A lot of my friends are gangsters. Not like gangsters - well

"A lot of my friends are gangsters. Not like gangsters – well, yeah, all sorts of levels of criminality – but not the types that are preying on innocent people. I have no interest in the type of criminality that has no respect for collateral damage." These words from Charlie Hunnam open a window into the complexities of morality, loyalty, and the intricate code that governs the lives of those living in the shadows of society. Hunnam’s reflection brings forth the idea that even within the world of criminality, there exists a sense of honor—a moral code that distinguishes the gangster who operates with a certain level of respect from those who sow destruction without consideration for the lives they affect.

In the ancient world, the notion of honor among warriors and even bandits was paramount. Consider the samurai of feudal Japan, who were bound by a strict code of conduct known as bushido. The samurai were warriors who, though engaged in violence and war, operated under a code that placed great value on loyalty, respect, and the protection of the innocent. To act without honor, to inflict harm on the weak or innocent, would be seen as a betrayal of their very warrior spirit. Even in the most hardened of individuals, the idea of respect—whether for those they ruled over or those they fought beside—was seen as a defining trait of their character. Hunnam’s statement evokes this ancient understanding of the complexity of criminality, where the absence of collateral damage was a matter of respect for life itself.

Similarly, in the annals of ancient Rome, the idea of a code of conduct among soldiers and generals was of great importance. The Roman general Cincinnatus, known for his virtue and selflessness, led his army not with ruthless destruction, but with a sense of duty to the Roman people. Even in war, the Romans valued restraint and discipline, knowing that a war fought with reckless disregard for life would ultimately tear the fabric of society apart. The greatest generals were those who understood the gravity of their actions and operated with a sense of moral responsibility, even in the midst of conflict. In this, we see the ancient principle that not all actions deemed criminal are born from the same moral foundation—some criminals adhere to an unspoken code of respect for the innocent, while others bring ruin without a second thought.

Hunnam’s words remind us that the moral compass is not always as straightforward as it might appear. Criminality, in this light, becomes a spectrum, one that includes both the criminal who seeks power and profit at the expense of the innocent, and the criminal who operates within a code that demands honor and loyalty. The difference between these two lies not in the actions they take, but in the intentions behind them. To act without respect for collateral damage is to disregard the sanctity of life itself. It is to become a force of destruction, with no regard for the innocent lives caught in the wake of one’s actions. This is the kind of criminality that, in Hunnam’s view, is not just dangerous but morally indefensible.

In a more modern example, Nelson Mandela’s fight against apartheid stands as a testament to the idea that even in the pursuit of justice, one must act with restraint and respect for human dignity. While Mandela and his comrades were labeled as criminals by the apartheid regime, their actions were guided by a strong sense of moral responsibility—a commitment to ending oppression without descending into the kind of wanton violence that would harm the innocent. Mandela’s personal restraint and his call for forgiveness and reconciliation after his release from prison demonstrate that criminality, when guided by a higher moral purpose, can lead to liberation rather than destruction. The difference between Mandela’s fight for justice and the reckless violence of those who perpetuate oppression lies in the respect for the lives of others.

The lesson in Hunnam’s words is clear: in all things, the intentions behind our actions determine the morality of those actions. Criminality is not defined solely by the law, but by the ethical framework within which one operates. There is honor in restraint, in knowing that the goal is not to wreak havoc on the world, but to act with purpose and a deep understanding of the impact of one’s actions. As individuals, we must ask ourselves: Do we act in ways that respect the lives and well-being of others? Do we understand the collateral damage our choices may cause, or do we act in ways that prioritize only our own desires?

As we move forward in our own lives, we must consider the moral code by which we live. Whether in moments of power or moments of weakness, the principle of respecting the innocent and acting with honor should guide us. Let us not forget that even those who walk the shadowed path of criminality may possess a sense of duty that transcends simple notions of right and wrong. The true test of our character lies not in what we do, but in how we choose to live and relate to the world around us, with respect for all who walk alongside us.