Why We Crave Stories of Redemption & Self-Sacrifice
A.K.A.: How Natural Law influences our entertainment and how we react to it
Why do we crave stories where good triumphs over evil? Why does a hero sacrificing himself or herself to save others bring tears to our eyes? Why does a good redemption story even appeal to us? After all, characters like Anakin Skywalker, the T800 Terminator, Prince Zuko, and many more, are either murderers, psychopaths, fascists, or all of the above. So, why can we look beyond their past and be moved when those characters become a force for good?
The answer: Natural Law.
Natural Law is the idea that there is a force, or set of principles, guiding the universe along the lines of what “should” be. In other words, observation tells us that human beings need air to breathe while Natural Law tells us that holding a pillow over the face of your neighbor until they die of oxygen deprivation is something that is wrong to do because human life is valuable. So, observation leads to IS statements that do not and cannot designate value, and Natural Law leads to SHOULD statements that are ripe with designations of value. In his essay, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis explains this sort of dichotomy and how the existence of Natural Law is a requirement for proper human flourishing when he writes:
From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn. This will preserve society cannot lead to do this except by the medication of society ought to be preserved… The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premises in the indicative: and though he continues trying to all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible.
Without the idea of Natural Law (or “The Tao” as C.S. Lewis refers to it throughout his essay), human morality as a whole and personal attempts to rationalize one’s principles are effectively null and void. Unless there is a foundational statement of truth about how existence should be that crosses any and all borders, there is no way to actually be consistent in your beliefs or thoughts about the world at any level other than “because I feel like it.” In other words, moral subjectivity does not allow an individual to consistently—maybe honestly is a better word—believe in and/or advocate for human rights. There can be attempts to justify inherent human value through reference to imprinting, animal behaviors, and enlightened self-interest, but all of those explanations assume, as C.S. Lewis mentions, that “society ought to be preserved.” Accordingly, unless one’s worldview accounts for why society ought to be preserved—why life actually matters rather than just assuming it does—then the individual has no foot to stand on when confronted with a worldview that they may find particularly egregious or offensive. The belief that it is better to live than to die, and how society should function to promote and extend life, is an inherently religious one as there is no way to scientifically prove or disprove an after-life of any sort.
Now, I could go further down this philosophical rabbit hole, and I know that I have not done full justice to such a complex topic in the two paragraphs above, but what I want to loop back to is how the ways that we react to the stories that we watch, read, and experience confirm the reality of Natural Law.
If an individual believes that both truth and morality are relative, that all cultural practices and religions are equally edifying, right, and beneficial, then ultimately they believe that nothing matters. If everything is “right” then nothing is right. Or, as Syndrome says it in The Incredibles, “When’s everyone super, no one will be.” And, as C.S. Lewis puts it in The Abolition of Man:
…you cannot go on explaining away forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then every thing is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through' all things is the same as not to see.
Some people do claim to have this system of morality, yet that worldview does not allow one to enjoy storytelling in any shape or form if the individual wants to stay consistent with their worldview. One’s appreciation of stories where the good guys win, the bad guy turns back to the light, sacrifices result in salvation, etc., is fundamentally tied into the fact that deep down we all know that there is something that can be concretely described as good.
For the Christian, Natural Law as a concept should not be anything new. The second chapter of the Book of Romans reads: “(14) For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (15) They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (16) on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (See also Romans 1:20). Granted, the idea of an all-encompassing law that governs the universe and morality is not something that is necessarily exclusive to Christianity. Similar ideas can be found in Platonian, Aristotelian, and Oriental worldviews, to name a few. Regardless of where the idea stems from, the theory (although I would call it a reality) would be one that is subconsciously felt by all of humanity. Any moment that you feel emotionally affected by “right” and “wrong” in the stories you consume or the life that you live—even an implicit evaluation as one thing being better or worse than another—is evidence that there is something more at play than cultural norms.
Most stories play upon this idea either explicitly or implicitly. Honestly, I am struggling to think of a single story, in any medium, that I have come across that does not in some way adhere to the notion that there is truth and goodness in the world and that evil is something that exists in opposition to it. That fundamental dichotomy is what storytelling as a whole is predicated on and it is something that cannot and should not just be taken for granted.
Look at Spider-Man: No Way Home. The entire plot is based on the idea that good needs to triumph over evil and that redemption is both possible and necessary to lead a fulfilling life. In that film, Peter Parker (Tom Holland) creates a rift in the multiverse that brings villains from the Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire movies to his reality. Rather than just send them back, knowing that they will die once they return, Peter commits to rehabilitating each villain so that they can return to their universes redeemed. We enjoy that story because deep down we all want to be redeemed as well. We all want a second chance (or a third, fourth, fifth, and sixth chance) and we do not want our friends and family members to give up on us. We get emotional when we watch Peter Parker sacrifice his relationships with Ned and MJ (Jacob Batalon & Zendaya, respectively) in order to allow them to live safe, happy lives because we hope that we would be able to make a similar sacrifice if it meant the continued wellbeing of those that mean the most to us. All of those things, all of those inner desires, stem from truths that are purposely instilled within us.
You can disagree with that. You can say that truth is relative, cultural influence is everything in relation to how the world is perceived, and there is no “right” way to live (even though that usually comes with the catch of “as long as you are not hurting anyone). However, if you are someone that does not believe in objective morality/truth, then your enjoyment of any story that presents a struggle between good and evil is ultimately nothing other than a massive coping mechanism against your worldview. At the end of the day, subjective morality is nihilism but worded in a way that allows for its tenants to ignore how bleak and depressing their own philosophy is.
Under subjective morality, enjoyment of anything is pointless. If everything is explained away as being a mere byproduct of cultural and social factors, and if none of those cultural and social factors can be ranked as better than another (and if you do start to rank, you have to trace back the why behind your rank designations) then everything you do is transitory and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Enjoyment becomes coping through pleasurable ignorance ala Adolf Huxley’s Brave New World.
However, if objective morality does exist then you have a reason to enjoy certain stories (tall tales, if you will) because there will be a number of transcendent values and elements that your enjoyment is celebrating, with the intrinsic worth of human life at the forefront. Stories of sacrifice, love, redemption, all of those resonate emotionally within us because they reflect ideals that we know humanity should strive for and uphold. And while the minutia of how those elements are represented from culture to culture may change, their validity remain constant and transcendent of any social or cultural barrier. Instilled truths via Natural Law (which itself is via a Creator) are what guide our tastes with entertainment and point us towards universal realities of existence.
So, another answer as to why we crave stories where good triumphs over evil, the villain comes to the light, love conquers all, and so on is: we are supposed to.