When considering the differing worlds of moral ambiguity and the dismantling of moral absolutism, it’s clear that the two concepts work hand-in-hand. With the former expanding the grey area between good and bad while the latter questions whether or not the extremities of good and bad exist in the first place, it becomes transparent (while examining the world through this viewpoint) that there are trade-offs in actions. This creative literature, Boy Mimics Man, explores this very concept of moral ambiguity. Can the past be enough to justify present or future actions?
Second, is/can religion be used as a lens to justify objectively oppressive things. With the novel set in 2027, this novel assumes complicity played out leading to a dystopian future where being gay and queer is illegal. Religion is the justifying indicator to push for advocacies that do more harm than good. But the objectively bad act is justifiable through the good lens of religious pursuit. With that said, is moral ambiguity used in a way to mask atrocities or justify them?
This creative writing piece is the set-up to moral ambiguity and the twists and turns that the protagonist will eventually take. To survive and thrive in this culture, what do we have to do to hide? When it comes to the exploration of religion, what components of religion justify treating people like second-class citizens? Or, what components of religion do we use unfairly to push an ideology that holistically acts against the best interest of the people?