The bad are frequently good enough to let you see how bad they are, but the good as frequently endeavor to get between you and themselves.
Sometimes people are good, and they do just what they should. But the very same people who are good sometimes are the very same people who are bad sometimes. It's funny but it's true. Its the same isn't it, for me and . . .
You learn eventually that, while there are no villains, there are no heroes either. And until you make the final discovery that there are only human beings, who are therefore all the more fascinating, you are liable to miss something.
Fiction should be about moral dilemmas that are so bloody difficult that the author doesn't know the answer.
Bad people sometimes do good things, and good people do really bad things or do something the audience disagrees with.
Sometimes good and evil aren't so much opposites as two sides of a coin. You toss it one way and it looks good, another way and it's evil, sometimes it just depends on which end of the gun you're on.
The line between good and evil is movable and it's permeable.
When a man declares: "There are no blacks and whites [in morality]" he is making a psychological confession, and what he means is: "I am unwilling to be wholly good - and please don't regard me as wholly evil!"
It is usual to think of good and evil as two poles, two opposite directions, the antithesis of one another...We must begin by doing away with this convention.
If I see something that's morally ambiguous or ambiguously beautiful or has some pull in some way, I won't censor myself; I always run towards the light.
Kill a man who needs killing, and sometimes others pay for it. The question is, was it worth doing it anyway? There's always a balance, you know. Good and evil. Light and Shadow. We would not be human if there wasn't a balance.
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
The world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters.
Even Christoph Waltz's character, Colonel Landa in 'Inglourious Basterds', I never judged him.
Maybe we are both good people who've done some bad things.
I don't think good and evil are polarized.
To remain pure, a novel has to cast a moral puzzle. Anything else is mere negotiation.
There is no such thing as a people who are all wicked or even all good. Everyone chooses. But even they, even they looked at people and saw only tools. No one is a cup for another to drink from.
We're not all evil or all good, and we all make mistakes to one degree or another.
Our errors and our controversies, in the sphere of morality, arise sometimes from looking on men as though they could be altogether bad, or altogether good.
And I think, not for the first time, that what is immoral is not always wrong.
We always want to find good and bad guys, and I don't believe in that.
When you find out there is no ultimate good and evil in which you can place your faith, the world does not fall apart at the seams. It simply means that every decision is more difficult, more critical, because you are creating the good and evil yourself and they are very real.
What I'm saying is people like Hoodwink are not kind of evil villains, they're part of humanity. We can choose to disassociate ourselves from them and we can choose to pretend they're not there, but they are. We're all together in this.
Throughout history, one of the biggest problems is that the correct course of action is not always obvious, and the obvious course of action is not always correct.
