I just saw it today, and loved it. It raises many interesting questions in moral philosophy so I quickly wrote a little something considering the competing moral philosophies of:
Comedian vs. Nite OwlNihilism vs. Belief in the Good
Silk Spectre vs. Dr. ManhattanAnthrocentrism vs. “Scientific” Humility
Rorschach vs. OzymandiasNatural Right vs. Utilitarianism
If you already know the story (or don't mind spoilers), please check it out.
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
Nite Owl wins his fight, and Rorschach pwns every character.
Not so sure about Silk Spectre v.s Dr. Manhattan though.
I just got done watching it myself, and made a post about it. As a comic book lover, I bought it as a teenager and loved it. I saw it today almost 10 years after reading it, great movie.
Alan Moore the author said it was anti-Reaganism. While I hate Reagan, I find that an odd statement because I think Reagens presidency may have been the combanation of most peaceful/ prosperous/ least paranoid since maybe Coolidge (I may be wrong, but off hand I think that is a fairly accurat). Don't get me wrong though, Reagen most certainly has blood on his hands.
It is odd how Reagen is seen as warlike, paranoid, unsophisticated, and fascist while Kennedy seems wise, peaceful, and just. I think they are both 2 sides of the same coin.
Dondoolee:I just got done watching it myself, and made a post about it.
I'd like to read that post. Do you have a link?
It's not really about the watchmen in particular, just how it kind of was one of the things I noticed that really took the fun out of Republican bashing.
I think the thread is called "life sucks when I find myself sympathizing with republicans"
As far as Alan Moore calling it an Anti Reagen peice just look up the Watchmen (comic book) on wikipedia.
Reading this thread, it occurs to me that Dr. Manhattan is like C. S. Lewis' Abolition of Man (a really great book if anyone hasn't read it). As you say, Dr Manhattan represents the progress of 'disinterested' science, which aims at 'seeing through' everything and at its logical conclusion would end up seeing nothing at all. He becomes a man "without a chest," and therefore ceases to be a man at all. His conquest of nature is really nature's conquest of him.
some other important issues:
SPOILERS
1) The main thrust of the book: superheroes serve as a microcosm of the relationship between government and governed. most people wish superheros were real, why do we desire to have these superhumans put above us?
this leads to some other points
2) the audience tends to sympathize more with rorschach than with ozymandias. ozy is "the villain". What does this say about us and how we wish to be governed? Rorschach can, like most vigilante characters, be viewed as a fascist.
3) Dr. Manhattan is the catalyst for the crisis that will lead to the nuclear war. He tipped the precarious nuclear balance. So first we've created a problem by creating this superhuman (government), and then cry for it to save us when it causes problems. This makes no sense.
I think it is safe to say that Alan Moore's point is that humans don't really know what they want, and so we pass the responsibility off on someone else. But this is futile because we only ever pass it on to superhumans (or governments) who are just as flawed as we are. governments try to rape people and laugh it off (the comedian), government is blase about its enormous power (Dr. M), government gets off on enforcing the laws it makes (Nite Owl), government can kill millions without ever knowing if it will really save billions (ozy). And lastly government can be fascist (ror).
"who watches the watchers?" one rioter spraypaints on a wall, right before the comedian hits him with tear gas.
lastly...this doesn't have any supporting evidence really...so I hesitate to post it. But I think Alan Moore said the book was anti-reagan because he was drawing attention to the fact that "small government politician" is an oxymoron. If you read V for Vendetta it is clear that Alan is not much of a statist.
2)surely ozy is the fascist and rorschach believes in 'justice though the heavens fall'. he is a randroid after all.
3)the genius of alan moore's watchmen, is it has a bunch of 'corrupted' superheroes at the end, agree that some violent injustice is necessary 'for the greater good;' because how else will they avoid a total nuclear war and the end of all man kind! hence a common enemy 'manhattan' must be found to stop human war. yet the universe in which Alan Moore lives in, and writes watchmen, doesnt have a dr manhattan, and exists, and has not suffered a nuclear holocaust (post hiroshima), so the superdudes were just wrong. and are just plain guilty of conspiracy to mass murder.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nazgulnarsil: lastly...this doesn't have any supporting evidence really...so I hesitate to post it. But I think Alan Moore said the book was anti-reagan because he was drawing attention to the fact that "small government politician" is an oxymoron. If you read V for Vendetta it is clear that Alan is not much of a statist.
I forgot about V for Vendetta, most certainly anti-state and a great read, but still doesn't he take another punch at "right wing" religious fascists instead of state socialists.
That being said, in a way Ozy in the watchmen may be symbolic of left wing type thinking
Spoilers!!:Ozymondias is indeed a liberal, i think it is more clear in the book (I could be mistaken).(He is also a single living with a cat and, in the movie, has a folder called "boys", watch out social conservatives!! )What I like about him that he makes clear whats wrong about utilitarianism. And I think the black freighter story gives a clear statement what Alam Moore thinks about his plan.Ozymondias: "I need to stop the killer! I need to stop him!"Voice from the off:"No, YOU are the killer. You were it all along."
PS: I think the Comedian is the fascist in this story, Rorschach is a deontologist gone bad(ass).
Rorschach is a parody/ homage of Steve Ditko's (co-creator of Spider Man and an objectivist) superhero creations the Question and Mr. A. Rorschach according to Moore was NOT supposed to be a well liked or sympathetic charecter, but a psychotic fascist (while I am certainly not an objectivist, Moore saw Ayn Rand as a white supremesit fascist which I think is off the mark). It is odd though, while way too violent, I think he comes off the most sympathetic of all of them (Night Owl or the female charecter may too, but the rest I find unforgivable). I don't know if the Comedian was more of a Fascist or a Nihilist. And yes the comic book most certainly plays Ozy as more of a liberal (an elitist limosine liberal to boot). I do know Alan Moore calls himself an anarchist, but with todays definitions that could mean anything.
i just got home from watching this movie and there was definitely some greater good garbage in there. What I really thought while I waas watching though was man does this movie suck! i know your post isn't a critique of the movie itself so much as to draw some parallels, but i want my 3 hrs back
Dondoolee:most certainly anti-state and a great read, but still doesn't he take another punch at "right wing" religious fascists instead of state socialists.
I read that the dystopia of "V" was Moore's vision of what Thatcherism would eventually produce.
I was under the impression that the film made the exact opposite point. Sympathetic characters like Nite Owl and Rorschach stand for humanity and for the most part, against utilitarianism. Characters that are less sympathetic, and are show to be villians are the ones who embrace the "greater good" philosophy. Also, Rorschach won in the end, his journal was found, signifying a final triumph of good over evil.
Dondoolee:Rorschach according to Moore was NOT supposed to be a well liked or sympathetic charecter, but a psychotic fascist
In the comic, he does have somewhat of an "America, wrong or right" nationalist attitude (he justifies the Comedian's "excesses" because of all he did for his country. But I think on balance, Rorschach is the most libertarian character of them all.
Dondoolee:It is odd though, while way too violent, I think he comes off the most sympathetic of all of them
Because we, unlike Moore, believe in right and wrong beyond utility calculations. And while breaking a two-bit criminal's fingers to question him is indeed wrong, his brutal killing of brutal murderers is entirely just. And, to differ with another poster, I don't see how vigilantism can be associated with fascism. I think vigilantism is a key part of libertarianism, because it is a recognition that justice is not to be monopolized by any one "super-moral" agency. Justice is justice, no matter who executes it.
Dondoolee:Ozy as more of a liberal
Ozy definitely has a more liberal-type personality. But his "kill millions to save billions" philosophy is also very much in line with warmongering right-wingers. Also he is much more of a true fascist than any other character, because, as Mussollini himself characterized it, fascism is more specifically about national corporatism (aka state capitalism) than simple nationalism and statism.
Mlee: I was under the impression that the film made the exact opposite point. Sympathetic characters like Nite Owl and Rorschach stand for humanity and for the most part, against utilitarianism. Characters that are less sympathetic, and are show to be villians are the ones who embrace the "greater good" philosophy. Also, Rorschach won in the end, his journal was found, signifying a final triumph of good over evil.
The thing about the Rorschach diary though, Moore made sure to tell people in the comics (and it was strongly hinted in the movie) that the newspaper was a right wing newspaper company. So I guess that suggests that a left wing news company wouldn't print it. It also suggests that right wing newspapers are common, another "kick the right some more" and ignore the left for no good reason.
He insinuated Nixon was behind the Kennedy assassination, he ignores LBJ's draft and escalation completley, and squarely blames everything on Nixon. He also makes a point to say the left never would have allowed super heroes to enter the war (they would however build atom bombs and drop them on civilian populations, twice). The other thing I don't get isn't sending invincible super heroes to war kind of the same philosophy as Ozy had? If Moore is trying to justify Ozy's plan (which I don't know if he is) but criticize Nixon for sending in superheroes in Vietnam, is he being intellectually honest?
Here's an interesting open letter by the screenwriter.
Rorschach is definitely not meant to be a sympathetic character. He's often characterized as an Objectivist*, because he was based on an Objectivist character, but he's more of an all-around right-wing nutjob. The comic is more explicit about this than the movie, as it shows the editor of The New Frontiersman (the newspaper Rorschach corresponds with) being broadly xenophobic and anti-communist. All the same, I don't get the sense that Ozymandias is treated more sympathetically. I personally love the fact that Moore leaves the reader with a moral dilemma : would you tell the truth, or let it be?
*Alan Moore's problem with Objectivists apparently (wikipedia) centers on his perception that they believe themselves to be übermensch. I personally haven't read Rand, so I'll refrain from commenting.
Anyway, I loved the comic and loved the movie as well. Haley was brillant as Rorschach - the cafeteria scene gave me goosebumps.
Dondoolee: If Moore is trying to justify Ozy's plan (which I don't know if he is) but criticize Nixon for sending in superheroes in Vietnam, is he being intellectually honest?
If Moore is trying to justify Ozy's plan (which I don't know if he is) but criticize Nixon for sending in superheroes in Vietnam, is he being intellectually honest?
*Spoilers*
I don't think Moore is supporting Ozy. In the novel Ozy says he "walked over dead men" to bring the world together, with incidentally a far better method than in the film- a giant squid. These are the same words as the protagonist in the Black Freighter comic uses and in that the actions of the protagonist are clearly shown to be wrong. He became what he most hated. In the same way Ozy did. Further giant squid is associated with a nuclear bomb. When Shea, the author on the Black Freighter, lifts up the tarpouline on the boat he sees a bomb which explodes and destroys the ship. Frames ealier we see the squid peak out from under a large tarpouline. Now when it destroys New York it is clear that teh squid is a metaphor for a nuclear bomb. It took me a second reading to understand this as the ending in the novel is quite ambiguous unlike in the film in which Ozy is obviously evil from the outset.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
I should clarify that I haven't seen the movie and that from the sound of it it sounds like an adolescent boy's intepretation of the novel.
Long recommended this, which I thought was good:
http://web.me.com/rlevatter/V_is_the_Veidt:_A_Watchmen_Guide/Watchmen_Guide_Welcome.html
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
I think most people missed the mark about Rorscharch's fascism. It's not right-wing, really. It stems from childhood experience and an incredibly psychotic amount of self-aggrandization. He is incapable of loving other humans. His only love is vigilanteism, which he simply labels "justice". It's ironic. He doesn't care about the people he's fighting for. He values his own sense of morality more than life itself, which never seems to take into consideration other people's feelings. This goes beyond a case of dedication to natural rights. One would generally support natural rights as the foundation of social harmony. Rorscharch values natural rights simply because they offer him a justification to assume power.
For instance, look at his mother. He despises prostitution because of his childhood neglect. Not only prostitution, but pretty much all sex, becomes immoral to him. He constantly rants about "fornication". He even seems to despise any physical pleasure. He never seeks to avoid a fight. He eats other people's cold food. He is indifferent to weather so cold it makes his body literally shake. Part of his character is anti-hedonism, which is often a core tenant of fascism.
Plus, we see the emotional isolationism of his childhood. He never had a father...or really a mother. His own mother tells him she would have aborted him. Obviously, his motivations do not stem from social harmony. They stem from a fascist desire to reform the world in the image he believes it "should" take.
The only moment he seems to show real emotion is when Dr. M kills him. (actually, you see him express extreme discomfort with the killer of the little girl, but this emotion is gone when he recants the tale to the shrink.) Why? Because his emotional core is actually self-centered, although it takes the specific form of social "justice". I always wondered why he didn't simply take comfort in the fact that his journal could expose the whole thing.
As a counter-point, his journal's final entry mentions that he probably will not survive. He seems to have no qualm with this. He seems willing to die for his ideology. But he doesn't seem simply discontent with his failure to stop Ozy. He seems truly discontent with his death. That moment marks the true end to his vigilanteism, and to all his power to change the world.
Edit: ...he is still most enjoyable...
Check my blog, if you're a loser
rorscarch is not a fascist. he does not believe that any and all people (or the subset that are his co-patriots) have positive obligations to each other, and should be strongarmed by a powerful leader (i.e him) into working for a greater good. rather he is just concerned with delivering punishment to unjust individuals. he dishes out justice whether people 'like it or not'. that doesnt make him a fascist, it makes him a vigilante. there is a difference between fascism and vigilantism.
nirgrahamUK:rorscarch is not a fascist. he does not believe that any and all people (or the subset that are his co-patriots) have positive obligations to each other, and should be strongarmed by a powerful leader (i.e him) into working for a greater good.
So you believe that he would have no problem with legalized prostitution?
nirgrahamUK:he dishes out justice whether people 'like it or not'.
Not just justice. He is quick to judge all manner of people by the company they keep, and quick to break their fingers for information. I don't believe he does this for justice, or justifies it in a utilitarian sense. He seems to enjoy it even if it doesn't produce anything. More likely he is a cultural fascist.
from what i know of his character he wouldnt care what this law or that law was in place. he is the judge.
also having 'dislikes' is not the same as 'being active against'. (this is another way of saying that libertarianism is not libertinism.)
i dont know what a cultural fascist is. so no comment on that.
nirgrahamUK:i dont know what a cultural fascist is. so no comment on that.
I simply meant that he takes a fascist view of social liberty - he is intolerant of certain cultural preferences, and I do believe he would rationalize aggressive violence as justified against such. I think it goes beyond dislikes; however, the work does not seem to have enough details to clearly say. I tend to think that he was simply too busy with bigger fish that were clearly criminal.
nirgrahamUK:from what i know of his character he wouldnt care what this law or that law was in place. he is the judge.
He is the judge, he is the arbiter of his own justice upon the world. In colloquial words: he is a fascist, stop dancing around the term,
nirgrahamUK:also having 'dislikes' is not the same as 'being active against'. (this is another way of saying that libertarianism is not libertinism.)
He has no problem with killing anybody who partakes in activities he dislikes; ergo, he is fully against that which he dislikes.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
who do you rely on to provide moral judgements? which you then adopt? if you say no-one, and that you are your own judge. then supposedly that makes you a fascist?
thanks for dancing with me.
please provide evidence that rorsarch's character has killed a liberal for being a liberal, a prostitute for being a prositite etc. maybe i havent read the story close enough.
nirgrahamUK:please provide evidence that rorsarch's character has killed a liberal for being a liberal, a prostitute for being a prositite etc. maybe i havent read the story close enough.
i'll look closer too but ponder this...
he definitely says that the liberals, prostitutes, and politicians would ask him to save them, and he says he wouldn't. why deny such general classes of people justice, if that is his supposed goal?
Rorschach was a joke of a character for me, not because he wasn't brutal, but because Moore never *got* Objectivism. It's not surprising, considering he probably never read anything by Rand within the context it was meant.
First, Objectivism doesn't suppose moral absolutism, it simply supposes there is a right and there is a wrong, and that it is possible to know by a consistent basis which is which.
Second, Objectivism doesn't suppose any cultural norms as moral or immoral, in fact Objectivist Ethics would run counter to the majority of so-called cultural norms (especially the overdependence on family, or "king and country" for example).
Third, Objectivism contends that no life should be sacrificed as life in respect to human life is valuable (or at least can be valued thus gain value from those who possess it).
Just on those three points alone, Rorschach would have had many issues accepting Objectivism under any basis. He would have probably considered it a 'liberal' philosophy.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
ladyattis: Rorschach was a joke of a character for me, not because he wasn't brutal, but because Moore never *got* Objectivism. It's not surprising, considering he probably never read anything by Rand within the context it was meant.
I am almost sure it was intended more as a barb against Steve Ditko. Ditko's work did get weird when he tried interjecting his Objectivism into it, and not long after he drifted into obscurity - where he remains (in fact now he is a hermit). I wouldnt get too offended by his portrayal of it, considering its a cartoonish parody of what he *thinks* Randianism is.
Actually, Ditko has done some limited penciling in the early 2000s for a few comics. He's reclusive for the fact that he didn't want his art to be mingled with his personal life. To him his artwork lived apart from him. Perhaps that's what he learned with Mr. A, that sometimes the audience isn't all too interested in what you think as an artist, but rather just want your skill in the craft instead.
ladyattis: Actually, Ditko has done some limited penciling in the early 2000s for a few comics. He's reclusive for the fact that he didn't want his art to be mingled with his personal life. To him his artwork lived apart from him. Perhaps that's what he learned with Mr. A, that sometimes the audience isn't all too interested in what you think as an artist, but rather just want your skill in the craft instead.
I knew he had done some minor work. All I know is he had not made a public appearence in almost 40 years (his right of course). I am fortunate to own several peices of his original artwork from Atlas comics (Marvel Comics name from 1951-1957), however.
I love how this has turned into a discussion of Rorschach! I have problems with his character, but out of all the others he's the one I respect the most, because it seems to be the only one with any real moral principles. I suppose Nite Owl kind of has them, but he seems a coward to me.
I personally couldn't help but make the connection between Rorschach and Robert De Niro's character from Martin Scorcese's Taxi Driver, incidentally also a jaded Vietnam veteran complaining about the lack of Morals in 1980s New York! In any case De Niro's character is far less psychopathic, and has been a character from a film who I have sympathised a lot with.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
With a thread titled "moral philosophy and the watchmen" I don't think the SPOILERS heading is needed. A person would be a fool to open the thread if they didn't want the movie plot ruined.
To be fair, while the Question was awsome, Mr A was just bad story telling from the 3 stories I read. When someone lets philosophy get to much in the way of a story it ruins it for me. Just my opinion.
Other than that I find the most unbelievable part of the watchmen not a giant squid or atomic blue naked guy, but a mainstream right wing news paper. Brilliant comic book though
Dondoolee: ladyattis: Actually, Ditko has done some limited penciling in the early 2000s for a few comics. He's reclusive for the fact that he didn't want his art to be mingled with his personal life. To him his artwork lived apart from him. Perhaps that's what he learned with Mr. A, that sometimes the audience isn't all too interested in what you think as an artist, but rather just want your skill in the craft instead. To be fair, while the Question was awsome, Mr A was just bad story telling from the 3 stories I read. When someone lets philosophy get to much in the way of a story it ruins it for me. Just my opinion. Other than that I find the most unbelievable part of the watchmen not a giant squid or atomic blue naked guy, but a mainstream right wing news paper. Brilliant comic book though
Yes, it did. He already had a bit of editorializing in his art (something about his hate of hippies in Dr Strange), but Mr A was a bit out there. I still love his work for Strange Tales - classic.
I will certainly rush to comment on this as soon as the axxo rip comes out.
sicsempertyrannis: Dondoolee: ladyattis: Actually, Ditko has done some limited penciling in the early 2000s for a few comics. He's reclusive for the fact that he didn't want his art to be mingled with his personal life. To him his artwork lived apart from him. Perhaps that's what he learned with Mr. A, that sometimes the audience isn't all too interested in what you think as an artist, but rather just want your skill in the craft instead. To be fair, while the Question was awsome, Mr A was just bad story telling from the 3 stories I read. When someone lets philosophy get to much in the way of a story it ruins it for me. Just my opinion. Other than that I find the most unbelievable part of the watchmen not a giant squid or atomic blue naked guy, but a mainstream right wing news paper. Brilliant comic book though Yes, it did. He already had a bit of editorializing in his art (something about his hate of hippies in Dr Strange), but Mr A was a bit out there. I still love his work for Strange Tales - classic.
But you could always read it for the story and enjoy just the story and art. Like the Watchmen, it has a pretty profound message (one which I have some sympathie) but you can ignore it and just love the story. Mr A however, is essentially just Ditko preaching a message. Maybe there is nothing wrong with that, however that is not how I prefer my fiction. I always prefer a story first (or music first, or art first, etc) mentality, which is why I find Mr A inferior to The Question. Like I said that's just my opinion.