Doomsday

Morality of Mortality

As children, we only see the world in good and bad. Lying is bad; being nice is good. Talking to strangers is bad; eating all your food is good. The world was defined very simply and starkly into two warring camps—yet, as adults we understand that there is a great deal of fluctuation being good and bad. Growing up, being forced to make choices, accepting responsibility and reading Harry Potter, we gain an appreciation for nuances of morality. They can be common things, like a white lie to spare someone’s feelings, or tossing a recyclable cup into the trash bin. But Alan Moore takes this idea of balancing good and evil and pushes it to the extreme! Is it right to kill one person to save nine others, a hundred others, a whole planet? Who has the right to make these decisions? Is it an honor or a burden or both to usher in an age of cooperation? That is the concept that I am grappling with after reading The Watchmen.

I think the question is this: can we hold one person to be both savior and murderer? In Ozymandias’ eyes, the world was on the fast track to destruction. But is his solution, killing thousands of people to bring an era of peace, worth the price? Our salvation can only come with the compromising of morality. What right does he have to make this decision?

This discussion is easily applicable to acts during war. War dictates a certain need for stark pragmatism. To what extent can we, who live in relative safety, judge the immoral actions taken in defense of the country? (For once, lets not take into account whether or not it was actually in danger or whether or not those actions were actually justified.) Who is responsible, ultimately, for those actions, those who give the orders or those who carry them out?  Who has blood on their hands?

Rorschach serves as our foil. Since the mass murder was fait accompli, would it not be better to remain silent? Rorschach was not willing to compromise and condone this mass murder (for this is what it amounts to) by his silence, even though it would mean the destruction of the fragile peace. His code of ethics dictates that he must expose the truth of Ozymandias’ scam. However, this unbending morality would render the deaths of so many meaningless.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. As Adrian Veidt, the public face of Ozymandias, asked in an interview, “Does [crime-fighting] mean upholding the law when a woman shoplifts to feed her children…?” I am not wise enough to answer that question.