Moral Shades of Survival: The Ethical Tightrope Walk of Clarke and Abby Griffin in The 100
In The 100, Clarke and Abby Griffin navigate a post-apocalyptic world where survival often demands moral compromise and manipulation. Both characters grapple with the consequences of their decisions, oscillating between determination and questionable ethics. Their journey raises profound philosophical and ethical questions about the nature of manipulation, morality, and leadership in extreme circumstances. Through an analysis of their actions, motivations, and consequences, we can explore how their manipulative traits not only shape their character arcs but also provoke thought on real-world ethical dilemmas.
Clarke Griffin — A Leader Walking the Moral Tightrope
Clarke Griffin, often seen as a compassionate and strategic leader, embodies moral ambiguity as she continuously makes hard decisions that blur the line between right and wrong. Her survival instincts, intelligence, and emotional manipulation showcase her willingness to do whatever it takes to protect her people — even if it means sacrificing her own moral integrity.
The Ethics of Manipulation for Survival
Clarke’s manipulative behavior often stems from her deep survival instincts. When faced with life-or-death situations, Clarke leverages emotional manipulation and strategic thinking to achieve her goals. In “Blood Must Have Blood” (Season 2, Episode 16), Clarke is forced to make devastating decisions in the name of survival. Her choice to irradiate Mount Weather is a moment that epitomizes the moral cost of leadership. Her tactical genius in exploiting emotional weaknesses, whether of enemies or allies, ensures the safety of her people but leaves her grappling with the moral fallout.
Philosophically, this raises the question — Is manipulation ever justified when survival is on the line? Clarke’s actions challenge the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in crisis situations. Her ability to manipulate others — sometimes by appealing to their emotions, guilt, or fears — demands a reflection on the utilitarian ethics she embodies. Is it right to sacrifice a few to save many, even if it requires manipulation? Clarke frequently justifies her choices as necessary for the greater good, but her actions also beg the question: How far can one go before crossing the line from leadership to exploitation?
Emotional Manipulation — A Leader’s Weapon
Clarke’s use of emotional manipulation is particularly complex because she often manipulates those she cares about. This manipulation isn’t born of malice, but rather from her intense desire to protect her loved ones. Whether influencing Bellamy to support her plans or persuading Raven to execute risky missions, Clarke often treads the fine line between genuine care and emotional exploitation.
Her manipulation of emotions touches on the ethical debate about whether the ends justify the means. Philosophically, her approach invites comparisons to consequentialist ethics, where the outcome is prioritised over the means used to achieve it. In the context of survival, Clarke’s behaviour asks whether emotional manipulation, when done for the “right” reasons, can still be considered ethical.
Abby Griffin — Maternal Instincts and the Corruption of Power
Abby Griffin, Clarke’s mother, is similarly complex, combining her maternal instincts with political savvy and professional authority. As a doctor, Abby often holds moral authority over life and death decisions, and her protective instincts towards Clarke drive her to manipulation in ways that complicate her ethical standing. Like Clarke, Abby navigates a world where survival depends on bending the rules and making ethically dubious decisions, but she also grapples with the corrupting influence of power.
Medical Ethics and Manipulation
Abby’s expertise as a doctor often gives her leverage over others, allowing her to manipulate situations in subtle but impactful ways. Whether it’s deciding who receives medical treatment or withholding critical information for strategic purposes, Abby uses her knowledge and authority to influence outcomes. This manipulation of her position raises important ethical questions regarding medical ethics and the use of expertise for personal gain.
In the real world, this invites reflection on the Hippocratic Oath — to “do no harm” — and whether, in times of crisis, such principles can or should be compromised. Abby’s willingness to manipulate medical decisions for the sake of Clarke or her people reveals the fragility of ethical principles when placed under extreme pressure. Her actions compel us to consider whether pragmatism overrides professional ethics in survival scenarios.
Political Manipulation: Navigating Power Dynamics
Abby’s political maneuvering on the Ark and later in the ground-based societies demonstrates her sharp ability to manipulate those in power to achieve her goals. Her ability to navigate Ark politics by exploiting emotional guilt and leveraging alliances mirrors real-world leaders who manipulate political systems for their desired outcomes.
Her manipulation raises ethical questions about leadership integrity and the line between diplomacy and exploitation. In a post-apocalyptic setting, where resources are scarce and the stakes are high, Abby’s actions seem justifiable. Yet her behavior illustrates the **moral compromises** leaders often make when balancing personal motivations with political survival. Like Clarke, Abby sometimes believes her manipulation is a necessary evil to protect her daughter or ensure survival, but it challenges her own moral compass and damages relationships with those who view her tactics as deceitful.
Motivations — The Drive for Survival and Protection
Both Clarke and Abby are driven by a desire to protect their loved ones and ensure survival in an unforgiving world. Their shared motivation to protect their people, especially each other, gives their manipulative actions a moral grayness. Are their actions excused because they are rooted in love and protection, or do their manipulations reveal deeper moral failings?
Love as a Justification for Manipulation
The idea of using love as a justification for manipulative actions taps into an ancient philosophical debate: Can love, as a higher ideal, excuse unethical behaviour? Both Clarke and Abby make decisions that could be seen as morally questionable, but they consistently justify their actions as necessary for the survival of their people or family. This belief challenges Kantian ethics, which suggests that the morality of an action is judged by its adherence to duty and principle, not by its consequences.
By manipulating others under the guise of protection, Clarke and Abby explore the moral ambiguities of leadership in crisis, echoing the real-world challenges leaders face when personal relationships cloud ethical decision-making.
Consequences of Manipulation — The Ethical Toll
The manipulative actions of Clarke and Abby have profound consequences, both personally and for those around them. Manipulation leads to strained relationships, loss of trust, and unintended outcomes. Their struggles with moral compromise mirror the real-world consequences of manipulation in leadership roles, where short-term gains often lead to long-term fallout.
Moral Corrosion and Redemption
Clarke and Abby’s character arcs also explore the possibility of redemption after moral compromise. Both characters seek to make amends for their manipulative actions, recognizing the damage they’ve caused to their relationships and their own sense of self. This quest for redemption invites deeper philosophical questions about the possibility of atonement and forgiveness in leadership. Can leaders who have used manipulation find redemption, or does manipulation leave permanent moral scars?
In both characters, we see the personal cost of manipulation — the erosion of trust, the burden of guilt, and the loss of innocence. However, their journeys also offer hope that self-awareness and accountability can lead to personal growth and moral healing.
Clarke and Abby’s Ethical Legacy
Clarke and Abby Griffin’s manipulative tendencies in The 100 highlight the complex intersection of leadership, morality, and survival. Their characters provoke deep ethical and philosophical questions about the nature of manipulation, the cost of moral compromise, and the possibility of redemption. Ultimately, their journeys show that leadership in extreme conditions often demands difficult choices, but those choices come with consequences that challenge the very essence of one’s ethical compass.
As viewers and thinkers, we are left to ponder: Is manipulation ever truly justified, or does it inevitably lead to the erosion of character and trust?
What do you think of Clarke and Abby’s manipulative traits? Can their actions be excused in the name of survival, or do they cross an ethical line? Share your thoughts below!
