#spn morality

Yep... I 100% believe that if they had “respected Nancy’s wishes” to sacrifice herself, the result would’ve been even BETTER for Ruby and Lilith’s grand plans. It would’ve meant that Dean had given up, for lack of a better term, and compromised his morals. It probably would’ve escalated Sam’s fall into what became of him by the end of s4, you know? It would’ve been easier for him to trust Ruby’s shady advice that pushed him down the path of all the choices that led to his eventual complete downfall.

But that’s beside the point. Because the point wasn’t their ability to save all those people, which they still effectively did. THEY didn’t kill all those people. Their actions and choices didn’t kill all those people.

LILITH killed all those people.

To “prove” Ruby’s point to them. To make Sam doubt. To further their agenda.

Would those people have lived otherwise? Possibly. But that’s secondary to the point.

I mean, we saw a redux of this scenario of sorts in 12.09. All those soldiers that Sam and Dean had spared, when they could’ve killed them, died anyway because Ketch went back and did a “clean up” mission on them all. Could Sam and Dean have saved them by sacrificing one of them? Doubt it. But THEIR morality hasn’t been compromised. It only proved to us how IMMORAL Ketch’s actions were by contrast. Same with Lilith’s actions after the fact in 3.12.

I think, in no moral way, should Sam and Dean have agreed to let Nancy die to save the rest of them. Because THERE IS A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE here. “Honoring her choice to die” was the “false promise of morality.” And how hard has the show worked over the years to show us the futility of sacrificing to save each other? And isn’t this LITERALLY Chuck-- aka THE FINAL BOSS BIG BAD-- is this not LITERALLY HIS HOPED-FOR ENDGAME?!

So, literally THE WRONGEST POSSIBLE CHOICE?

I think assuming that “Writers lie” is a wholly truthful statement and therefore writers ONLY lie and never tell the truth is a grave mistake.

Because… Zachariah’s old chestnut there is probably a heck of a lot closer to the truth, you know?

I think it’s patently obvious that Jack was incredibly dangerous. Even a stray thought had the power to alter reality. STOP LYING! *all lying stops and society collapses*

That… is immense, terrifying power.

But Chuck absolutely did manipulate the situation.He declared there was only one solution to the problem, despite TFW postulating multiple other solutions that he found excuses to reject:

give Jack back his soul! help us contain his power!

Chuck’s lies were more about cutting off all other potential options and manipulating them into thinking their ONLY solution was the one he presented them. Just like he did when they came up with the Soul Bomb in 11.23. He didn’t even have to come up with that one himself! He just had to sit there looking pathetic long enough for them to come up with it on their own.

“Writers lie” doesn’t mean they only lie, you know?

Just like Jack doesn’t only tell the truth… despite trying to demand it from everyone else… boy lied and lied and lied, and plain old just avoided telling the truth (lying by omission is still lying). And his grandmother confronted him with his previous lies… and he couldn’t face the reality of that accusation. He couldn’t face the fact that he was just as guilty, that he was just as “wrong” as everyone else.

Yeah, that’s what’s making this extra-terrifying. I mean, the story’s really leveling up on the whole “doing the wrong things for the right reasons.” D:

All he has to fall back on is his own fledgling sense of morality, and what worked for him in the beginning was judging everything and neatly filing it away as “good” or “bad.” He’d come a long way toward understanding the nuance of existence, and that things can’t be labeled quite so neatly as that in reality, but without his soul providing the growing sense of sympathy and empathy to help guide him through understanding those subtle differences, he’s left assuming that the choices he’s making now are just as valid as those he made before his soul burned. Like he told Donatello, he don’t know what he’s feeling, just that it’s different from before.

It’s an intriguing melding of Jack’s need to feel approval from his family, his need for them all to be happy that he’s doing fine (because he does get that their happiness is affected by his status, you know? he’s doing poorly, so they worry, and he shouldn’t be a burden to them... >.>), and his own need to be “good.” I mean, that’s what his mother gave her life for, and he knows that.

So yiiiikes, he’s got a lot riding on his shoulders-- Kelly’s sacrifice for him to be born, Cas’s multiple sacrifices for him and his current deal to save Jack’s soul from the Empty, and he’s got this power now, but absolutely no instinct for when and how to use it.

Ooh, okay, but consider this: Anael’s viewpoint, as a side character interacting with one of our “hero characters,” was stated not as the show’s official sentiments on this, but for the fact that Castiel was then able to counter her belief, to give her a different, more hopeful viewpoint on that. Consider the scene in question:

Sister Jo: We're all lonely, because we're all alone. From ant to lion to human to angel. Every last one of us.Castiel: You know, He does meddle. God reached down, and He brought me back to life.Sister Jo: So He saves one angel and watches millions of people die screaming, every day. What does that say about Him?

As we’re now fully aware, Chuck meddled far more than just bringing Cas back to life... but this was the SETUP for Cas to be able to deny her hopeless viewpoint and loneliness:

ANAEL: It's too bad. I would have really enjoyed giving God a piece of my mind. But what can I say. I'm always right. So, what are you gonna do now? CASTIEL: Go home. Go home and tell Sam and Dean the truth. ANAEL: And then? CASTIEL: I don't know. Oh. [he hands over the earrings] ANAEL: Thank you. It's been swell. CASTIEL: Do you need a ride? ANAEL: I'll call a cab.CASTIEL: Anael. You know, you're not always right. Just because God's not with us doesn't mean we're alone. ANAEL: Why? Because we all have each other? CASTIEL: Yes. 

Meaning he has REJECTED that mindset, that only God can fill that void within himself. He’s learning to find that hope and love and faith not in Heaven or God, but within himself and the people he loves (and who love him in return).

SAM: I'm pulling demons out of innocent people. DEAN: Use the knife! SAM: The knife kills the victim! What I do, most of them survive! Look, I've saved more people in the last five months than we save in a year. DEAN: That what Ruby want you to think? Huh? Kind of like the way she tricked you into using your powers? Slippery slope, brother. Just wait and see. Because it's gonna get darker and darker, and God knows where it ends. SAM: I'm not gonna let it go too far. [DEAN smiles at that, walks over to the wall and hits the lamp on the side table, making it crash and fly. DEAN looks angry again.] DEAN: It's already gone too far, Sam. If I didn't you know... I would wanna hunt you. [...] SAM: You were gone. I was here. I had to keep on fighting without you. And what I'm doing... It works. DEAN: Well, tell me. If it's so terrific... then why'd you lie about it to me?

Sam doesn't have an answer right away, but dealing with the monster of the episode gives him a depressing new insight into his own tenuous condition. Sam makes Jack's state about himself, desperately trying to save himself, find some proof that Dean and the angels are wrong about him, that he's not trapped heading down the "darker and darker" road Dean described it as.

SAM: What if he doesn't hulk out? I did a little homework. Uh, I've been checking out the lore on rougarous. TRAVIS: What? My 30 years of experience not good enough for you? SAM: What? No. No, I-I- I just wanted to be prepared. I mean, not that you didn't.. [...] SAM: Look, everything you said checked out, of course, but uh. I found a couple of interesting stories about people who have this rougarou gene or whatever. See, they start to turn, but they never take the final step. [...] TRAVIS: Good on you for the due diligence, Sam. But those are fairy tales. Fact is, every rougarou I ever saw or heard of... took that bite.

Sam's final stance is that he's not gonna kill Jack unless he does something to deserve killing for... like with the possessed people Ruby's been teaching him to exorcise. And it's a noble concept, but so far beyond flawed as a way to deal with rougarou... but Dean capitulates, because he feels guilty and at least a little responsible for why Sam's in this state now. So they try to deal with a rougarou with logic, giving him all the facts and hoping he chooses to resist giving in.

But unlike Dean, Travis the hunter who brought them in for help on this case, goes back to kill both Jack and his pregnant wife, and it forces Jack's hand. He may have resisted killing up to that point, but when backed into a corner to save someone he loves, he lost control, and that was all it took to turn him into the monster.

Sam's so distracted trying to stop Jack from killing Dean, too, he missing the Huge Flashing Arrow, which Travis had warned him about-- rougarou leave their wives pregnant when they turn. Jack told him Travis had tried to kill his wife, too, but when Sam asked why, Jack lied, used that fact to villify Travis in Sam's mind, making HIM look like the monster. And in the fashion of the overarching spiral narrative, we're left to assume that somewhere out there, there's now a 10-year-old kid who's completely unaware of his family legacy, waiting like a ticking time bomb to go off and eat someone in a couple more decades. (unless Michelle was as horrified by what she learned and saw Jack do that she was smart enough to end the pregnancy...) And of course Dean knows none of this because he's been knocked unconscious and is unable to hear it at all.

And isn't that just a tidy metaphor for how Sam was lured into working with Ruby? Using his own powers, believing the manipulative lie Ruby fed him, which fed right into his own need to be good at all costs, to feel like he's at least working toward scrubbing himself clean of the stain of what was done to him.

SAM: You have no idea what I'm going through. None. DEAN: Then enlighten me! SAM: I've got demon blood in me, Dean! This disease pumping through my veins, and I can't ever rip it out or scrub it clean! I'm a whole new level of freak! And I'm just trying to take this - this curse... and make something good out of it. Because I have to.

One of the things Sam worries Dean thinks of him is that he doesn't "know the difference between right and wrong," as if there was a simple, black and white answer. (lol because that's the whole premise of the next episode on the loop... a simple, black and white case, that turns out to be anything BUT that... but that's for the next post). They're both trying to do what they feel is the right thing, when there really is no clear answer. In those situations, they have to decide what really matters most to them and at least try to do THAT. For Sam, that's the Saving People half of the job description. Not wanting to kill Jack until he's got enough evidence to prove to himself that he's too dangerous to live. Unfortunately for Sam, there's two problems with that strategy:

1. Jack is pushed into doing something that would make him "deserve" being killed, which means "letting" him kill an innocent person. But of course Sam's hoping he won't do that, as armed with the facts about what that would make Jack as he is, sometimes we're not given a choice and circumstance dictates our choices in the moment. Things are never as simple as they seem on the surface...

2. Travis and his 30 years of experience dealing with rougarou knows this, and seeing he's not getting the help he asked for from Sam and Dean, goes ahead and does what he thinks he has to do without them... and ends up becoming the "innocent" person Jack kills that turns him. What a plot twist...

That's effectively what happens to Sam over the course of s4, as he becomes more and more convinced that he alone is right, because they don't have all the facts (and in fact have the deliberately misleading facts about what their ultimate goal of the season is-- not killing Lilith... if only he could've resisted taking that final bite, as it were, in 4.22. But instead he believes he's doing the right thing, protecting people he cares for, even at the cost of his own humanity, just like Jack in this episode, and honestly just like Jack the Nougat Babby in 14.14 and beyond... and the narrative loop spins again...)

If only Sam could understand why Dean’s so afraid for him... but:

Sam: Anyway, it doesn't matter. These powers... it's playing with fire. I'm done with them... I'm done with everything. Dean: Really? Well, that's a relief. Thank you. Sam: Don't thank me. I'm not doing it for you. Or for the angels or for anybody. This is my choice.

but, in season five in particular, heaven was LITERALLY against humanity. the higher up angels wanted humanity completely dead and gone. that was kinda the main point of the apocalypse, yeah? the angels wanted “paradise.”

Heaven is not Chuck (and I've been quietly advocating the concept that "Chuck" is not God, either... more like God's sock puppet). Two sides of the same coin-- Heaven vs Hell, with humans caught between. Yes, a number of angels expressed disdain for humanity (Zachariah, Uriel, Lucifer even... and Michael as well...), but the angels are not God.

Before he left, so the angels say, God gave them the order to watch over Humanity. But he also gave them the game plan for the Apocalypse. It was THEIR CHOICE to go with option B there. They'd taken these two diametrically opposed missions, and applied their own interpretation. And as we know from the Apocalypse AU... that plan didn't do what they wanted it to. It didn't bring Chuck back to them to pat them all on the heads and congratulate them on a job well done or whatever.

The angels felt abandoned by God. Effective immortality must weigh on them (thinking of Michael and Castiel's different outlooks on that as expressed in 14.10 and 14.14, both are incredibly grim from a human perspective). The angels were tired. They wanted it to be over, for Chuck to come back and tell them what to do next. They felt owed their reward, and they were tired of waiting for it, instead of finding the majesty and wonder of creation as a whole as the reward.

Hello there! I appreciate your thoughts here, but since authorial intent is being conflated with what I actually wrote (which is, incidentally the disconnect that seems to be happening in the whole discussion surrounding Jack in the first place), I’m gonna grab this by the horns as the meta debacle I’m struggling with here and attempt to explain this seeming disconnect.

(this is the post under consideration here, but be warned, it’s very very long: http://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/181545164350/while-following-the-whole-jack-discussion-is)

This is the exact same disconnect that we’ve been struggling with for several years now, and no amount of discussing it seems to be getting anywhere. Because I think we are approaching the question from fundamentally different standpoints.

I will start by saying, using all caps not because I am angry about this, but because it is essential to understand here, I DO NOT HAVE ANY DESIRE TO “WIN” OR TO “BE PROVEN RIGHT” OR TO “DEFEND AN ARGUMENT.”

I’m just exhausted that every time this specific discussion is approached, it’s almost immediately shut down with arguments about authorial intent and themes that are being written to. I’m frustrated with every conversation about Jack’s struggles with morality being conflated with an attempt to definitively label him as “good,” instead of approaching the discussion in good faith as the fascinating character study we’re engaging in.

The question of whether Jack is good or evil is entirely irrelevant to the discussions of his understanding and actions in context. And yet every time this conversation comes up, folks pounce on it with dismissals, invoking the “but Jack never manipulated anyone!” argument, which– intentionally or not– shuts down any possible conversation on the subject.

I’m not even here for that particular discussion. I’m not here to suggest that that isn’t a possible potential interpretation for his character. I’m here to suggest that jumping into a conversation based on the understanding that– consciously or not– Jack’s power did exert influence over his environment and the people around him before his birth and demonstrating how the show has already dealt with these issues, as well as how this affects Jack as a character from a watsonian perspective in the ongoing narrative and essentially derailing the ENTIRE conversation by offering the interpretation that Jack never did any of that is… well…

I’m gonna offer a metaphor on what it looks like from *my* perspective. Please don’t take this out of context, but I’m using this as an example that I hope people in this fandom can understand.

When we question Jack’s character, and some of the morally ambiguous things he’s done, we’re not considering these objectively negative choices as flaws in the writing of the show, or inconsistencies in the character of Jack. We’re considering them FEATURES of his character that give us a dumptruck full of meaty meta goodness to explore. We’re enjoying the discussion from that particular perspective.

Does that make sense so far? I hope so, because here’s where I might upset people who are not taking this in context, in the spirit of how this discussion has evolved.

When we’re having this discussion, and exploring his character, invariably someone feels compelled to jump in to say something along the lines of “but that’s not a problem, because he was never written that way! He’s always been GOOD! So there’s nothing to discuss if you just accept this simple fact!”

That’s how it reads to folks who WANT to have this discussion. It reads as a shutdown, rather than an encouragement to continue the character exploration.

I get that this might not even be the intent, but I think this is part of where this disconnect is happening.

And the immediate fandom parallel it pings to me is an anti-destiel person jumping into a discussion of destiel in canon with a comment to the effect of, “you’re delusional, destiel isn’t real, you’re an idiot for even discussing it!”

It’s the same sort of shut-down. And it’s derailed almost every meta discussion about Jack’s evolving morality since s12.

And I’m tired.

I’m tired of being told there’s nothing in canon to support the read of Jack as morally grey. I’m tired of being told he never did anything that can be interpreted as morally suspect. I’m so tired that I spent 8 hours yesterday compiling 14k words on exactly how canon itself has presented Jack as morally grey.

This wasn’t my attempt to “win” and argument, or to invalidate other interpretations of Jack as a character.

It was my personal justification for even being allowed to discuss him from the standpoint of moral ambiguity versus pure cinnamon roll who has never ever done wrong.

It was me, engraving a personal invitation to MYSELF, to feel justified in even continuing the conversation about Jack’s dubious morality in the first place.

Because I am tired of being shut down every time the conversation starts.

That post serves as a basis for even opening the conversation at all, not the end-all, be-all statement on canon.

Because to ignore THAT MUCH CANON and continue to suggest that Jack is purely good and has never done wrong makes it apparent that there must be some hand-wavery going on, you know?

And if anyone read that whole entire 14k and actually thinks that’s what I’m suggesting, that I was attempting to get the last word, or dismissing other interpretations rather than simply stating the facts of canon as presented (without regard to what the writers or showrunners intend, but only what the narrative itself “intends”) has missed the whole entire point of what I wrote.

For anyone who gave up halfway through the 14k, or doesn’t feel like even peeking under the read more cut on it, I’ll copy paste the last few paragraphs here. Consider this a tl;dr for that post:

This post is already Far Too Damn Long, and I’ve written about Jack’s moral crises in s14 elsewhere, as he faced his own imminent mortality and has finally had a chance to bond with Dean the way he had with Sam and Cas before this. He hid his illness from them as long as he could, in another morally grey zone, and attempted to run away from home TWICE in order to avoid dealing with that. We can understand, sympathize, even empathize with his choices, but to dismiss them as Morally Correct in every way is to minimize just how much he was tormented by his choices and their consequences.

This is the sort of evolution that good, well rounded characters go through as they navigate the morally ambiguous world around them. I am personally REVELING in the discussion surrounding these murky issues, because it’s something worth really thinking about in a big picture sort of way. I’m exhausted from this conversation getting shut down with blanket statements that it shouldn’t even be something we bother our pretty little heads over, because Jack will be Good™ in the end, just wait and see! It’s dismissive and frustrating. As someone who is not approaching Jack’s character as a “problem” in the writing or the narrative or the themes, but is instead delighting in analyzing them from a psychological and philosophical perspective, I don’t need to be told to stop talking about this, or that canon doesn’t offer us an ocean of moral ambiguity to ponder here.

I don’t feel the need to definitively “prove” that Jack is “good,” or that he is “bad.” The narrative has demonstrated how laughable a notion that was through Jack’s own character development, when they had him naively putting those labels on EVERYTHING, despite the labels clearly not truly fitting. To me, it’s an irrelevant and futile obsession. I don’t even WANT him to be “good” any more than I want Dean, or Sam, or Cas to be “good.” I want them to be good CHARACTERS, which means they’re gonna fuck up, do the wrong thing, and occasionally back themselves into a corner where there really are no good choices to be made.

That doesn’t make them “bad.” It just makes them human. It makes them worthy of discussion. And really, what more can you ask of a fictional character?

I hope this makes it clear that jumping in with a defense of whether or not Jack is intended to be a “good” or a “bad” character is perceived by everyone else enjoying the discussion as a moot point, and how it functionally shuts down the entire rest of the discussion by dismissing it at its root.

That is what has been “pissing me off,” though that’s a rather strongly worded sentiment, and not an accurate interpretation of my emotional state over this.

And fwiw, the only reason I used all caps for emphasis in that post is because I typed it in gdocs and knew that tumblr would erase bold, italics, and all other formatting, because tumblr is a jerk. So sorry the caps came across as shouty, but I knew I wouldn’t have the patience to go through the entire 14k word post and add back in italics and bolds for emphasis. A lot of the formatting I did put in before that revelation dawned on me was lost when I copy/pasted it here. For reference, anyone who likes, I’m happy to link y’all to the original document, which I admit likely reads as more emphatic and less YELLING IN ANGER or whatever my all-caps were perceived as. Sorry for that…

The thing is, my *personal* interest in even discussing this show at all is to explore exactly this sort of discussion. I don’t give a hoot about being “right.” I have no stake in what future canon might present, or making judgments on characters as avatars for some statement the author is making. I’m here for the discussion, because I like discussing this stuff.

But having a long discussion about this immediately dismissed with the statement that it’s irrelevant because Jack is always and has only ever been good, and has never done a bad thing in his whole blessed little life is dismissive and patronizing, and I had just had enough. So, I set out to explain exactly why I feel like this door to discussion needed to remain open, because canon itself has prompted me to think critically about it.

If, after all of this, anyone still wants to retain the opinion that canon wants us to believe that Jack is Only Ever Good, who has Only Ever Made Good Choices, THAT’S 100% FINE BY ME! Just as it’s 100% fine by me to accept the fact that some people will always only ever believe that Dean is straight, or that Dean and Cas are nothing more than good friends. I’m just kindly asking that anyone with that opinion not continue to shut down all other discussion on the matter. That’s all.

Jumping into a discussion on Jack’s character as morally grey with the insistence that he’s always been good… defeats the entire point of having the conversation in the first place. Just as jumping into a discussion of Dean’s bisexuality with a comment that he’s always only ever been straight defeats the entire point of having THAT conversation, you know?

http://mittensmorgul.tumblr.com/post/181493123490/tinkdw-norahastuff-flyingfish1

tinkdw

@mittensmorgul this is really interesting as we both have a totally different reading. Imo it absolutely was the truth he showed Cas, a potential truth of course but not a purposeful manipulation at all. There was never any grey area with Jack pre birth from HIM, he just functioned on truth and his own (good) morality, just as he has since he was born. But the point as you say is that either way the show is addressing this, it’s not a lost plot point, it’s literally intrinsic to the plot.

But the fact is that Jack hasn’t ever really been bad, or even that grey, he’s always been good, exemplified truth and honesty and had good morals. It’s purely others’ perception that he must be evil that gives us the view of the other side that could have happened, from himself only tho he has never done anything except good when given an informed choice.

But yeah *sorry*! I do disagree that it’s a “fact” that: “the “future,” whatever vision he may have showed Cas in 12.19, couldn’t possibly have been the truth. He showed Cas what Cas wanted to see and convinced him it was the truth” - this is just not what I saw on my tv or in the plot since at all. He showed Cas something that Cas latched onto sure but it has never been proved to have been false and Cas and Jack have never acted since like this was what happened so that makes no sense to me.

Yeah, I know, we agreed to disagree over the read on this a long time ago, but since this was addressed to me, I still feel compelled to reply, because this is crucial to my personal understanding not only of Jack, but to the entire moral structure of team free will, and the show as a whole.

I’m gonna address my thoughts on your statements point by point, in the hopes of clarifying our fundamentally different (and identical) points of view here. At least, regardless of if we’re ever able to agree on this stuff, at least we will have achieved clarity on why this seems to continue to be a point of contention.

1. There is no way what Jack (or Jack’s mojo) revealed to Cas was the absolute truth. Even you said it, that it was what Cas wanted to believe. That makes whatever it was literally an objective wish rather than a fundamental static truth. You described it as “a potential truth,” which never actually came to pass in reality. Cas DIED immediately after this. Unless the vision Cas was given about his supposed “paradise” was the eternal peace and slumber of the Empty, then Jack’s vision was fundamentally not true. Either that, or the vision was for some distant future yet to come to pass that sort of glossed over all the not-paradise everyone must suffer through before finally earning that paradise in the nebulous and undefined future. Either way, the vision has not yet come to pass in reality. Which makes it, from where we currently stand nearly two years later in canon, nothing more than a manipulation, and not a prophecy of truth.

Telling someone what they want to hear and allowing them to believe it’s the objective truth is the definition of manipulation.

2. Jack has been NOTHING *BUT* a grey area since his birth. He is NOT fundamentally objectively “good.” Nor is he fundamentally objectively “bad.” He began as a BLANK SLATE. Not understanding this kind of makes moot Jack’s entire personal character development arc. He’s had to learn the difference and immense subtlety between good and bad. Going back to 13.02 is an excellent example of this-- his struggle to understand whether “family” could be objectively good or bad:

JACK: This book, it mentions my father. Not Castiel, but Lucifer. DEAN: Oh, yeah. Yeah, he’s—he’s big in the Bible. Lotta screen time. JACK: And you… knew him? SAM: Well, he’s not really an easy guy to know. He’s, um, he’s kind of rough around the edges. DEAN: He’s Satan. JACK: And that’s… that’s bad. DEAN: Damn straight. See… he turned on his father, God. JACK: God, he’s in here, too. Is he famous or something? SAM: Yeah. Um, God basically… created everything. DEAN: Yeah, and then he skipped out, leaving guys like us to clean up his messes like Lucifer. JACK: So, God’s like my grandfather. He’s family, and that’s… That’s good. DEAN: Sometimes.

Jack STRUGGLED with understanding these concepts-- that NOTHING in reality is “all good” or “all bad,” but that sometimes we need to make difficult choices that have consequences, no matter which option we choose. Life is difficult, and you have to establish a sense of morality based on what you can live with, develop a sense of conscience that hopefully does more good than bad, but that ALL OF LIFE IS A MORAL GREY AREA.

THIS HAS BEEN A HUGE ASPECT OF JACK AS A CHARACTER, and suggesting that he’s always been “good” just... misses that entire point.

3. Because morality isn’t objective, either. Jack can’t be objectively good or bad, because he’s believed himself to potentially be bad in the past. It TERRIFIED him to believe that. He had to learn for himself-- with the help of TFW and people who cared about him-- that even when he might make bad choices (like using his power and accidentally hitting and killing the security guard in 13.06), it didn’t make HIM bad or evil. There is a difference.

Because the show is also demonstrating this in other characters, as well. Like Lily Sunder, having believed that she deserved to go to Hell for what she’d done, but it wasn’t up to the universe or any outside force to make that decision for her. Her fate was determined by her own choices, in how she was able to redeem HERSELF. There’s no outside force judging morality, assigning labels of “good” or “evil” to characters. It’s their own subjective feelings about the sum total of their own choices.

4. And Jack has never exemplified objective truth. Sure, he bluntly and naively speaks what he believes to be true-- like what he said about Michael!Dean in 14.02-- but what he believes to be true is a fluid and evolving thing. He’s the dictionary definition of evolving morality, learning to navigate all the grey areas.

Jack: Cas, Michael has to be stopped. Castiel: I know, and he will be, after Dean is -- Jack: No, Dean doesn't matter. You're all so focused on trying to save Dean. And I get it, I understand, but if he can't be saved, if it comes down to him or Michael... Michael has to be stopped. Caged or killed -- Castiel: And if that means that Dean dies, too? Jack: Then Dean dies. I know this Michael. I've seen what he's done to an entire world, and so have you. If stopping that from happening here means that Dean has to die, then... Do you think he'd want it any other way?

This was “Jack’s personal truth” as of that moment in canon. WAS IT OBJECTIVELY TRUE FOR ALL OF REALITY? No, it wasn’t even true for CAS in that moment. Being verbally blunt does not equal being “good” or “objectively true.” Opinions are not objective facts.

5. Cas has never shown anger or upset at what he believe in 12.19 was a prophetic vision of Paradise, given to him by Jack in order to secure Jack’s own safety and birth. Which... makes perfect sense without having to believe that Cas is still being manipulated by that vision. Because Cas HAS to know that whatever he saw in that moment wasn’t objectively true, because it didn’t come to pass. Jack lost his powers, Jack died, CAS died, Dean was possessed by Michael... I don’t think ~any~ of that is compatible with any vision of “paradise” for Cas. But all of that is irrelevant in the face of the fact that Jack-- once he was born and expressed fears, doubts, and and fundamental lack of understanding about how his own power even functioned at first, and didn’t understand how it opened that doorway into another world, nor how he was able to “wake up” Cas in the empty... ALL OF THAT goes to “excuse” Jack from moral responsibility for the actions his grace took without his conscious understanding before he was even BORN.

“Jack” didn’t give Cas that vision. His mojo, which took Jack months to come to terms with himself after he was born, did. Almost like a separate entity operating on its own in a reflex of self-preservation.

And in this world of grey morality, we’re supposed to judge Jack accordingly. I.e., understanding that it wasn’t his CHOICE (hello, free will being the centerpiece of the entire moral code on this show) to bend Cas to his will (or even Kelly, for that matter). But their forgiveness and care for Jack as he struggled to understand and accept HIMSELF are what have guided Jack to want to choose love. I mean, isn’t this the entire point of Jack’s personal arc? If you take this away from him, he’s nothing more than a broken mirror for the rest of tfw. It strips him of his own struggle for identity.