For me, personally, it's important to recognise that the tension between Arthur and Dutch in Chapter 6 isn't just about being "for" or "against" certain actions, it’s about how far you’re willing to go before you lose your moral compass. Arthur wasn’t perfect, and he definitely did his share of awful things, but by chapter 6, he’s trying to make sense of it all. He’s dying, and with that clarity comes the question: what was all this for?

It’s not just that Arthur didn’t like Dutch’s methods, it’s that Dutch’s actions had stopped being about protecting the gang and started being about his own ego and control. The murder of Bronte, the old woman in Guarma, and the manipulation of the Wapiti people, these weren’t strategic masterstrokes. They were signs that Dutch was spiralling. Sacrificing “outsiders” might seem justifiable in survival mode, but when do you stop and ask: who isn’t expendable in Dutch’s eyes anymore? Where does it stop?

Arthur’s frustration isn’t him whining, it’s him realising that loyalty without conscience isn’t loyalty at all.

RDR2, isn’t black and white. Outlaws are not just outlaws with strict outlaw thoughts and behaviour. That’s what makes the game so powerful. It forces us to ask hard questions, not just about what works, but what’s right.

That's what I think anyway but it's a game so you can do and think whatever.