Watchmen and Ethics

[ranmaonehalf]

First warning, there will be spoilers from the movie so dont read further if you havent watched it or dont want to know what happens.







Page down to continue.











Two main points I want to cover is the ethics of lying and killing for the "Greater good".









What do you think about how the movie ended with the mass murder of millions in order to prevent a war?









Is it ethical to kill millions to save all life on earth?

Is it ever ethical to kill innocent people?

Is it ethical to wipe out all life in one area (human or animal) for the "greater good"?

If you were one of the watchmen in the end, would you tell the world the truth or is it better for them to believe a lie?

 

[Gilyon]

I'm answering this from memory of the comic, so bear with me. I think Ozymandias is a loon. He doesn't know for sure that he prevented a war, he is shown in the comic to not be infallible. To kill tens of thousands of people based on a theory, it's unethical. I suppose if one could know somehow that something would happen in the future it might change matters. But time travel ethics is a different thread

 

[gwenmead]

I always interpreted the Tales of the Black Freighter to be a commentary on what's happening to Ozymandias' humanity as he follows through with his plan. That is, the more convinced he is that he has to save the world, the more detached from reality he becomes. By the time he carries out his plan for world peace, he's as removed from the human race as Dr. Manhattan is.

It occurs to me that both Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan are characters about godhood, in the first case godhood willingly adopted, in the second godhood obtained accidentally. Dr. Manhattan could probably save the world in any number of ways, but does not. Ozymandias makes the attempt, but it's a brutal plan involving the deaths of millions of people. Kind of touches on that whole Problem of Evil thing: is it better to let a world die on its own, without interfering? Or is it better to interfere, possibly saving billions by murdering millions?

Seems both options are pretty messed up in their own special ways. And I have to admit a certain affinity with Rorschach, as unpleasant a character as he is - because he was willing to deliver the truth.

I don't know. I could probably sit down and jaw about this for hours, with plenty of beers and a good group of Watchmen fans to argue it endlessly...

 

[ranmaonehalf]

So are there any Christians here that think what he did was ok? (nuking newyork to potentially stop a war.)

How would you compare his actions to the flood story?

 

[Everlasting33]

While I didn't see the movie, I read there was a lot of explicit sex scenes and a lot of violence. Typical of movies nowadays...quite a shame that the quality of movies, in my opinion, have decreased.

 

[Autumnleaf]

First warning, there will be spoilers from the movie so dont read further if you havent watched it or dont want to know what happens.







Page down to continue.











Two main points I want to cover is the ethics of lying and killing for the "Greater good".









What do you think about how the movie ended with the mass murder of millions in order to prevent a war?









Is it ethical to kill millions to save all life on earth?

Is it ever ethical to kill innocent people?

Is it ethical to wipe out all life in one area (human or animal) for the "greater good"?

If you were one of the watchmen in the end, would you tell the world the truth or is it better for them to believe a lie?

No, no, no. I think when people know the truth, violence against others is seldom if ever an option. Most wars and disagreements are due to greedy leaders or miscommunications. When it comes to regular people most of us just want to live and let live.

 

[Verv]

I thought was interesting was the general vigilantism -- I enjoyed it to some extent.

I also thought it was interesting, their brief anti-homosexual moment concerning the lesbian character, and I liked the morality surrounding the paradoxical comedian.

 

[Isambard]

What do you think about how the movie ended with the mass murder of millions in order to prevent a war?


Is it ethical to kill millions to save all life on earth?

Is it ever ethical to kill innocent people?

Think of the alternative. Even the Commedian understood what would happen if it wasn't done ("king of the cinder"). So yes, it would be ethical by most ethical models.

Is it ethical to wipe out all life in one area (human or animal) for the "greater good"?

Depends who does it. I see you compard it to the flood, I dont think it can compare. Ozymandias , nor John can change human nature. Neither are omniscient either.

If you were one of the watchmen in the end, would you tell the world the truth or is it better for them to believe a lie?

Better to believe the lie. Even the Commedian remained silent.

 

[Shane Roach]

I thought was interesting was the general vigilantism -- I enjoyed it to some extent.

I also thought it was interesting, their brief anti-homosexual moment concerning the lesbian character, and I liked the morality surrounding the paradoxical comedian.

It was indeed sort of surreal to see a movie by all signs completely Hollywood that nevertheless made a sympathetic character out of a sociopathic hyper-conservative (Rorshach).

I am always struck by the insight of that movie "Unbreakable". I really do think there is truth in the idea that comics are modern society's nod to mythology. It is only in that sense that I can relate to this movie at all, which becomes a morality play about superbeings. The plot itself is nonsense to me, and I find no real moral or ethical lesson to be learned. I guess the hook is supposed to be that you believe Dr. Manhattan verifies that this move saves lives, but in reality it would only postpone the inevitable. Indeed, the movie even touches on that fact if I recall.

I prefer to experience such movies on the personal and emotional level, which is where I believe they shine. All the actors did great jobs in my opinion portraying their various over-the-top characterizations. I really enjoyed the movie.

The naked blue man effect was rather funny in its vulgar way. The obligatory sex scene was funny in the sense that I saw the movie at a theater that also serves food and brings it out to you, and the waitress delivered my check right in the middle of it! It sort of woke me up out of the stupor of the movie and for a brief moment it dawned on me just how dorky it is to be 41 years old and still getting all engrossed in the idea of boobies on a screen in a room with another 60 people all at the same time.

Then I signed my credit card receipt.

 

[Belk]

It was indeed sort of surreal to see a movie by all signs completely Hollywood that nevertheless made a sympathetic character out of a sociopathic hyper-conservative (Rorshach).

I think that was less Hollywood and more Michael Moore. I have not seen the movie yet but in the comic he did a very good job of showing just how Rorschach traveled down the path he did.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think that was less Hollywood and more Michael Moore. I have not seen the movie yet but in the comic he did a very good job of showing just how Rorschach traveled down the path he did.

Because Michael Moore is not Hollywood, and is well known for his sympathetic portrayals of psychotic right wingers?



Hehe, not following you there. Like I said, was just sort of surprising to me.

 

[b&wpac4]

I believe he meant Alan Moore, the author of the graphic novel.

 

[Belk]

I believe he meant Alan Moore, the author of the graphic novel.

Whoops, thanks for catching that. Yes, Alan Moore.

 

[Shane Roach]

Duh....

I should have known as Michael Moore had nothing to do with the movie. My bad.

 

[eMesreveR]

Why's everyone making a big deal about the sex scene? It was hilariously awkward, and probably self-deprecating humor. (Add that to the fact that they were playing that Hallelujah song, and it's hard not to laugh.)

Dr. Manhattan is naked. He has a human form. He has genitalia. It strikes me as immature to complain about the presence of it.

Sex happens in real life. It was a rated R movie. What's the problem?

 

[b&wpac4]

Why's everyone making a big deal about the sex scene? It was hilariously awkward, and probably self-deprecating humor. (Add that to the fact that they were playing that Hallelujah song, and it's hard not to laugh.)

Dr. Manhattan is naked. He has a human form. He has genitalia. It strikes me as immature to complain about the presence of it.

Sex happens in real life. It was a rated R movie. What's the problem?

It is amazing how much we are shocked by the sex scene, but not shocked by the violence. Which would you rather have in your life? More sex, or more violence?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Why's everyone making a big deal about the sex scene? It was hilariously awkward, and probably self-deprecating humor. (Add that to the fact that they were playing that Hallelujah song, and it's hard not to laugh.)

Dr. Manhattan is naked. He has a human form. He has genitalia. It strikes me as immature to complain about the presence of it.

Sex happens in real life. It was a rated R movie. What's the problem?

i dont htink you could even call it a sex scene. heavy petting perhaps.
all you see is his hands for the most part.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

some here said they thought it was ok to kill millions, what about fewer then?

 

[Verv]

It was indeed sort of surreal to see a movie by all signs completely Hollywood that nevertheless made a sympathetic character out of a sociopathic hyper-conservative (Rorshach).

I am always struck by the insight of that movie "Unbreakable". I really do think there is truth in the idea that comics are modern society's nod to mythology. It is only in that sense that I can relate to this movie at all, which becomes a morality play about superbeings. The plot itself is nonsense to me, and I find no real moral or ethical lesson to be learned. I guess the hook is supposed to be that you believe Dr. Manhattan verifies that this move saves lives, but in reality it would only postpone the inevitable. Indeed, the movie even touches on that fact if I recall.

I prefer to experience such movies on the personal and emotional level, which is where I believe they shine. All the actors did great jobs in my opinion portraying their various over-the-top characterizations. I really enjoyed the movie.

The naked blue man effect was rather funny in its vulgar way. The obligatory sex scene was funny in the sense that I saw the movie at a theater that also serves food and brings it out to you, and the waitress delivered my check right in the middle of it! It sort of woke me up out of the stupor of the movie and for a brief moment it dawned on me just how dorky it is to be 41 years old and still getting all engrossed in the idea of boobies on a screen in a room with another 60 people all at the same time.

Then I signed my credit card receipt.

I am glad that you also picked up on everything I did...

There is a cultural change happening -- the liberalism and hippie fweelings of the 1960s are dying slowly and the new underground is looking like the underground of the 1890s-1930s, where suddenly people are calling for macho values and a general sense of conservatism.

Futurism is back.

 

[BigBadWlf]

My memory of reading the original comic and my thoughts on the motives of Ozymandias and the final result (which is slightly different than what was presented in the movie) revolved around the notion that this was supposedly the smartest man in the world. And this scheme (hatched in 1968) was the best he could come up with?