Lines in the Sand

Polarisation, morality, and the danger of believing we're always the good guys.

In a world that increasingly feels divided into heroes and villains, I've been thinking about what happens when we stop seeing the humanity in the people we disagree with and the dangers that arise from black-and-white thinking. This essay is part reflection, part warning; about how good intentions can lead us astray, how certainty can blind us, and how easy it is to become what we once opposed.

It’s inspired by the character studies I love writing, my background in criminology, and the growing polarisation I see around us every day. I hope it encourages introspection, even if it’s uncomfortable.

Lately, I’ve found a new hobby. I’ve started writing analyses of the TV-shows I watch. These analyses dive into character psychology, social commentary, and the mirrors these shows hold up to society. And it got me thinking about our societies, the problems we face and the direction we’re all heading in. I believe some societal issues we currently have can be boiled down to the dangers of black and white thinking. That there are only two sides to the story. That you yourself are part of the ‘hero’ side and see the ones that oppose you as the ‘villains.’ And that way of thinking is one of the root causes to our current societal problems. So, let’s dive into the causes and risks of this.

Before I continue, I’m not going to be disclosing my own political views or which ‘side’ I’m on. You can decide for yourself, if you believe it’s important to know, where you’d place me. I will, however, admit that I’ve been on both sides of the political spectrum and everything in between. Experiences have reshaped many of the views I used to hold. What that gives me, is an insight into what either ‘side’ wants or is afraid of. Whether it’s left vs. right, pro- vs. anti or whichever ‘in-group’ you consider yourself to be part of vs. the ‘out-group’.

Fears, worries & desires

In this part, I’d like to ask you to determine which fears or worries that I’ve described down below would belong to which ‘side’.

· I’m afraid I don’t belong;

· I’m afraid they won’t accept me for who I am;

· I’m afraid my children will never be able to be who they are;

· I’m afraid the world will be too dangerous for my children;

· I’m afraid the world won’t be prospering anymore in the future;

· I’m afraid for my own safety.

Have you made up your mind to which side each of these fears or worries belong? Great. Now, please do the same for the ‘wants’ I’ve written down.

· I want to belong;

· I want my children to be safe;

· I want to be accepted for who I am;

· I want the world to prosper;

· I want to be safe.

Have you decided? Great. I’ll come back with my answer later.

Polarisation

I’d like to take you with me along the risks of polarisation and black/white thinking. You’re probably part of a group, whether it’s political, social or professional, because it aligns with your morals, viewpoints and how you’d like the world to be. That group is part of you - of who you are, as much as you are part of that group. You can easily connect with people from your group because you share similar ideologies, ideas and beliefs. You analyse the world together, see the same problems, the same solutions. If only everyone else could see it too, right? Yet, herein lie the risks. Because you’re mainly talking with your own group - your bubble - you barely hear any critical side to your own ideas or beliefs. You start to think, this is the right way. This is the right answer. And you keep being confirmed in your beliefs because you only talk to people with the same beliefs. This is where the first risk comes in; confirmation bias. This is the tendency to only look for or accept information that is consistent with your own beliefs. Any criticism that challenges it, even if they are facts or evidence, is deemed ‘fake-news’, untrustworthy or just ignored. It’s a very human thing to do and can be useful at times. However, the risk to it is that nuance disappears. This is a dangerous thing to do:

1. It closes your eyes to the other side. If someone disagrees with your beliefs, you might start thinking something is wrong with them; they're uninformed, uneducated, or even immoral. All of the information leads to your idea being correct, so you stop listening to the other side. Which eventually leads to the next danger:

2. You start to see your own side as the answer to the problems. The world would be a better place if only everyone followed your ideas. You start to see your way of thinking, your side, as the ‘hero’. The other side to this coin, is that you start to see the other side as the ‘villain’. Because, if they were ‘good’, they’d share your beliefs. Yet they don’t, so they’re the reason the problems exist. If only they changed, the problems would stop or be solved.

So, the gap widens between your side and the other. And thus, polarisation increases. And hardens. There is no grey area, just right/wrong, black/white. The framing of hero vs. villain doesn’t just divide, it dehumanises. And that’s where real danger begins.

Hero vs. villain

The framing of your own group as the ‘heroes’ and the other group as the ‘villains’ could have some dire consequences. I’ll first discuss the ‘hero’ side, after which I’ll continue with the ‘villain’ side.

Heroes – ignoring of one’s own immorality

When you’re either fighting for a cause yourself or supporting others fighting that cause, you start to support actions to achieve that cause. You’re doing it for a reason, to make the world a better place in your eyes. And that’s an honourable thing to do, to stand up where others remain seated. Yet, when you’re so set on your own beliefs being the right one, considering yourself to be acting moral and the other group to be acting immoral, you start to be blind to your own side. Criticism is ignored and nuance lost. These are very human and unconscious processes. One process is a tendency to interpret situations in ways that align with your own viewpoints. It’s an unconscious cognitive shortcut to alter your perception of what’s right or wrong to justify actions or choices. This is called moral self-interest bias. The other process is the earlier mentioned confirmation bias. Although very human, these two biases are also very tricky. Those actions I mentioned earlier? They might be small at the start. Sometimes, they might even cross some boundaries. You might think, maybe this was a tad too far, but reaching that goal is more important. You’re doing it for the right reasons, right? Crossing that boundary feels justifiable. Yet, every time you let your boundary slightly be crossed, your morals change with it. Over time, you may find yourself acting in ways you never imagined or supporting actions you once would’ve condemned. But none of that seems to matter, because you, or your group, are fighting the ‘good’ fight.

But here lies a danger. As the saying goes: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” If you stop being critical of your own actions - or those of the people you support -, you could be going down a dangerous path leading up to disastrous results. And those consequences may catch you off guard, you won’t see them coming until it’s too late. To illustrate how good intentions can mask dangerous decisions, I’ll give an example from a TV show analysis I made (Game of Thrones spoilers ahead). People were very surprised when Daenerys ultimately did what she did. Yet, in hindsight, all the warning signs were there. From the things she said (“I’ll burn cities to the ground…”) to the things she did (burning everyone being part of a group she opposed, without trial). In the start, we overlooked it. She was fighting to go home, so of course she’d use hard language. She was saving the innocent and disadvantaged, so when she burned down her enemies, we justified it. They must have deserved it, right? But, would you really want to support someone that often says they burn whole cities down in order to rule? Would you really support someone that doesn’t even give people a trial to see if they were actually guilty of what you accused them of, but sentenced everyone of that group the same? My point being: if you stop being critical of yourself/your side, you’re blind to the immoral things that are done that could lead to disastrous things. You ignore the immorality within your own group. When that happens, immorality doesn’t vanish. It just hides behind your cause.

We’ve seen this recently in student-led protests around the world, where both sides believe they’re standing for justice and accuse the other of hate. In these kinds of conflicts, both sides often begin to frame themselves as moral crusaders - heroes in a battle for what’s right - while casting the other as not just wrong, but dangerous, immoral, or even evil. And in that black-and-white worldview, nuance disappears. Dialogue breaks down. Information from ‘the other side’ is deemed ‘fake news’, untrustworthy or just ignored. Acts that would normally be questioned or condemned become justified by the cause.

This isn’t unique to one side or the other; it’s a pattern we see across ideologies and throughout history. That’s the danger of hero-villain framing: it blinds us to our own potential for harm and blocks our capacity for empathy.

Heroes – fear of admitting immorality

Humans, in general, have trouble admitting they’re wrong or if they’ve done something wrong. It takes a lot of emotional growth in order to admit to one’s shortcomings. Even in everyday life, how often do we immediately recognize when we've hurt a friend or family member and say sorry without hesitation? Sometimes, instead of acknowledging we were wrong, we tend to double down. To find fault at the other person instead of looking introspectively. This too is an unconscious human tendency; the urge to explain events in such a way that it protects our self-esteem, our ego. It’s very human to want to see yourself in a better light and blame failures on external factors. This process is called self-serving bias. Now take this to a greater scale. Even if, unconsciously, you realise you have crossed a boundary. Instead of acknowledging it, you project. It must be ‘them’ who caused your actions. It’s their fault. If they didn’t do that, you wouldn’t have needed to act a certain way. This also makes us susceptible to propaganda due to the earlier mentioned biases. Any information, real or fake, that confirms the other side is the bad one, is taken to heart. Because it means your immoral action is justified. And the more we justify, the further we drift from the values we thought we were protecting. You might think that you weren’t wrong for doing that, because look what the other side did. It’s very human to think like that, because it’s your brain protecting itself from feeling like the bad one, like the villain. But it’s also risky if it remains unchecked.

Heroes – blind to nuance

The final problem I’ll discuss with the hero view, that ties in with the first two, is the risk of blindness to nuance. You support your cause because you think you’re doing good in the world with it. But, thanks to the unconscious biases, the fear of admitting faults, black/white thinking and the susceptibility of propaganda, you run the risk of being blind to the nuances of your cause. Any information is interpreted to align with your pre-existing beliefs. You turn a (unconscious) blind eye to the bad things some people of your group do, because in your perspective, you’re supporting the victims. And victims cannot be perpetrators, right? So, if things are done to them, the other side must solely be the villain. Yet, life is not black and white. The group that has people that are victims in one part, could also have the perpetrators in another. But, as I said, nuance is gone when one thinks in black/white. And admitting that; no not everything was moral or is ‘good’, is a very difficult thing to do. Because admitting those things were wrong might feel like admitting you are bad too. Of course, it doesn’t say such a thing. But it’s frightening to admit you could’ve been misled. And your brain wants to protect itself from feeling like it supported the ‘wrong’ cause or person, even if admitting such a thing doesn’t immediately say anything about yourself. It only means you’re human.

This is the trap of the hero complex: the belief that righteousness absolves us from accountability. But when morality becomes a shield instead of a guide, the damage we cause can be just as real as the damage we fight.

Villains – dehumanisation

The flipside of this coin is seeing the other side as the ‘villain’, the one you believe is causing or preventing the solution to every problem. When we begin to view those who disagree with us not just as wrong, but as ‘villains’, it could lead to several dangerous dynamics.

First off, the biases I’ve mentioned earlier; moral self-interest, self-serving and confirmation, that strengthen the hero-complex, intensify. Any information that portrays the other side as ‘evil’, is taken to heart and trusted without examination. Listening to the other side could even become betrayal. And when the possibility of nuance disappears, moral absolutism takes over. You’re just good and they’re just bad. This ultimately, would lead to dehumanisation. This process starts with you justifying small actions of harm unto them. A very human and normal thing to do. I mean, who hasn’t thought such things about someone that has hurt them? I certainly have. The risk lies in when it remains unchecked. Eventually, you stop caring that they hurt as well. That hurt could even be seen as deserved or necessary. You only see the ‘bad’ they do. In doing so, you begin to dehumanise them. This is a slippery slope. Similar to the process within the hero-complex: where your moral boundary shifts when you justify an immoral action of your ‘hero’, your moral boundary to what you deem appropriate actions against your villain shifts as well. Eventually, you could start to wish the worst upon them, even death. Or you wouldn’t care if they died, you might even look the other way. You dehumanised them.

History shows exactly where unchecked dehumanisation could lead. And it’s never anywhere good.

Villains – you risk becoming what you oppose

Ironically, the more you see your opponents as evil - as the villain - the more likely you are to adopt the same tactics or mindset you originally stood against. You start justifying more and more harm unto them. Wasn’t a reason they became your villain because you perceived them responsible for the horrible fate of those you support? In fighting ‘monsters’, you risk becoming one.

The courage to question our side

This isn’t to say that all sides in every conflict are equally justified. Sometimes, there truly are victims and perpetrators. But even in those moments, unchecked righteousness can lead to new forms of harm, especially when it silences introspection or excuses unethical means in pursuit of noble ends.

Nor is this a claim that all sides carry equal blame. Power structures matter. Injustice exists. But harmful actions can be rationalized by anyone - oppressed or privileged - when we stop asking hard questions of ourselves. Among the powerless, rage can become justification. Among the powerful, moral certainty can escalate into tyranny. Recognizing this doesn’t dilute justice, it protects it from becoming a weapon.

Now, am I saying you should always look for someone’s reason for cruelty? That we should stop standing up for what we believe in? Absolutely not, this is not a call for passivity or fence-sitting. There are still bigots out there. There are still causes worth fighting for. But I am inviting you to pause. To look inward. To critically examine yourself, the ‘hero’ you support and the group you’re a part of. To make sure you haven’t fallen victim to propaganda and those biases I’ve mentioned. It’s a call for moral awareness, especially within the causes and communities we align with. Taking a stand doesn’t mean abandoning complexity. It means having the courage to act while still holding ourselves accountable. I’m asking you to ask yourself those tough questions you ask the ‘other side’. I’m asking you to hold up a mirror and really look into it. I’m asking you to check if the lines you’ve drawn in the sand, haven’t been moved or washed away by the sea.

Are you truly fighting for the right cause? And even if you are—are you doing it in the right way? Is there a chance your actions are doing more harm than good? Could you have been misled? Could you be slowly becoming the very thing you once stood against?

Polarisation and dehumanisation make us forget that often, our core needs and fears aren’t as different. They convince us the “other side” is the villain. And once we believe that, the empathy needed for real solutions begins to wither. If we step outside the framing of hero and villain - even just for a moment - we might start to see each other again. Because if you take one thing from this, I hope it’s this: the fears and wants I described and asked about at the beginning? They’re not exclusive to any one group. They’re human. And we should never stop seeing each other as such.