Contains spoilers for Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann
Often, I hear the term "blurred morality" thrown around when talking about villains with understandable motives, and while that still is true that it would be considered such, I don't think it cuts to the heart of what blurred morality really is. One of the best examples I could possibly think of to display it is Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, arguably the biggest modern classic of this era in anime. With nearly unanimous praise across the board, I don't think any anime has quite the following Gurren Lagann does. However, I can't think of anybody who has actually taken a deeper look at the ambiguous morality behind the characters throughout the show. Good or bad, hero or villain, everybody in Gurren Lagann has done at least some things right and others wrong. But the way the show handles specific motivations makes what is right or wrong debatable, and it makes an already incredibly deep show even more filled. So, I'd like to take a look at how this moral ambiguity affects the show, and what it means for the heroes and "villains".
The first part that this idea encompasses are the big antagonists themselves. Spiral King Lordgenome and the Anti-Spiral, both basically have the same goal: to protect the lives of many by holding them back from creating the doomsday that will inevitably kill them all. In the case of Lordgenome, this was the Anti-Spiral's humanity extermination program. To keep humanity from triggering the program by going over a population of a million, he decided to force them into hiding underground, with barely enough resources. It's clear that what he did was wrong, but considering that he was just trying to avoid an even worse outcome, he was at least doing something. Looking at his history, he was actively fighting against the anti-spiral. He was put into a situation where the only protection he could accomplish was to hold humanity hostage, and over time, he became numb to any feelings of empathy he might have had.
The Anti-Spiral themselves had the sole intention of protecting the universe. When they found out about the Spiral Nemesis, an apocalypse caused by overuse of spiral power, they immediately restricted themselves from spiral power. Then, by "inflicting despair", as they put it, they suppress spiral energy from the spiral races, keeping the apocalypse at bay. They are doing the only thing they can think of to protect the entire universe. Short-sighted? Probably. Wrong? Definitely. But they have good intentions, they're taking the only course of action they believe will work. This is key to giving the villains depth. They're not power-hungry, vice-driven baddies. They really see themselves heroes, who are trying to do everything in their power to protect what they treasure.
This particular aspect is present throughout all the main villains, but it doesn't really shine until the timeskip. As another (much better) analyst, Best Guy Ever, describes in his massive 40 minute all-encompassing analysis, the show has two different types of characters. Those who act based on determination and feelings (like Kamina and Simon), and those who do things logically and through reasoning (such as Rossiu and Father Magin). The latter tend to be at fault most of the time, since the show revolves around a main theme of spiral power, but they're always in opposition because of their different ways of handling problems. This leads into how none of these characters who are in the wrong are villains. They just do what they believe is the best thing that they can to handle a situation.
This particular aspect is present throughout all the main villains, but it doesn't really shine until the timeskip. As another (much better) analyst, Best Guy Ever, describes in his massive 40 minute all-encompassing analysis, the show has two different types of characters. Those who act based on determination and feelings (like Kamina and Simon), and those who do things logically and through reasoning (such as Rossiu and Father Magin). The latter tend to be at fault most of the time, since the show revolves around a main theme of spiral power, but they're always in opposition because of their different ways of handling problems. This leads into how none of these characters who are in the wrong are villains. They just do what they believe is the best thing that they can to handle a situation.
When Father Magin ran Adai Village with the 50 person limit, he was doing his best to resolve an issue. The village couldn't handle a large amount of people, with the limited resources in the cave and all. So, he held up a religion to help people realize that giving into sentimentality would destroy the village. If they were to have more people then they could sufficiently feed, then some would have to be sacrificed. Harsh, and arguably wrong, but what else could they do? It was either starvation of sacrifice. Rossiu found himself in a similar situation in the latter portion of the show, forcing people out of the underground to get an accurate population count. He was heeding the warning from Lordgenome, and trying to protect the people against what at the time was an unknown threat. They were being forced out of their homes, but to keep them from accidentally causing a worldwide threat.
The strongest example of this moral ambiguity is in the first Mugann attack on Kamina City. Rossiu urges Simon not to blindly attack the unidentified enemy, but Simon decides to anyways to protect the city. In doing so, he let the explosion from it leave seeds, which then blew up entire blocks of streets. If Rossiu got his way, that wouldn't have happened, but the Mugann would have attacked the city anyways. Simon is convicted for his brash actions, but Rossiu only does it because he sees it as the correct thing to do. Both could be considered right just as much as they could be considered wrong. It all depends on perspective. This is the quintessential way of constructing moral ambiguity, to blur the lines in such a way that somebody could interpret it any way they like, and it's the little things like this that make it so much more interesting than simple, black and white styled judgement.
The strongest example of this moral ambiguity is in the first Mugann attack on Kamina City. Rossiu urges Simon not to blindly attack the unidentified enemy, but Simon decides to anyways to protect the city. In doing so, he let the explosion from it leave seeds, which then blew up entire blocks of streets. If Rossiu got his way, that wouldn't have happened, but the Mugann would have attacked the city anyways. Simon is convicted for his brash actions, but Rossiu only does it because he sees it as the correct thing to do. Both could be considered right just as much as they could be considered wrong. It all depends on perspective. This is the quintessential way of constructing moral ambiguity, to blur the lines in such a way that somebody could interpret it any way they like, and it's the little things like this that make it so much more interesting than simple, black and white styled judgement.