Welcome to Gaia! ::

Figured this would be a good discussion topic to get things started off! I'm sure that all of us got to the end of the graphic novel with a mix of emotions, and what I wanted to find out is whether people thought that Adrian was morally right to sacrifice life for the 'greater good.' Furthermore, would Rorschach have been acting in society's interests by exposing him?

Discuss! xd

When I read it for the first time, my initial reaction was to immediately condemn him for his actions; I thought that the means couldn't possibly be justified, despite the end result. In one sense, his actions did avert the inevitable onslaught of nuclear war, yet by making that choice to kill millions to save the rest of the world he has placed himself outside of humanity. In my opinion, anyway, he has seperated himself from the rest of the population, and his arrogance (though perhaps justified) allows him to take on such a burden of responsibility. I would suggest that in order to make this choice, he has had to harden his heart and cut off his emotions; killing off what makes him most human, and in doing so (and in seperating himself from humanity) he has rationalised life and morality ('deformed it' as Daniel states in the film) into a comodity. He sees statistics rather than lives, yet maybe the end result - though horrible - is justified. I just can't help but wonder if the same could be argued had the post-squid world that he envisioned backfired.

Yeah but it's one thing to say that, isn't it? The way I see it is that had they got there in time to stop him, I think everyone - big blue and naked included - would have tried to stop him... Nite Owl and Rorschach did try, because they thought without question that it would have been the right thing to do. The only problem came about when they realised it had happened 35 minutes before, and they just had to make do with the situation.

That's true, he could never predict a definite outcome. What's more, as Manhattan states in the finale, 'Nothing ever ends.' Who's to say that things will not revert to how they were pre-squid in five/ten years? It's a gamble that pays off, and that's why the other characters feel justified in remaining silent; had Veidt's plan backfired, they would have had no trouble ratting him out and locking him away, and that's because in their ideologies the act in itself is evil. It treats human lives as means to an end, an uncertain end at that, and not as inherently valuable.

Also, the whole graphic novel is suggesting that human beings are bad by nature. The 'peace' between nations at the end of the novel can only last so long before discontent rises amongst the population.

I agree. I think the only situation in which Veidt would EVER be justified is one in which he knew, with ABSOLUTE certainty, that his inaction would cause the utter demise of mankind. And I can't think of any situation in which anyone could ever be certain of that.

You explained it well. The pirate comic within the novel, is in fact describing Veidt's story. The moral problem is the same. What am I prepared to do to protect the ones I love. Adrian, the world. The wife and child in the pirate comic. How did he get to his family? He made a raft using dead friends, killed two to get the horses, finally to his family. But what he had to do, the ethics, the morals he trampelled on to get to the ones he loved, have consequences.

Simply, is the killing of any person/persons/population a justifyable means to an end?

Should killing, assassination of mass-murder be a decision left to a small group of men? For what they think is 'right'?

Because to justify killing part of a population, is really saying that, ultimately you could justify all a population. It all depends on the n th degree as to how far one person may go.

Moore was lamenting the fact that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is a viable option Reagan would have used if he felt the US was to lose a war against th USSR. That the invasion of Afghanistan (the Soviet one, not the current US one), was considered the spread of the 'Red Menace' again. Communism cannot win under any circumstance. That is not how war was waged in the past, if you lost, you surrendered. To ensue we all lose is arrogant. As arrogant as Veidt's assertion. And Manhattans reply is that if you justify killing your own people to bring about peace for them, rather than living as they always do, always one degree separated from tragedy, that we are no more important than the smartest ant.

I thought it was actually good
Yeah it was horrible but if you notice
When Something Tragic and Epically horrible happens people Join together