Grey Morality / Indifference to Laws in TMNT

[Cryomancer]

I was posting about this on a different forum and felt like it was a good thing to bring up here, so here goes.

One thing I have always sort of enjoyed in the TMNT franchise is that the turtles seem to... not be very concerned with the laws of mankind. The turtles typically do heroic actions, but their means and motivations are often illegal or immoral. They live in the sewers, without permission, stealing power and water and probably cable and internet too. They fight Shredder because of a blood feud, him being a bad person is just a happy accident. In the second cartoon they steal a train from the US government. In the first cartoon, the turtle van and the parts to make the blimp were stolen from Stockman. The van in the new show is made from a subway car, and I doubt they bought that either. When April's store burns down, they pretty much immediately flee the city. And of course the general vigilante justice.

Those are some examples off the top of my head. What are some other things the turtles have done that would be considered clearly illegal? Do you like this part of the franchise as well? I suppose this might be within the realm of the classic "how do they afford all the pizza" question, but it goes well beyond that I think. Also it occurs to me that a terrible rabbit hole to fall down into regarding this discussion would be to try and calculate the body counts of each turtle.

Edits as I think of more dumb examples:
Mirage turtles have traveled to the past many times and never given the slightest thought to their actions tampering with history.
OT mutation clearly violates pretty much every law of science, but probably worst of all that they suddenly grow in size. And learn English, but hey.

[Commenter 42]

Honestly, for me, that's one of the important core elements. I think when they are sanitized, and become "do gooders" it loses something. If I recall, Laird talks about his enjoyment for remaining "morally grey" in his writing.

[Wildcat]

I think you're really over thinking this. They aren't vigilantes...or they don't mean to be. They have to live in secret.

They aren't just fighting Shredder over a blood feud. They fight a bunch of bad guys for the sake of doing good who they don't have a history with.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

They aren't just fighting Shredder over a blood feud. They fight a bunch of bad guys for the sake of doing good who they don't have a history with.

Donatello (I think) makes this same argument in "City at War" and is summarily decreed wrong. They're fighting because of a blood feud. After "City at War" they also have zero problems with the Foot doing the same thing the Foot always does. As long as they're no longer targeted, they don't care. Raph does try to reform them after taking over as Shredder in Images Volume 3, because they aren't monsters and they do like to do the right thing, but they don't go out of their way for it.

I think you could probably count the number of times the Mirage Turtles actually go out looking for trouble on one hand. They pretty much always get caught up in a conflict while doing something else. And when they do go patrolling, it's more as a form of exercise than trying to be do-gooders.

I agree that the Turtles not being superheroes is an important element.

[Candy Kappa]

And that's the way I prefer the turtles, I don't like them being active do-good vigilantes, it makes little sense.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

They aren't just fighting Shredder over a blood feud. They fight a bunch of bad guys for the sake of doing good who they don't have a history with.

I assume you're referring to issue 1.

Actually, they simply fight a bunch of guys who they have no history with. The "guy's" in the story, may not be "Bad".
They're fighting only because they were told to fight, by an authority figure, and they don't question it, because they're children. They don't know any better.

They kill someone, and maim a bunch of others. They're not protecting anyone. They leave the rooftop and mike simply says "I'm Hungry".

It's told from their vantage point, so you assume they are the heroes, or at least Leo's narration implies that. If you read it another way, is Leo really a trusted protagonist, or a misfit teen, wielding swords?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

It's told from their vantage point, so you assume they are the heroes, or at least Leo's narration implies that. If you read it another way, is Leo really a trusted protagonist, or a misfit teen, wielding swords?

The great thing is that later issues, both in-continuity and one-offs like "Souls Winter," totally do have you read it that way. Killing Saki is presented as something they embark on without understanding the consequences and that has pretty wholly negative consequences on their and their friends lives, all for the sake of their master's pointless vengeance.

[Candy Kappa]

They didn't actively seek out the Purple Dragons in #1, they took a wrong turn and ended with their backs to the wall. It was a situation of kill or be killed, not Good vs. Evil.

[Warhorse]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

I assume you're referring to issue 1.

Actually, they simply fight a bunch of guys who they have no history with. The "guy's" in the story, may not be "Bad".
They're fighting only because they were told to fight, by an authority figure, and they don't question it, because they're children. They don't know any better.

They kill someone, and maim a bunch of others. They're not protecting anyone. They leave the rooftop and mike simply says "I'm Hungry".

It's told from their vantage point, so you assume they are the heroes, or at least Leo's narration implies that. If you read it another way, is Leo really a trusted protagonist, or a misfit teen, wielding swords?

I'm just curious about what you think about this. Besides the TMNT, my new favorite comic book character of the past few years has been Hitgirl, from the Kickass comics, and she is more or less, just like the Mirage Turtles. Being trained by a father to strike back at the villain who ruined his life. And she is also just a child. So I wonder, who is worse off in the moral department, Hitgirl or the Turtles?

[Tazi]

Yeah, Hitgirl's backstory is pretty similar. Besides, both her and the turtles are kinda like army men, they don't really go into their actions by any moral values they formed by their past experiences (they even might be too young for that), they just execute the commands. Most of the Mirage stuff is about (up until the end of City at War) how they realise that their revenge just caused more ****, and now it's some kind of endless revenge circle. I dunno where Hitgirl's story goes, I only read the first few issues of Kickass 3 yet.
So, yeah, the turtles are not supposed to be vigilantes, except Raph with Casey. Maybe that's just in IDW. But then Raph even only does it because it entertains him, not to help people, so it's kinda selfish.

Hm, I wonder what could have happened in Mirage, if the turtles would have a more sudden realization of Splinter basically trashed their lifes, and used them as expendable soldiers.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Warhorse

I'm just curious about what you think about this. Besides the TMNT, my new favorite comic book character of the past few years has been Hitgirl, from the Kickass comics, and she is more or less, just like the Mirage Turtles. Being trained by a father to strike back at the villain who ruined his life. And she is also just a child. So I wonder, who is worse off in the moral department, Hitgirl or the Turtles?

Welllllll

I guess you'd have to ask yourself a deeper question. What is morality?
Is hit girl a great comparison? Absolutely, but she's more Robin than TMNT I'd say, because she is a human. She's grown up around other kids, and that's had an influence, however Small. but the main point, is that, although Big Daddy had unique parenting ideas, she's still been indoctrinated by western culture. She may rebel against that ideology, but is aware of its existence, and clearly realizes she is actively non-conforming.

But your question is "Who is worse off".
Are either of them worse off? Is morality innate, or taught?
I think it isn't specifically a question of morality, as much as it's the role of authority in question, and the importance we place on it.
There's a decent amount of Orwellian influence in the comic, seeing as the cold war era was coming to an end, and obviously, the year they were living in would not have been lost on either Eastman or Laird. The overtones may have ben subconscious, but they're felt in the art.

In the wild, a turtle will eat a rat, given the chance. How did Splinter subjugate the Turtles and become their morale authority? There are 4 of them, only 1 of him. Mutated or not, he could have easily been food, or lived under the threat of death, and forced into servitude.
In the end, they're animals, suddenly burdened with the trappings of humanity, which is what I think lies at the center of my fascination TBT.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Tazi

Yeah, Hitgirl's backstory is pretty similar. Besides, both her and the turtles are kinda like army men, they don't really go into their actions by any moral values they formed by their past experiences (they even might be too young for that), they just execute the commands...

So, yeah, the turtles are not supposed to be vigilantes, except Raph with Casey. Maybe that's just in IDW. But then Raph even only does it because it entertains him, not to help people, so it's kinda selfish.

Hm, I wonder what could have happened in Mirage, if the turtles would have a more sudden realization of Splinter basically trashed their lifes, and used them as expendable soldiers.

This is the film it should have been. The topic is perfect for this generation.

[Wildcat]

Sorry, you guys misunderstood me. I've actually never read the comics. I was speaking generally. The OP gave examples from various versions.

I didn't mean they were superheroes either. I know they're not purposely looking for crime to stop but they do intervene when they see it, even when they have no history or feud with them. They could ignore a lot and let the proper authority deal with it instead.

Maybe because I have not read the comics but I see the turtles as more sympathetic than only caring about problems that concern themselves.

[Cryomancer]

I am generally under the impression that the turtles "patrol" and fight crime primarily as a way to practice their fighting skills. Obviously this varies by incarnation, but yeah I think most of the time even when they are doing that they are doing it for their own purposes more so than to be doing good.

A good example there is Raphael as the Night Watcher, where he is pretty much doing it because he enjoys fighting and wants an outlet for his anger as opposed to doing it because he wants to help people. Unless you want to count the prequel comics, I suppose.

[Candy Kappa]

Nothing beats live practice, and no ones gonna miss a few thugs...

[Warhorse]

In the grand scheme of things though, the Turtles being trained to fight crime in the shadow is a good goal for Splinter to have them work towards. Instead of looking at themselves as freaks, they have a chance to look at themselves with a purpose, in that saving one human being from a crime, ultimately will continue a chain reaction for that person, which otherwise would have never gone on if that person was killed.

It's a good goal and purpose in life for the boys, knowing they made a change in the world, no matter how small it really was, but nonetheless, more than what most people would accomplish in their lifetimes.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Sorry, you guys misunderstood me. I've actually never read the comics. I was speaking generally. The OP gave examples from various versions.

I didn't mean they were superheroes either. I know they're not purposely looking for crime to stop but they do intervene when they see it, even when they have no history or feud with them. They could ignore a lot and let the proper authority deal with it instead.

Maybe because I have not read the comics but I see the turtles as more sympathetic than only caring about problems that concern themselves.

Do yourself a favor and at least read the first issue from Mirage. At the very least it will give you some insight into the original idea, and a better understanding of just how much the story has changed. It will also illustrate exactly why theirs so much discord among fans from one version to the next.

[IndigoErth]

I find it rather forgivable really... Free housing (that no one would pay for anyhow lol), water, and other necessities in the 20th/21st century... I don't see it as not so much purposely illegal like they're a bunch of rebels trying to go against the law, but sometimes you do what you have to. Like people who take food from stores after a natural disaster when they have nothing else, I see it along those sorts of lines. And what they're doing doesn't cause any harm, even if humans couldn't get away with it - one of the down sides of freely living with the rest of society. The Turtles would not have, for example, stolen all those flat screens from stores like looters would however, they find and fix up a lot of stuff to meet their needs.

If they can do a lot of good for their city they've earned a pass on getting the free utilities, etc. imo.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Warhorse

In the grand scheme of things though, the Turtles being trained to fight crime in the shadow is a good goal for Splinter to have them work towards. Instead of looking at themselves as freaks, they have a chance to look at themselves with a purpose, in that saving one human being from a crime, ultimately will continue a chain reaction for that person, which otherwise would have never gone on if that person was killed.

It's a good goal and purpose in life for the boys, knowing they made a change in the world, no matter how small it really was, but nonetheless, more than what most people would accomplish in their lifetimes.

I don't read it that way at all, though I know that's what it's become. I think TMNT was more random, and the consequences of their actions was something they had to deal with for better or worse.

In the OT, oh, absolutely it became about policing the city, but re-watching that as an adult, you realize they may not be doing "good" at al. They just know they have to stop this or that from happening. Reminds me of the watchmen comic's underlying theme - "who watches the Watchmen".

For me, it's a very current problem. The question of what to do with Iraq/Afghanistan bears a similar resemblance if you ask yourself "We attacked, in the name of vengeance, and now their is a palpable hate for Americans, but we were wronged first, so we're in the right; why do they hate us?"

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

I find it rather forgivable really... Free housing (that no one would pay for anyhow lol), water, and other necessities in the 20th/21st century... I don't see it as not so much purposely illegal like they're a bunch of rebels trying to go against the law, but sometimes you do what you have to. Like people who take food from stores after a natural disaster when they have nothing else, I see it along those sorts of lines. And what they're doing doesn't cause any harm, even if humans couldn't get away with it - one of the down sides of freely living with the rest of society. The Turtles would not have, for example, stolen all those flat screens from stores like looters would however, they find and fix up a lot of stuff to meet their needs.

If they can do a lot of good for their city they've earned a pass on getting the free utilities, etc. imo.

And while that's a valid argument, our justice system might not see it that way. Superman has a day job, and he's an alien. Spiderman too, and he's technically a mutant.
I wouldn't disagree, at all, and think their should be rewards for acts of valor, but the law is the law...which is where it becomes a question of morality.