What is Immorality?

Now I can finally get around to the prompt I had more interest in, and had a lot more to say about. Last week in class we were discussing immorality. I don't recall how we branched off to that as many of us have ADD and it takes worthless effort to try to stay on one subject. In his own blog, Mr. Dye briefly touched on the controversy of the Holy Bible. Most of what I'm about to say I've already covered in my comment on that blog.
As Mr. Dye stated, the Bible contains several scenes portraying immorality--violence, sex, gore, incest, inhuman cruelty, even foul language if you choose to interpret it that way--the Bible has it all. So what makes the Bible so special that morally-minded Christian parents don't look at it and say "I would never read that to my children!"? There's certainly enough questionable content to make that outlook suitable. Think about it, if there was a movie that followed the entire Bible word for word, there's nothing they could do to get any less than an R rating.
Now there are two sensible ways to think past this. We can either accept the fact that the Bible along with other R-rated materials contain enough praiseworthy content to justify their very existence, or we can shun the Bible along with any material that shares its distasteful traits. I choose the former. Yes, I confess: I watch lots of R-rated movies. Just as I believe the Bible to be a collaboration of holy works by inspired men of God, so do I find good report in such movies. Sometimes the R rating on some of the R-rated movies I watch could easily be removed had they gone without one wretched scene. In rare cases there's no reason for it to be rated R and it just seems the MPAA took one look at it and said "Behold, it's a movie based off an anime intended for mature audiences; it must be rated R". But in most cases the R is there for good reasons. And I can see why people of my faith wouldn't subject themselves to such material (to those people I can only say "the Bible is such an awful book!" and hope they get the hint). Some people aren't headstrong or mature enough to take all the blood, the flashing weapons, and the occasional scantily-clad heroine. And some who subject themselves to such material are hardly deserving of it. Too many people watch R movies simply for the blood and the violence and the sexual themes; in other words, they watch R movies because they're rated R. This I find deplorable. Not only does it show that these people have no sense of morals, it also dampens their ability to appreciate the higher meaning that is present in most R-rated movies. There are too many examples to list I'm afraid, but let me tell you, several times have I walked away from an R-rated movie having been taught an important principle of humanity. Sometimes it's a lot harder to find for a couple reasons: first and foremost there would often be heavy amounts of violence that would distract the average audience to any higher meaning, or simply the higher meaning would be too subtle to be offright. Other times it's not necessarily a philosophy or a principle, but simply an interesting concept.
Anyway, I'm gonna end that branch and get back to the topic at hand. In class we helped Mr. Dye classify that in order to be considered moral, the book/movie must have the following traits: It must show that actions have consequences, it must show that liberty is linked to responsibility, and most important it must portray humans as complex individuals.
I feel that after that we haven't necessarily defined morals per se, but that we've essentially defined something entirely different. That's not to say that the list is bad, but who are we to decide what morals are? Everyone has their own definition and drawn lines not to cross. Sure there's a common ground for all moralists, but I don't see that list as the Venn of all perspectives. Regardless, I like that list; not because it shows what morals are, but because it basically defines good literature. That being said, let me address a certain series of books that doesn't quite make the cut. I guess if the list really does show what morals are, you can consider the series to be immoral. And that being said, I'll give a warning: If you react aggressively to someone questioning the moral value or quality of something you like (in other words if you're a close-minded individual that does not subject themselves to critical thinking and questions the validity of that which you follow), do not read on.
I'm gonna name it right off for ya: the Twilight Series. Never in all my life have I read fiction that has fallen so short of the standard of good literature it has literally driven me to violent psychosis and chronic nausea. I understand I'm not the target audience. That still does not excuse Stephenie Meyer from portraying a sociopathic overaged vampire as the ideal boyfriend/husband. The books struggle to even amount to our list, and they fall very short of it. Let's take a look at it:

• It must show that actions have consequences - Beyond common sense it fails. Sure, Bella gets pregnant after she and Edward procreate. But does it show the consequences that often follow for a teenage girl after having a boy in her room alone with her? That's not to say it would lead to unchaste activities; I'm addressing the issue of the apparent lack of parental impact upon Bella's tolerance for such an unspeakable action. In real life, parents would charge on to battle at the first sign of such. Let's hope at least, because in a society of morals, parents are the law and a responsible parent recognizes that.
• It must show that liberty is linked to responsibility - In no way does it show this. Bella is given an unrealistic amount of liberty and she has no sense of responsibility. This is either because she is stupid or because Meyer failed to make a believable main character. Take for instance the fact that absolutely everyone in her new school loves her to death for no good reason. This I would classify as a liberty. At this she fails to take responsibility, recognizing the way people treat her unconditionally, but not showing that same love in return. Or what about her responsibility as a daughter, being given the liberty that Charlie has granted her? She should be thankful to have such unquestioned freedom (were I her father I would not abide her talking to me as if I were a stranger that never tells me where she's going).
• It must portray humans [(AND vampires...AND werewolves)] as complex individuals - Let me think, what's the best way to say this? If this requirement was the essential factor in determining whether a book was moral or not, Twilight and its sequels would be banned, burned, and exorcised. The characters are far from complex. Some are cliches, others are archetypes, but most are simply poorly constructed. Bella is your typical helpless female, stripped of any sense of heroism or the slightest ounce of self-respect. She sets the worst example possible for female teenagers. The text basically screams to the young female population: "Dislike yourself no matter how beautiful you are, kill yourself before living down a bad break-up, and let a hot guy who struggles to control himself take control of you. Oh, and only marry guys whose last name sounds like the word for the rear-end of your digestive system. By the way, nerds are gross!" And don't get me started on Edward. I cannot begin to describe how one-dimensional, conceited, sociopathic, and unrealistic he is. That's mostly because I've done it so much I'm rather sick of it. He is clearly the reason the book was made and I believe it is because of that centralization in creating a novel that ultimately made the premise and plot fail. I have never enjoyed romance novels for that reason: often the only reason the book was made was to describe the author's idea of the perfect mate. You can clearly see how this would make a book automatically detestable. Not only does the idea of the perfect mate differ from person to person (meanwhile Stephenie Meyer was wrong to use a bloodthirsty sociopath as her prime example), but writing an entire novel while trying to focus on that aspect (I would say six paragraphs devoted to describing how oh-so perfect Edward's body is would be classified as focusing on that aspect, wouldn't you?) would deprive the text of the more essential attributes that would qualify it to be considered good literature. It becomes even more of a problem when the centralized character is also void of personality and strikes you as the kind of guy that would trap a girl with no self-respect in an abusive relationship. And frighteningly enough, the dialog reflects that (note: this is a summary of the selected dialog, not exact quotes. Thus, the incessant cheesiness of the original lines has been discarded): "Face it, you're lost without me." "No other man can make you feel the way I can make you feel." This, children, is what we call signs of an abusive relationship. An abusive relationship does not necessarily consist of physical abuse, mind you. It can also be called such if there is emotional abuse or even if inhibition of freedom is enforced. Often the abusive mate will not force their partner to stay, but they will say certain things that they will be enticed to believe so strongly, they eventually submit to it.

Anyway, aren't we glad THAT's over. But there you have it, the ultimate example of what is immoral according to the way we classified morals. I'm aware I probably stepped over several lines of provocation, but please understand that I am only criticizing the books in order to open your mind to what we've all agreed is moral and inversely what is immoral.