▶ Watch the original YouTube video

JP version (original article)

How Anime Uses Moral Relativism to Make Problematic Characters Lovable

A video ranking cat characters by their disruptive behaviors—theft, smoking, and trespassing—reveals how modern anime deliberately shifts viewers’ moral judgments from absolute to relative standards. This analysis explores the psychological mechanisms behind why audiences embrace characters whose actions would be unacceptable in reality.

What Happened

A recent video presented four cat characters, each embodying different problematic behaviors: theft, smoking, trespassing, and poor hygiene habits. The video prompted viewers to rank which character posed the greatest problem, forcing audiences into a comparative evaluation exercise. Rather than condemning all behaviors equally, viewers engaged in a “process of elimination” that normalized each character’s flaws by comparing them against worse alternatives.

Why It Matters

This seemingly innocent ranking game illustrates a significant shift in how anime production deliberately reshapes audience morality. Over the past 15 years, the anime industry has systematically expanded what viewers find acceptable by reframing absolute moral judgments as relative comparisons. Understanding this mechanism is crucial for media literacy, as it demonstrates how entertainment can subtly influence ethical reasoning without viewers’ explicit awareness. The strategy transforms genuine moral questions into entertainment puzzles, making problematic behavior feel inevitable rather than objectionable.

Background

The evolution of “problem characters” in anime reflects broader industry trends. In the mid-2000s, characters with flaws were presented as comedic archetypes—their misbehavior was exaggerated for humor. Shows like “The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya” (2006) portrayed problematic protagonists as geniuses whose eccentricity was romanticized rather than criticized.

By the 2010s, this approach shifted. Works like “KonoSuba!” (2016) and “Kemono Friends” (2017) introduced a new framework: characters’ problems became subject to comparative judgment. Rather than asking “Is this behavior acceptable?” audiences were prompted to ask “Which character is least problematic?” This subtle linguistic shift fundamentally altered moral evaluation from absolute to relative standards.

The 2020s have accelerated this trend further. Modern anime increasingly features characters with realistic, everyday problems—theft, addiction, trespassing—that mirror actual social issues. By presenting multiple problem characters simultaneously, production teams force viewers into ranking exercises that normalize all presented options as acceptable within the show’s universe.

Key Points

• Moral Relativism as Entertainment: The video transforms ethical judgment into a game format, where viewers must choose the “least problematic” option rather than reject all options as unacceptable.
• The “Lack of Ulterior Motive” Filter: Viewers justified selecting one character partly because their problematic behavior lacked malicious intent, revealing how audiences apply moral licensing to excuse misconduct.
• Comparative Harm Assessment: Rather than evaluating absolute harm, viewers unconsciously compared different types of damage—material loss from theft versus health risks from smoking versus privacy invasion from trespassing.
• Industry-Wide Pattern: This approach has become standard across multiple anime franchises, suggesting deliberate industry strategy rather than isolated creative choice.
• Psychological Engagement Mechanism: The contradiction between recognizing “all characters are problematic” while still ranking them creates cognitive tension that paradoxically increases viewer investment and discussion.
• Real-World Behavior Normalization: By presenting problematic actions in sympathetic contexts, anime gradually expands audience tolerance for behaviors that would face social condemnation in reality.

The Psychology of Problem Character Acceptance

Relative Evil Justification

The anime industry has systematically shifted character misconduct from “absolute evil” to “relative evil” over the past decade. In early 2010s anime, theft was presented as unambiguously wrong. By the 2020s, the same theft could be framed as “less problematic than smoking” or “more forgivable than trespassing.” This recontextualization doesn’t eliminate the behavior—it simply repositions it within a hierarchy of acceptable wrongs.

The video’s dominant viewer response—”elimination by default”—perfectly demonstrates this mechanism. Audiences weren’t asked to accept any character’s behavior; they were asked to identify the least objectionable option. This framing makes acceptance feel inevitable rather than chosen.

Moral Filtering Through Intent

A critical insight emerged from viewer comments: one character was selected partly because their problematic behavior seemed to lack “ulterior motives.” This reveals how audiences apply what psychologists call “moral licensing”—the tendency to excuse misconduct if the perpetrator’s intentions appear pure.

In this framework, the same trespassing behavior becomes acceptable if motivated by loneliness rather than malice. The action itself remains identical, but the perceived intent transforms moral evaluation. This psychological mechanism allows viewers to maintain self-image as ethical while accepting unethical behavior, provided sufficient emotional justification exists.

Multi-Dimensional Harm Comparison

Viewers unconsciously evaluated different harm categories: material loss (theft), health damage (smoking), and privacy violation (trespassing). Rather than summing total harm, audiences compared across incommensurable dimensions. This approach makes direct comparison impossible, yet viewers performed it anyway—suggesting the comparison itself, rather than logical consistency, was the exercise’s purpose.

Industry Evolution: Problem Character Types Over Time

2018–2020 Problem Character Archetypes:

• Irresponsible Type (“KonoSuba!”‘s Aqua)
• Destructive Type (“JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure”‘s Dio)
• Deceptive Type (“Teasing Master Takagi-san”‘s Takagi)

2020–2024 Expanded Problem Character Types:

• Dependent Type (trespassing habits)
• Addictive Type (smoking, drinking)
• Theft Type (kleptomania)

This expansion reveals deliberate industry strategy: moving from fantasy-realm misconduct to real-world behavioral problems. The shift makes character flaws feel more authentic and relatable, while simultaneously normalizing actual social problems as entertaining character traits.

Comparative Analysis: Problem Characters Across Franchises

The “Everyone’s Guilty” Paradox

A crucial viewer comment stated: “Aren’t they all criminals?” This observation captures a fundamental contradiction: audiences simultaneously recognize that all presented options are morally problematic while continuing to rank them. Rather than undermining engagement, this paradox strengthens it.

The cognitive dissonance—knowing all options are wrong yet forced to choose—creates psychological tension that drives deeper character analysis and stronger viewer investment. Production teams exploit this tension deliberately, using moral contradiction as an engagement mechanism rather than a flaw to resolve.

This strategy mirrors the narrative complexity of “Attack on Titan”‘s final arc, where viewers were forced to recognize that all major characters possessed both justified and unjustifiable motivations. The impossibility of clear moral judgment paradoxically increased audience investment in understanding character psychology.

Practical Framework for Evaluating Problem Characters

Step 1: Recognize the Comparative Trap

When encountering “rank these problematic characters” exercises, consciously identify your evaluation criteria before answering. Are you prioritizing material harm, psychological damage, intent, or consequences? Making criteria explicit prevents unconscious moral drift.

Step 2: Multi-Perspective Analysis

Evaluate each character from multiple viewpoints:

• Victim Perspective: What actual harm results from each behavior?
• Character Perspective: What psychological or circumstantial factors motivate the behavior?
• Production Perspective: Why did creators include this character and behavior?
• Social Perspective: How would society evaluate this behavior outside the fictional context?

Step 3: Comparative Context

Watch related anime that handle problem characters differently—”KonoSuba!” (comedic normalization), “Kemono Friends” (innocence-based excuse), “Attack on Titan” (psychological complexity). Comparing approaches reveals production strategies and their effects on moral reasoning.

Step 4: Personal Moral Framework

Establish personal standards for character acceptance:

• Acceptable Problems: Behaviors with legitimate background causes, limited scope, and potential for improvement
• Unacceptable Problems: Behaviors motivated by malice, causing continuous harm, showing no improvement intent
• Uncertain Problems: Behaviors with unclear motivation or indeterminate consequences

Internet Reception and Broader Implications

Online responses revealed predictable patterns. The dominant comment—”elimination by default”—showed viewers accepting the comparative framework without questioning it. Secondary responses focused on emotional attachment: “I’d forgive this character because I like them,” indicating that character appeal overrides behavioral evaluation.

Critical comments like “Aren’t they all criminals?” appeared less frequently, suggesting most viewers engaged with the entertainment value rather than the moral framework being constructed. This disparity itself is significant: the format successfully channeled audience attention toward ranking rather than ethical questioning.

On social media platforms, some users explicitly noted: “The production team is testing viewer morality.” This meta-awareness, while present, remained minority opinion. Most engagement focused on character preference rather than production strategy analysis.

Insights: The Normalization of Moral Relativism

This video exemplifies a broader anime industry trend: the systematic expansion of audience moral tolerance through comparative judgment rather than absolute standards. The strategy is effective precisely because it feels like entertainment rather than ideological manipulation.

The benefits are genuine: problem characters enable exploration of complex psychology, motivation, and social issues. A character with theft compulsion can illustrate psychological disorder; a character with smoking addiction can explore dependency. Moral complexity creates richer narratives.

However, the risks warrant serious consideration. When “relative acceptability” becomes the primary moral framework, absolute standards erode. The logic “A is worse than B, therefore B is acceptable” can justify increasingly problematic behavior. Real-world consequences—actual theft, actual trespassing, actual health damage—become invisible when framed as entertainment comparison games.

The industry’s evolution from “absolute moral judgment” to “relative moral comparison” reflects broader cultural shifts toward moral relativism. Whether this represents progress in narrative sophistication or decline in ethical clarity remains contested. What’s undeniable is that anime production has become increasingly sophisticated in reshaping audience moral frameworks without explicit acknowledgment of doing so.

Conclusion

When encountering similar ranking exercises, recognize the comparative trap. Identify your evaluation criteria explicitly. Analyze from multiple perspectives. Maintain personal moral standards while engaging with fictional complexity. This approach allows genuine enjoyment of sophisticated character work while preserving critical distance from the moral frameworks being constructed.

The video itself is entertaining and thought-provoking. The mechanism underlying its appeal—comparative moral judgment—is worth understanding. Awareness of how entertainment shapes ethical reasoning represents essential media literacy for contemporary audiences.

▶ Watch the original YouTube video

JP version (original article)