WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I was just reading through my new copy of Absolute Watchmen (every second, I have to physically restrain myself from drooling on the pages) and this passage from "Under the Hood" caught my eye:

To me, this perfectly sums up one of the central questions of Watchmen: Would we really benefit from living in a world of superheroes and supervillains? Would the world really be better off if morality was a black-and-white concept?

If you were about to be robbed and/or raped, would you really want to trust any of the Watchmen characters with your life?

Discuss.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

I'd trust all the heroes of Watchmen with my life in a criminal situation. They'd all take some version of pleasure in disposing of the criminal.

_________________
.
.

Isn't that a fine piece of foreshadowing



As the old Chinese curse says may you live in interesting times. Once the bloom was off the rose and everyone was over having cool super powers and secret identities, I think human nature would take over and the less principled would would do their best to take advantage of their powers for personal gain. I know that's not different from real life, except that with the super powers card in play I think the stakes would be raised significantly and the potential for innocent victims being killed by interdimensional squidginas would definitely be there.



By definition, morality IS black and white. Things are either moral or they're not, there is not mixing, no gray. Morality is a non-interpretable code of behavior. The problem is when a set of morals belonging to one group clashes with those of another group.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

I'd have to disagree. I find in my own moral guidelines that some things are morally very, very gray. Only religions really operate in that absolute zone, where everything is defined by basic instructions that can't be interpreted different ways. I mean, I challenge you to find an absolute moral truth - like, "Killing is wrong" - that doesn't have an exception (or a few thousand of them). Morality is on a case-to-case basis, and, I think, must be weighed carefully each and every time. A lot of the time, it comes down to choice. Personally, I think the most moral action to take is that which benefits society the most.

_________________
.
.

Agreed. Take abortion, for another example. Suppose that killing a fetus is immoral. There's black and there's white, and abortion is in the black. Now suppose that you have a diabetic mother who accidentally got pregnant. The eventual childbirth will most likely kill her and may harm the child too. Is abortion still immoral? You get my drift.

Anyway, maybe I should rephrase the original question. Suppose there are three choices of which world to be born, live, raise a family and die in.

One world is the stereotypical superhero world, where everything is black-and-white and everyone is dependent on anonymous, apparently flawless superbeings. Where supervillains routinely threaten to kill the superheroes, destroy the world and/or conquer the universe. But for all the trouble the villains cause, they always lose in the end.

The second is the world of Watchmen, where the "superheroes" are anonymous, emormously flawed and painfully human. Where the entirety of American foreign policy rests on the sentient equivalent of an atomic bomb with untested powers and unpredictable behaviors. (For argument's sake, suppose this is pre-squid).

The third option is our world. The real world. Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

So, which one would be the better, safer, more loving world to live in?

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

I'd have to say I'd choose our world. Humans are all of equal genetic power, more or less, and tipping the scales away from that could cause an unpleasant collapse.

_________________
.
.

The problem with doping in the sports world is enough evidence of that.

Sport organizers have had problems for some time!





We have "supermen" today. Heroes that last the test of time. There aren't many of them, though. It isn't uncommon for the press to turn on the very icons they help mount on pedestals. Famous people from all sections of the community get a right bollocking if they step out of line.

MJackson
OJSimpson
BClinton


Even in the comic world, the press is antagonistic towards some of its hero-characters. Spiderman, Batman, Hulk — to name a few — often have a really bad rep. Often working hard trying to clear their name. Invariably though, something or someone always comes along who's even worse than the maligned hero, and all is resolved when the bad guy is sent packing.

That leaves Watchmen. Where is the bad guy here? They are all pretty messed up but each of them is doing their thing for what they think is best for everybody. The right-wing US government even went as far as employing a couple of them, while the rest either went public, underground or fat. (BTW, I wonder if this right-wing regime would let Veidt rule the roost without keeping very close tabs — seems a bit fishy to me).

I can't choose worlds. There isn't a choice here. We are dealt with this one, and can only sway the situation on a personal level with the choices we make. There are lots of us, so those choices could make an effect if we all start pulling in the same direction. Much as I would love to be able to see a "super hero" beat the crap out of some of the bad guys we have in our real-life world, I know that it's a dream. A quick 48 page shortcut to peace, justice and normalcy.

But the world doesn't work like that. And I actually prefer it that way.

It's up to us.

We are the heroes.

_________________

_________________

I think you're referring to ethics, nor morality.

Morality is behavior codified. It's been handed down generation to generation, and is a set of instructions (not always related to religion) on what is acceptable or unacceptable. There are no exceptions to the rule. What's moral or immoral can change depending on what the society decides: for example, slavery was not considered immoral in western society and now is, but is still consiered acceptable in some societies.

Ethics is situational. The basic ethical question is this: who benefits and is anyone harmed by this and if so, to what degree? There is lots of grey areas in deciding what is ethical or not. Situations that are mutually neutral or beneficial tends to be more ethical than those where an indivudual benefits at the expense of another.



Abortion is perfect example. If your morality says it's wrong to kill, then abortions are by definition verboten. There's no decision to make. Ethically, abortion asks what detriment to the mother (a fully volitional being) will carrying the fetus (a potential life) to full term result. You end up weighing the benefits (ending an unwanted pregnancy) and deficits (health, social and economic consequences) to the mother vs the obvious detriment to the fetus. It's a messier and more intellectually demanding process, but inna final analysis you do what you beleive is right.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Ah, but see, is a fetus a human life? There can be shades of gray even then.

PS - I've always seen ethics and morality used interchangably.

_________________
.
.

A good dictionary and a philosophy text will cure that affliction

So will an argument with Vynson



I wasn't making that argument. In fact if you had read my post coompletely, you would have seen I called a fetus a potential life. I don't pretend to know when human life begins. That's an issue for Philosophers and Medical Ethicists.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

Merriam-Webster disagrees... as does my philosophy teacher.

You may be thinking of situational ethics - but ethics in and of itself is, I'm pretty sure, a term interchangeable with morals.

There are no universal morals. There are no 'rules' that must always be followed. There is nothing that can be said that does not have an exception. Everything is situational. The only rules we can prescribe are ones that take into account to some extent the situational and fluid nature of right and wrong.

_________________
.
.

But is that how things should be?

What would it be like to live in a world where right and wrong are clearly delineated and those in the wrong are swiftly punished by caped crusaders? Are we better off in a world that has shades of gray and debates about them?

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

There are shades of gray in the superhero worlds as well - both Watchmen and otherwise. Just look at the Punisher. Even Superman's lied.

_________________
.
.

Is anyone here arguing that there are? There are some things all human beings agree as being bad - theft and murder - for example, but there are as many moral codes as there are individuals in the world.

Are you arguing there should be universal morals? Or are you trying to justify amorality? I'm not getting the point.

_________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

-Juvenal

See, I would not agree that theft is bad. I would say that it's circumstantial. Same with killing. There are times when even the most moral and righteous people agree that they are the 'right' courses of action.

_________________
.
.

People seem to still believe in universal morals, regardless of the reality, so distinctions must be made.


'Moral rule' was implied.

_________________
.
.

_________________