This isn't a physical battle as we normally debate here on KMC but rather a debate over the morality and personal ethics of two, in my opinion, very interesting yet very different individuals. Dr. Jonathan Osterman aka Dr. Manhattan and Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandias. How their morality and ethics differ from each other and our own and as to witch is right or at least more correct or justified.
While everyone seems to love Rorschach's character the most out of the watchmen story, as do I as well. I've always found Dr. Manhattan and Adrian Veidt to actually be more interesting themselves to me.
So the basic question up for the vs between the two is which was the correct action taken by the two in the story. To stand by and do nothing and allow people to commit terrible acts opon one another and humanity to destroy itself in the process and grand scale of things when you posses full power to prevent it. Or is it better or worse to commit horrible atrocities yourself to save people from themselves, the world form itself, or for the suggested "greater good" in general?
So basically which of the two was right?
__________________
None of them sparkle!
Sig by Scythe!
So when Jon became Manhattan he was completely devoid of free will after that?
I mean he seemed to have made several choices during the story despite his inability to. Of course I could be completely wrong but the only other explainion I can see is that he lacked free will after his transformation.
As for his moral investment he sure seemed to have some when it came to Laurie and it sure seemed to upset him when he was confronted with the possibility of creating cancer among those around him at the television interview. If it didn't why did he get emotional at all?
__________________
None of them sparkle!
Sig by Scythe!
Manhattan struggled to understand human emotions, from his point of view things cannot be avoided, take for example when the Comedian shot the pregnant woman in front on Manhattan and then he said "you could have helped her"; the truth is that from his point of view, he couldn't. Manhattan also acts as if he had free will, but admits he doesn't have one, its implied that he believes free will doesn't exist.
How are things ever moral if people have no freedom? They aren't.
Jon had free will he just claims he doesn't have free will because its the only thing to justify some of the things he does. Like he comedian said he could have stopped him and he was right Jon could have easily turned the gun into water or mercury or anything to stop it but he didn't because it didn't matter to him really.
If he didn't have free will then why did he bother to effect anything at all like he did when it suited him. Such as helping the government with Vietnam or why did bringing Laurie to Mars to "convince" him to help save the world. Seems pretty meaningless if he already new how everything would play out and what he would end up doing. My biggest thing is if he had total knowledge of the future and no free will to act on it like he claimed then why does he appear to be surprised from time to time.
Why'd he even bother trying to tell the comedian not to when he pulled the gun on the pregnant woman if he knew all along how it would go down and that it would do no good to just say that?
__________________
None of them sparkle!
Sig by Scythe!
If you assume Jon's perception is accurate none of them have free will. He's just a "puppet who can see the strings." Even reactions are preprogrammed.
Because Manhattan lacks moral investiture of any sort he loses against every character in the book when it comes to morals, IMO.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
While I can respect Adrian's act of nobility, I believe that he should have let things take their course. I always wondered how this action could guarantee peace around the world for an indefinite amount of time. [SPOILER - highlight to read]: Dropping an "alien" in the middle of New York and killing 3 or 4 million people is not the root cause all war and violence in the world. It might unite people for a while, but I'm sure views would drift eventually. What's he going to do, kill 4 million people every 5 to 10 years? What if his plot is uncovered?
On top of all that, what gave him the right? Sure, he's brilliant and all, but killing all those innocents was abysmal. So basically, I think Ozymandias was wrong, but like I said earlier on, I can see the logic in what he did. This logic was the problem, its crude, monstrous, inhuman logic. And for anyone who disagrees, imagine being 1 in that 3 or 4 million. At least Rorschach had the balls to defy the all-knowing Adrian Veidt.
Well I don't know about you but if I'd been on of those millions killed and known before hand what was really happening then I wouldn't have tried to stop it. Sure I'd been trying to get out but even if I couldn't I'd still let it happen, knowing the needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
Or in this case the Billions out weight the millions. Even if one of those millions is myself or those closest to me.
Sorry mom. I'd only respect the same from them thou.
As for if his plan was ever discovered. Did you read the very end of the book?
__________________
None of them sparkle!
Sig by Scythe!
Last edited by Entity on May 13th, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Actually the comic suggests that they do in fact have free will. Although the Doc is manipulating the rules of Determinism, it requires him to be all knowing to tell the characters what actions they will next perform . The comic shows that when subjected to tachyons, Manhattan looses his all 'knowingness', therefore the other characters retain their free will. Determinism only really works when you have some kind of all knowing entity, telling you what you are going to do next. The likes of David Hume, have presented persuasive arguments about Compatibilism (the notion that Free Will and Determinism are compatible).
I did. But remember, Nite Owl and the Silver Spectre weren't the only ones who knew about the incident. What if later on one of them decided to let it slip? What about the Ozymandias' scientists? Surely there are more Rorschachs out there who'll investigate this incident somewhere down the line, even in the face of Armageddon.
What I was refering to was Rorschach's journal. Remember him leaving it for the people at the paper to find? Surely when they read it somebody would eventually catch on and alert the rest of the world
__________________
None of them sparkle!
Sig by Scythe!
No, determinism is only meaningful when someone knows what's going to happen, it can function perfectly well under any conditions. Just because someone hides the strings doesn't mean they were never there.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
KMC Community Forums
May 12th, 2008 02:58 PM
I'd only respect the same from them thou.
