Currently in my A.P. English class, we are about to have a formal debate on the idea of whether Guy Montag is immoral or not. So far, my group has been gathering information from Thoreau, Locke, and other philosophers to debate both sides of the arguement. The resolution is

"Guy Montag is essentially an immoral character"

We do not know which side we must defend until tuesday and the debate is thursday. If possible, it would be nice for people to input any information or opinions on whether Guy Montag is immoral or not. Again, any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Stephany:

What's your definition of 'immoral'?

In this changing cultural climate, what was moral is now considered something else. What was considered immoral, is now accepted behavior by a large segment. When placed against a religious or faith backdrop, the implications of right and wrong take on a clear meaning. However, take, for instance, a basic, non-religious dictionary explanation of the terms:

Here's a 'secular' book like the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary definition of 'immoral':

...not moral; conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles.

Okay, let's look at the word 'moral'.

Moral:
1st definition:
...relating to principles of right or wrong behavior. Ethical judgments. (b) teaching a concept of right behavior.

So, what is right, or wrong?

Right, according to Webster, is meaning to...being in accordance as to what is righteous and proper and upright. (these are the first definitions, by the way).
Also:
qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal moral propriety or merit moral approval.

Let's look at J. I. Rodale's secular book of synonyms, 'The Synonym Finder' for the word, 'immoral':

...corrupt, depraved, unprincipled, reprobate, shameless, wicked, evil, base, vile, perverted, sinful,evil-minded, lost, unrepentant.

And now for the word 'moral":

...ethical, righteous, just, good, fair, upright, principled, decent, noble.

If someone thinks Montag was immoral, please have them point to those things that provoke such a response from the observer. They'll have to twist and turn something to reach that premise...

As my freshman English Teacher, Mrs. Nixon (who was about 200 years old in the '60s, it seemed to me, so had had some experience) used to say, "The mark of a good novel is when the main character undergoes a dramatic change." (Or something like that.)
Anyway, In F451 Montag clearly undergoes major changes,;I believe from having not an immoral, but AMORAL mindset (as that society encouraged), and DISCOVERED morality as well as passion, wonder, thinking, and, well, HUMANITY reawakening within himself.

Ahhh. The metamorphosis!! Exactly my thought BraII. The "Guy" at the beginning is still a part of the dystopian quagmire, though something is already stirring as the reader delves in. Burning, drugging, stealing, killing...et al.

Then, something happens. "The faintest scent of fresh apricots and strawberries in the air" It takes a searching of the soul. The patience of Job, well almost! And then a floating across the river. (Stephany, read that passage a few extra times, quietly, undisturbed, and then decide about "morality" of Guy.)

Montag is heroic. Let's not revise the meaning of the book's conclusion after all of these years...

Good question. Nard: I agree that these kinds of terms must be defined before they are discussed. This is the bane of most political and much religious discourse--without defining terms, we are arguing platitudes and slogans. When we say Montag was immoral, what does that mean?

I also agree that in Montag's case, morality is not static. He evolves into a more morally aware individual. We see morality come to the front in Faber--who admits to having been a coward all these years. For him, his moral conscience (and subsequent drive to take action) is aroused when he sees Montag's growing awareness and moral development. He can no longer fail to act on moral principle when he sees the struggle of Montag. Just as Clarisse prompts Montag's moral awareness, Montag's prompts Faber's moral awakening.

This goes to another theme in F451 that is often overlooked--the power of one individual to impact another. Whether we like it or not, we are social beings. Morality is what defines the "rules" of society.

F451 does not take place in a moral vacuum. Beatty is evil, he acts with knowledge. Montag is confused growing into moral awareness and action. Faber knows the truth, but fails to act until inspired by Montag. Mildred is, at best, amoral.

Good question.

He killed Beatty in defense of the knowledge. He set up Black's house to be burned in en effort to overthrow the system. Beatty was a casualty in the war against the firemen and the society's lack of reading. Montag killed Beatty because he believed in the books, and what was in them. When the ambiguous question of morality comes up, you have to ask yourself, what would you believe is right and wrong? What if your life was at stake because of what you believe in? If you believe the law is wrong then you believe that you have a right as a human to do what's right, and if the law wants to take you down for that, then you must believe that the law is wrong in doing so. Therefore Montag's killing of Beatty was, in a sense, in self defense, not that Beatty was in a position to kill him, but the system was in a position to take him down, with the other firemen, and the other mechanical hounds. To save himself and what he knew was right, Guy had to declare war upon the system. Beatty was a casualty in that war.

In some high sense, I'd agree that Beatty is a casualty of the war; but becuase he's not an ignorant player, I would hold him to some accountability. He was well-read, knowledgeable of the arguments, and he willingly sided with oppression. So he's not really an innocent victim.

Perhaps Montag was an immoral character in the first half of the book, but an immoral character who finally found at least partial redemption.

There is almost a Biblical-type atmosphere to the Montag character, being a sinner who reforms his ways. (going from burning down homes, books, and responsible for the occasional death...to jumping over to the other side of the coin.)

Mr Dark,
perhaps casualty isn't the correct word. I didn't mean in any way that Beatty was an innocent bystander. He was fighting the war against books, Montag was fighting the war for books. They were at war, Montag preailed. Sorry about the incoherency of that last post, it was kinda freeflowing, not revised or edited afterward.

I don't believe, at the time he killed the Captain, Montag was really aware of any war or his and Beatty's being on different sides. Witness his destroying of not only the 'tv' walls, but the bedroom. As I wrote above, I think there was growing within him a real new personality and awareness, morality included. In fact, one could surmise, this being the case, that he wouldn't later on in his life have chosen to kill anybody.

ok let me explain a little bit about morality. morality is the difference between right and wrong.

like, you know, for example, if you are in a class and you are assigned a bunch of work, and, instead of doing that work and forming your own opinions, you just kind of go on the internet and try to regurgitate a bunch of crap you found a bunch of other people spraying all over message boards, and pass it off as your own ideas, that would be 'wrong' in most views.

by the way, if you are gonna study morality, dont limit yourself to philosophers, and certainly not european philosophers. try religion as well. the baghavad gita, the bible, the koran, the tao te ching, they all have things to say about the various actions that montag takes in the course of his existence.

turmeric: Agreed, but keep in mind that much moral writing in religious texts (some eastern texts excepted) are more like statements of right and wrong than analysis of what that means and what makes a position right or wrong. Trying to "do" morality outside the discipline of philosophy often leads to externalism and legalism.

It seems to me like a transition from no morality--only responding to dictates of the state--to a morality based on acquired truths.