MovieChat Forums > Better Call Saul (2015) Discussion > Who do you think is morally worse? Heise...

Who do you think is morally worse? Heisenberg or Saul?


My vote would be for Saul, primarily due to his coldhearted treatment of Howard (which I never quite fully grasped his reasoning behind, as Howard always seemed pretty good to him), him seemingly being on the verge of murdering an elderly Carol Burnett before catching himself (I didn't think he'd actually go through with it, but even the threat alone was a bit much), and him being perfectly at ease with stealing from the friendly dying man (and countless other marks over many, many years). And if we want to get feminists on things (which one normally loathes to do, but it adds to my argument here so I'm gonna), he technically tricked what was presumably many women to have sex with him by pretending he was Kevin Costner lol.

Personally, I can't recall ever once thinking that Walt was morally bad or evil at all. Or that he ever intentionally set out to hurt anyone (anyone who wasn't trying to hurt him or his loved ones first). Now, admittedly, due to him a lot of truly bad stuff happened (usually in an unintended butterfly effect sorta way) but, to me, Walt always had good reasoning behind his actions (save for his first bad action in choosing to cook meth). And when he did "bad" things, it almost always spawned from him being backed into a corner and being forced to act (or not act, as with the case of Jane) as a means to preserve his, his family, and/or Jesse's life (even with the Brock situation, it appeared that he was simply taking the most rational option when faced with a difficult trolly problem). And even in all these instances, we always saw remorse from him. He clearly regretted the things he was having to do. But, considering the context he found himself in, they usually had to be done.

Saul, on the other hand, appeared to almost compulsively take advantage of people for no reason other than personal greed. I can't even imagine Walt doing some of the things he'd done. Granted, his acts ultimately led to less tragic outcomes (save for the Howard situation) than Walts, but his cold willingness to hurt people rarely came with any visible regret. In fact, it was often followed by a celebration of a job well done and a happy wallowing in the fruits of his unethical behavior. Come to think of it, he also callously tried to get Walt to kill both Jesse and Badger (at different times) in Breaking Bad.

If it were just me, I wouldn't even think to compare the two, as, from my perspective, Saul is clearly the worse of the two. But I've seen quite a few people turn completely against Walt over the years (even going so far as to call him "evil" and "heartless") so I realize this may be a more difficult versus situation for others than it was for me.

reply

Both are equally morally bad. Walt, being the genius he was, knew the path he decided to go down would lead to the outcome it did. He had too. Cooking and selling meth isn’t going to end with a sunny vacation on the beach. He didn’t care and only wanted to provide for his family. Again though, being the genius he was portrayed to be, I’m sure he could’ve figured something else out…..like counting cards for example. ☺️

Saul on the otherhand had no reason to nickle and dime in petty crimes scamming people. He was a lawyer. And a good one. He could’ve made money doing just that. He just clearly wanted to be a bad person. No other explanation for it then that he was a piece of shit.

reply

I must have watched a different show. Walt was not just bad, but evil. His ego destroyed many lives. As Mike told him, “we had a good thing with Fring”. But Walt couldn’t stand to not be in control. He killed Mike (who was as close to a morally good but bad guy). He destroyed his family, kidnapped his daughter just to get back at his wife, etc etc etc. Abuser and a murderer.

Saul is not much better since he was a catalyst for all things Walt, he just kept his hands clean of all death that he was a part of.

reply

Things didn't go south with Fring because of Walt's ego. In fact, Walt appeared happy with the arrangement. It went bad because he kept staying loyal to Jesse after Gus started insisting he get rid of him. Then it escalated after Jesse started trouble with Gus over the kids working for his dealers (Jesse tried to have them poisoned). Walt tried to get Jesse arrested after for 30 days to keep him off the streets and let him cool down but Mike showed up saying he wouldn't let Jesse get arrested. Then "morally good" Mike gave Walt a story about how those sorts of "half measures" don't work and how Walt should "go all the way" (i.e., kill Jesse). Walt refuses and, instead, arranges a meeting between Jesse and Gus about the situation. Then Jesse hears about a dead kid and decides to go Death Wish on the dealers. Walt, saving his friends life, hops into action and runs the dealers over before Jesse gets himself killed. It's directly after this that Gus goes to Gale and has a not-so-subtle conversation which basically amounted to "You have one more cook to learn Walts ways 'cause I'mma kill him" (which Gale goes along with). Meanwhile, Mike looks for Jesse to kill him too. Walt, understanding what's going on, devises the plan to kill Gale before Gus and Mike get them. Which they accomplish. Afterward, knowing Gus still wants him dead (Gus even threatens his infant daughter), Walt starts his mission to kill the guy.

This is what ruined the good thing they had with Fring. And none of it had anything to do with Walt's desire for control. It had to do with him making sacrifices in an attempt to keep him, his family, and his reckless friend alive. If he were truly cold-blooded and just let Jesse die he'd have actually avoided all that followed.

And save for perhaps Jane (a junky who was clearly threatening to blackmail him for life, not to mention was likely going to be the reason for Jesse's future OD), everyone Walt directly killed was a bad guy.

reply

Walt was never Jesse’s friend. He only cared about him to a point. A means to an end for him. Walt was always who he was - that was evident when he walked away from gray matter and played the victim. Even he himself told his wife that he was the danger.

Who could forget when he sent in the poor lady neighbor into his house to scope out the bad guys. What a Nice guy.

reply

Walt turned into a real scumbag. He let that girl (Jane?) OD so Jesse would come back, had people straight-up murdered (remember the prison killings), poisoned a child, killed Gale, killed Mike, etc.

That was the beauty of Breaking Bad - the evolution of a nice Chemistry teacher to a ruthless drug kingpin.

reply

Sorry. Replied to the wrong guy.

Edit: Well, nvm, I just read the thread wrong and replied to the right guy after all. Just overlook me. It's been a long day. lol

reply

[deleted]

Aside from Badger and Skinny Pete, I think Walt may've been Jesse's only friend. Gus tried to have him killed, Mike tried to have him killed, Saul tried to have him killed, Skylar tried to have him killed, and in each case Walt was the only one sticking up for him, trying to save him (when Jesse's death would've benefitted him the most). This was even after Jesse tried to burn his family's house down. The only time Walt ever truly turned against Jesse was when Jesse unintentionally got Hank killed (after Jesse falsely presumed Walt was going to kill him). Walt's continued care of Jesse was arguably his biggest downfall from the moment he began cooking for Gus all the way up to Hank's death. Mike apparently had dementia when accusing Walt instead of Jesse of ruining the "good thing" they had.

Can't really speak on the Gray Matter situation. They may have screwed him over for all I know (they certainly gave contradicting impressions regarding his involvement in the company). In either case, being resentful over that is hardly "evil".

He told his wife he was the danger because she was treating him as if he were meek and helpless. He was attempting to show that he wasn't and wanted acknowledgment for winning every face/off he'd stumbled into. Childish perhaps. But, again, hardly a sign of evilness. Hell, Mike (who you called the most morally good) emphasized to people how dangerous he was on the regular. The only difference, really, is that people treated him that way (ditto with Gus) instead of continuing to disrespect him, belittle him, and drone on about his ego lol.

The thing with the prisoners I suppose I'll give to you. That was certainly ruthless. That being said, they were very much "in the game" and not good guys and were basically a ticking time bomb that was going to ruin his life. It's funny, really, Mike acting as if he'd rather Walt just go on the run rather than have them killed, considering his aforementioned spiel about half measures.

reply

Regarding Gray Matter, the reason Walt left had nothing to do with them screwing him over in regards to the company. I believe they screwed him over because he was in love with the woman and she ended up cheating on him with the other partner. He even said in the finale last night as much. He regretted leaving because if he just sucked it up and kept working there he would have been a millionaire.

reply

I’m always fascinated with the Walter apologists. I wonder if the law would have felt that way.

I recall the scene where he acted all broke up with Jesse over the little boys death and as Jesse was leaving the house he heard him whistling and singing while he cooked. That’s who Walt was….

reply

Neither are bad, Hank and Gomie are worse than the both of them along with Todd, Jack, the Nazis, Fring, and the Salamanca’s combined together.

reply

Pretty much everyone on these 2 shows had psychological disorders except for Walt Jr and Howard.

reply

Saul because he got caught.

reply

Walt got people killed. Saul didn't care if his associates and clients killed. I think the answer is pretty clear cut.

reply

It's just a domino effect all the way throughout.

reply

Walt was a serial murderer by the time Breaking Bad ended. Saul didn't kill or want anyone to die .

reply

Heisenberg.

reply