Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

You are an idiot.

That's what Alan Moore is thinking about you right now.

- "Moral" does not automatically mean "humanist" or "empathetic".

it does to me. Morality is a human construct applying to human relations. If a moral system doesn't involve an implicit understanding that people are alike (ie, "gosh that would suck if someone did that to me, maybe I shouldn't do that to other people, since they are, after all, LIKE ME") I don't think it can truly be called a moral system.

x-post

He's also thinking that he can cast a spell to make your head explode, but that's beside the point.

The comedian's principles: foresight to not be a humanist, and he wasn't a quitter. Heh, not really much there, but he would say the same thing about the rest of the world and he would be right.

at least in the watchmen world - I can't say it's the same as our world.

I would think its fairly obvious that Rorscach's "principles" exist solely as a rationalization for his violent mysanthropy - which he himself makes pretty explicitly clear in his "origin story" issue. It isn't exactly a consistent moral code as much as it is simple self-justification, an excuse for him to do horrible things to people.

"not quitting" is a principle?

oh wait yr a sock puppet aren't you

the comedian's willful amorality is a sort of principle

i accept the argument that rorschach is the only character in the comic who really fights to maintain his own morality as well as the moral order of the world around him (though his pursuit of this is clearly insane/delusional). viedt's superficial morality is a self serving sham to be abandoned when convenient, dreiberg lacks the courage of whatever convictions he imagines he has, dr. manhattan has "transcended" such trivial concerns, and laurie s... well, moore doesn't seem terribly interested in her moral agency.

it's tempting to criticize rorschach's ostensible morality as mere self-justification, but the same could be said of anyone who casts themselves as judge & jury in ethical matters. rorshach seems bound by the principles he seeks to impose on others, and that's close enough to count.

finally, it seems absurd to suggest that a morality must be human or empathetic in order to be valid. moral systems can be indifferent to suffering, or even cruel. only requirement is that the system define the good/acceptable and the bad/unacceptable.

its more than not quitting, its about doing one's duty, doing whats best for the country. who cares if he did it in vain (and knew his attempts were vain). he did "the best a man can do" anyways.

doing one's duty, doing whats best for the country

hahaha wtf

are you defending the comdedian??? he didn't "do his duty". he fucked shit up, raped and murdered, for money and for fun.

it was in the best interests of the country that he impregnate and kill that Vietnamese peasant!

the country is his audience. he had a government job. he was doing what they think is the best for the country.
rape and murder is something they didn't know about and I wont back him up there.

also "willful amorality is a sort of principle " is a good way to describe the other point I was making higher up

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj242/donaldparsley/habbah.jpg

rape and murder is something they didn't know about

O RLY

(not clear at all that he raped her, btw)

The Comedian is a horrible human being (but i'm not getting into the 'rape' and murder - makes me not like him - America didn't know about it, only a select few)

but he has principles. that's what I was arguing about.
his perspective fits perfectly with the book - and that's what I like about him. once again, he was the only one that figured out what a joke everything is.

it seems absurd to suggest that a morality must be human or empathetic in order to be valid. moral systems can be indifferent to suffering, or even cruel. only requirement is that the system define the good/acceptable and the bad/unacceptable.

hey I see where you're comin from - its just that since its always humans devising moral systems inevitably what is designated as good/unacceptable and bad/unacceptable is done in the context of human behavior (altho lolz I would love to see a moral system that, say, designates gravity or dirt as unacceptable). I'll grant you that there are moral systems that don't require any empathy or have any issues with inflicting suffering (nazis, stalinists, islamo-fascists, etc.) but by and large these systems are more like outbreaks of mass psychosis and I have a hard time really accepting them as moral. But then what do I know I am a pansy liberal.

adam is a fanboy.
i think he hates the film.
http://thequietus.com/articles/01215-the-watchmen-reviewed-has-it-killed-the-comic-book-adaptation-dead

only requirement is that the system define the good/acceptable and the bad/unacceptable.

Good how? Bad how? Good for health? Legally good? Aesthetically? Scientifically? Religously? Ok there might be some overlap between some these terms but you can't get away without defining any terms whatsoever. Obviously humanity is the concern of human morality - which is the only kind we currently know. And I would argue that suffering, or lack of, is intrinsically a concern of morality. A system that ignores suffering or even promotes it is by definition amoral or immoral.

The morality question is a major philosophical discussion that could make up its own thread. Personally, I think the inherent ambiguity of the terms "good" and "bad" render this statement incorrect: A system that ignores suffering or even promotes it is by definition amoral or immoral. The reason I believe this is because I do not think morality in its strictest terms is about alleviating suffering; it is about adhering to a code of ethics, whose rules in and of themselves have been designated as desirable or "good" based on a set of observations and principles that are by no means guaranteed to be liberal, humanistic, or particularly nice.

Y'all need one (1) of this:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51wSCX%2BqQFL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

i'm a clicking, but i still cant look inside.

want/do not want

morality discussion sinkhole: Morality - Ethics

adam is a fanboy.
i think he hates the film.
http://thequietus.com/articles/01215-the-watchmen-reviewed-has-it-killed-the-comic-book-adaptation-dead

― mark e, Friday, February 27, 2009 9:56 AM (39 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

anyone who writes this annoyingly hating it makes me wanna see it opening night

more from adam re the film away from the OTT-ness of that review :

My girlfriend never read watchmen and she thought it was shocking. Without knowing the source material, a whole gang of it doesn't make sense!

i guess thats more on the button.

Why are the people who hate this writing so badly about it? I look forward to reading a decent review, positive or negative. "The worst comic book movie ever to see daylight?" Ah, calm down and shut up.

(He's wrong about the new ending too - it's actually cleverer and more logical than the book.)

ledge:

1) "Humanist" does not mean "concerned with humanity.

2) Thinking about morality exclusively in terms of alleviating suffering is a very modern, Western phenomenon. In most pre-modern or non-Western cultures, lack of suffering is at most a fortunate side-effect of moral behavior, and morality is defined largely through other concepts. (cf. Confucianism)

no

http://www.matt-d.com/ghetto/spoiler.jpeg

plz

plot spoilers that is i don't mind morality spoilers.

Sorry - didn't think that counted as a spoiler.

nah but it could lead to discussion of the end of the film, i know it's different somehow from the comic but not keen to find out how till i see it.

o man what is the deal with that quietus review

o man what is the deal with that quietus review

Holy jesus is that a horribly written review. I thought The Quietus had much higher standards than that.

IFmaths and HIDERE OTM re: morality. the "good and bad" i mentioned earlier merely refer to the moral dimension of human behavior. good = morally good, bad = morally bad. the moral system is simply that which defines and attaches value to the distinction. a moral system could, for instance, simply state that strict obedience to a tribal code = good, and any deviation from that code = bad.

A system that ignores suffering or even promotes it is by definition amoral or immoral.

― ledge

this is only true from within the confines of your own moral POV. it is there better described as moral judgement regarding moral sytems than as an objective definition of such.

...too much "simply"

and, yeah, that quietus review, while daunting, is also fantastically annoying

fine don't use the thread i bumped for this then [cries]

good = morally good, bad = morally bad

eh but we're arguing exactly about the definition of morality!

ie what does 'morally' mean there?

n most pre-modern or non-Western cultures, lack of suffering is at most a fortunate side-effect of moral behavior, and morality is defined largely through other concepts

um this is a weird thing to say. Buddhism springs to mind - Hinduism too, to some extent, insofar as the "goal" is to get oneself off the Wheel of Karma

I will grant that most pagan cultures were not particularly concerned with suffering.

ha was about to say, druids and Aztecs?

those vikings just wanted what was best for everybody!

my point, ledge, is that "morally good" has no meaning outside the confines of a moral system. moral systems are arbitration devices. they're like god. they simply label certain things as "BAD" and other things as "GOOD". whatever god says is good is good. period. there need be no definition of "the good" beyond the understanding that it is what god likes.

therefore, when i say "morally," i simply mean, "according to the precepts of the moral system in play". some moral systems prize a kind of moral logic (for instance the idea that that which decreases suffering is more moral than that which increases it), but others do not. objectively speaking, neither approach is more moral or more valid than the other.

You're just avoiding the question! BAD how? Bad for my health? For my chances of getting into heaven? For my chances of not being cast out of the tribe?

According to your all-encompassing 'definition', 'being good at darts' is a moral law of my local pub darts team.

I don't know if it's a moral law but it's certainly a virtue!

thing about your darts team's expectations is that they (probably) don't result in moral judgement. to suck at darts isn't to be a "bad person", but rather to be useless for the purposes of the team. this is a pragmatic, utility-based judgement rather than a moral one.

i'm not avoiding your question though, just trying to reframe is. thing is, there is no single answer to the "bad how?" question. different moral systems define the bad differently. rorschach's moral system, for instance, defines the BAD as softness, weakness, relativism, cowardice, corruption, lust, etc. it does not seem to be based on a pragmatic determination that these things often cause unwanted effects, but rather on an idealistic judgement that they are intrisically wrong, regardless of what outcomes they generate.

can this all be put on hold until the movie comes out?

It's true that moral badness often seems to be intrinsic, neverthless there must something at the core of these concepts, otherwise why do we seem to know what judgements are moral ones, and why do moral systems always seem to convern themselves judgements about the same kinds of things? When examined properly, I'd argue that the domain of morality is (human) life and living - generally, how to live for the good (ie flourishing) of the tribe.

xp i did revive another thread for this but everyone wanted to play here!