Family Guy's Peter Griffin is a morally repugnant character.

Peter Griffin, based on the moral consensus of any Western society is a morally repugnant character. To address a comment: I realise that he is a cartoon, this is why I have used the term 'character' in the title of the debate, not 'person' or 'human'. Those who create Peter Griffin are accountable in choosing how he behaves and the decisions he makes, however this debate is to do with Peter's behaviour in regards to morality, not a question of the morality of his creators, as this debate is not about any sort of accountable creator; this debate pertains only to Peter Griffin from family guy and it is assumed that within his world, he is responsible for his own behaviour. I will show that Peter Griffin is a morally reprehensible cartoon character. There have been shown numerous occasions where Peter Griffin has been showed to have a lack of regard for the consequences of his actions; how said actions effect others' thoughts, feelings, and physical presence in the world does not seem, in numerous circumstances, to be of any importance to Peter Griffin. (1) states that "throughout the course of the series Peter has caused much misery for those around himself: often this is due to stupidity but there have been times when Peter has deliberately caused harm or misfortune on others to better himself" showing that not all of his morally corrupt behaviour can be attributed to his stupidity. In one episode after Peter found out that he was technically mentally retarded, he took advantage of the situation, behaving in horrible ways as he knew he could get away with it, as he thought himself not accountable for his own actions. Examples: 1. Ernie the Giant Chicken: When Peter is engaged in a fight with Ernie, a giant chicken, he does not seem to care whether his actions might kill the chicken, nor does he seem to care for any collateral damage that happens as a consequence of his engagement in these fights. Now you might say that the chicken is a chicken and therefore any actions carried out towards the chicken are void of moral judgement, however, the chicken has been shown to talk and show human cognitions. As far as the collateral damage, Peter and Ernie have jointly destroyed or substantially damaged (also highly probably killing people in the process) a cruise ship, a ferris wheel, a train station and an oil rig (2). 2. In order to get a promotion at work, Peter accidentally burns down part of a children's hospital causing 14 deaths. After this, he does not show much remorse for his actions; there is no attempt to seek redemption and Peter still hopes to achieve promotion (3). 3. Peter shows a lack of regard for his own family on numerous occasions, especially his daughter Meg, going out of his way to hurt or humiliate her. As (1) informs us, Peter's behaviour towards Meg includes "talking down to her, farting in her face, beating her up, nearly drowning her, and in a cutaway gag, shoots her simply because she says, 'Hi Dad.'". Also (1) asserts that Peter "Crosses the moral event horizon" in an episode where he throws his baby son Stewie under a moving car so that his wife will run him over. Peter knows that this would cause his wife Lois to feel the responsibility that Peter himself should feel for causing Stewie's infected head wounds in the first place. He is passing the blame so as to not get in trouble, whilst his son could actually die from his decisions. Sources (1)http://villains.wikia.com... (2)http://familyguy.wikia.com... (3)http://familyguy.wikia.com...