way that a providing figure must act, and that is

with limitless, unfaltering and unadulterated determination. Walter White was justified. In that I

Wenger 13

am also saying that it can be justifiable for one to produce methamphetamines. The latter is only

the former in more ambiguous form, and in this subjective world, ambiguity is sublime.

Wenger 14

Bibliography

Abdusalam, A G. "What Kant Said, or Why Is It Impermissible to Lie for the Sake of Good?"

Russian Studies in Philosophy. 48.3 (2009): 26-47. Print.

April, K., Peters, K., Locke, K. and Mlambo, C. (2010), Ethics and leadership: Enablers and

stumbling blocks. J. Publ. Aff., 10: 152–172. doi: 10.1002/pa.360

Bartlett L. & Holland D. Theorizing the space of literacy practices. Ways of Knowing Journal.

2 (1), 10-22.

Cole, Tim. "Lying to the One You Love: the Use of Deception in Romantic Relationships."

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 18.1 (2001): 107-129. Print.

Hudson, Stephen D. "What Is Morality All About?" Philosophia. 20 (1990): 3-13. Print.

Methamphetamine Abuse and Addiction. Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human

Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006. Internet resource.

Mill, John S, and Oskar Piest. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957. Print.

"What Goes Around - Is Lying Good Business? Are the Ethics of Business Like the Ethics of

Society? or Ore They More Like the Ethics of the Gambling Hall?" Harvard Business

Review. 79.4 (2001): 172. Print.

Wehner, Peter, and Yuval Levin. "Crime, Drugs, Welfare and Other Good News."

Commentary. 124.5 (2007). Print.

Wenger, Carter. Breaking Bad: An Analysis. Print.

Wenger 15