![]() ![]() ![]() Rorschach’s dictum is similar to another one used by the philosopher Immanuel Kant: “Fiat iustitia, pereat mundus,” “Let justice be done, though the world perish.” Kant was apparently expressing his extreme deontological ethical stance: one must always do what is right by a set of rules, in Kant’s case supposedly dictated by pure reason, regardless of what the outcome will be. What to do if the only way to prevent the greater evil is to do something bad yourself? Two kinds of ethical theories But that doesn’t answer the original question. Most of us would probably take the stance taken by most of the characters: not to kill millions to save the world, but once it was done, not ruin everything either. Of course, those are not the only options. He’s a zealot to his own intolerant, fairly twisted moral principles, so he goes out and plans to expose Ozymandias. It would also mean that the world would still be on the brink of destruction.īut Rorschach doesn’t feel this way. To try to bring him to justice would mean that all those deaths were in vain. Once they find that he has already realised his plan, and also see that it seems to be working, most of them are shocked but realise that they cannot do anything but go along with his plan and not expose it. The dilemma is illustrated in the reactions of the other main characters. Yet, even so, what he did - deliberately killing millions of innocents - seems heinous. This is the dilemma: can you do that? Can you murder millions to save the whole world? If he had not done it, the result would have been much worse - so it seems. Manhattan attacked the city in the original, it’s more complicated and involves a fake giant alien. Manhattan out of the way - which, incidentally, nearly leads to nuclear war by itself - and ends with dramatically destroying New York to shake people all over the world and make even the Soviets stand in solidarity with the Americans. He hatches a complicated plot that involves getting Dr. How to avoid the inevitable? Ozymandias becomes convinced he must change the course of history, no matter what the cost. He makes Ozymandias see what is presented as inevitable: that the Cold War can only end in nuclear destruction. The Comedian is in some ways his opposite, a supremely cynical, homicidal sociopath who thinks the world is a cruel, violent joke and only bears it by being enough of a total bastard to laugh at it. He used to work as a costumed hero, but one day the Comedian opened his eyes to the impossibility of the world’s situation. He’s known as the smartest man in the world and is pretty much literally good at everything. ![]() He’s an idealistic hero who wants to make the world a better place. He could probably effect total nuclear disarmament by himself if he did it in secret, but he’s become inhuman and doesn’t care enough to consider such things. Manhattan could not stop all of their nuclear weapons at once before they could reach America. It’s acknowledged that, even knowing they cannot win against USA, the Soviets might be willing to trigger mutually assured destruction. Yet, this does not mean that the Soviet Union is giving up - or that the threat of nuclear apocalypse has been averted. It’s like the US has not only nuclear weapons but also a separate walking metaphor for nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Manhattan, is so powerful that his existence and service of the United States has tipped the balance of power in the Cold War. In this history, “superheroes” are real, although only one of them has any superhuman powers. ![]() Watchmen is set in an alternative history during the Cold War. And his plan is to kill millions of people, to blow up New York, in order to save the world. It is also revealed who the villain is: it is the most idealistic of the heroes, Adrian Veidt or Ozymandias. In the final chapters of Watchmen, the villain’s plan that has been driving the whole plot is revealed. Now, if you’re ready to hear more about this, read on. It’s one of the most important questions in ethics: do the ends justify the means, or, when do they? This time, I am going to use it to look at a central question in ethics. I’ve already discussed philosophical questions raised in it in two articles, concentrating on the metaphysics around Dr. comic book) that always gets mentioned when talking about how comics or even superhero comics can be deep and can be art. If you’ve seen the movie, that’s good enough, but I would not recommend starting with it instead of the comic. Do read the original graphic novel first rather than reading this. First, I have to ask you: have you read Watchmen? Or at least seen the movie? If you haven’t, this is going to spoil the heck out of it what I’m discussing is tied to the conclusion of the great story. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |