A moral triangle: who do you agree with?

[Rasputin911]

If you had to pick one who was closest to your moral philosophy, would it be...

Rorschach: There is good, and there is evil. Evil must be punished. Comprimising your values is the gravest sin.

Ozy: Accomplishing a "net" good justifies whatever means were used to get there. Sometimes evil must be done in order to do good. The results are what matter. (for example, chainsawing a kindergarden class would be justifiable if it cured cancer)

Manhattan: Morality is non-existant as a tangible force. It is one of the human species' many fantasies/delusions that rationalize their own behavior.

Of course, i could mention the Comedian, who is "deliberately amoral," but i doubt anyone would admit to that

 

[DACrowe]

None of the above. They are all fractured and the truth (if there is such a thing) is somewhere in between all of them.

 

[Rasputin911]

^hence why i asked which you are closest to

 

[Closerframe]

With the choices above I would have to side more with Adrian. Evil is required for there to be good and vice versa. So some of the steps taken to prefect a world from bad is to have evil apart of the situation. Neither one can exist without the other.

Dr. Manhattan's view on life is similar to that of Buddha because his present view on life is that it is an illusion.

 

[Mutagen]

I would like to say Ozy, I really would, but I am more like Rorschach, in that I will not compromise my values.

I believe in Ozy, but I'm not like him.

 

[Gilpesh]

Rorschach: There is good, and there is evil. Evil must be punished. Comprimising your values is the gravest sin.

Actually, Rorschach would be more like this:

Rorschach: There is good, and there is evil. Evil must be punished. And everyone is evil. Compromising your values is the gravest sin.

 

[Mutagen]

Actually, Rorschach would be more like this:

Rorschach: There is good, and there is evil. Evil must be punished. And everyone is evil. Compromising your values is the gravest sin.

I'm definitively don't believe everyone is evil.

 

[Drizzle]

I'd say I fall somewhere in between Rorschach and Ozymandias.

 

[DACrowe]

I disagree with Manhattan's existential and "there is no morality," musings. But he is a pragmatist who does see things and actions for what they are. He is too removed from humanity, but at least he knows what it is. Rorschach and Veidt are simply wrong and misguided ideologues on opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[Rasputin911]

Actually, Rorschach would be more like this:

Rorschach: There is good, and there is evil. Evil must be punished. And everyone is evil. Compromising your values is the gravest sin.

he'd defenitely use "evil" more loosely than most people, but there were still some people he respected.

He admired the Comedian and regained respect for Nite Owl when Dreiberg teamed up with him again. He also had some respect for Harry Truman. But your right that he sees the world as a whole as evil.

 

[Gilpesh]

Also unlike Ozy, Rorschach and his morality doesn't care about humanity.

 

[Rasputin911]

^you just seem to not like Rorschach very much...

but yeah, he wasn't really concerned with results as much as with justice/vengeance. He didn't seem like he thought he was making the world a better place. He was just "scribbling his mark".

I really do admire his unwillingess to compromise or give in, though. Its intyeresting to note that he and Ozy were the only proactive members of the group, even though they were trying to accomplish opposite things. The others just pussed out at the end and "went with the flow".

 

[Gilpesh]

^you just seem to not like Rorschach very much...

His moral code is all out of whack and his blind devotion to it is even worse. Never do evil ever unless you want to be punished? But then Truman is his hero... who bombed two cities in Japan and killed many innocent people. Then his big moral stance at the end of the comic? Looks to be a hurt ego over not being able to punish 'evil' himself and no one wants to help him do it.

 

[Mutagen]

Yeah, that's all well and good, but he's got a cool costume.

 

[SalaciousVC]

Yeah, that's all well and good, but he's got a cool costume.

Great argument.

 

[John Galt]

Rorschach, but smarter. I would have tried to prevent Ozy from completing his master plan, but failing that, I would have recognized that revealing the truth to the world would have done no good. I would have pretended to go along with things while looking for an opportunity to kill Ozy.

 

[Gilpesh]

Rorschach, but smarter. I would have tried to prevent Ozy from completing his master plan, but failing that, I would have recognized that revealing the truth to the world would have done no good. I would have pretended to go along with things while looking for an opportunity to kill Ozy.

And then ruin his continuing plans for guiding the world toward peace?

That doesn't sound very good especially when killing Veidt some time after means that the temporary peace would just slowly breakdown until nuclear holocaust was on the brink again... only this time no Veidt to stop it, no Doctor Manhattan to stop it... the world would be even more screwed.

 

[John Galt]

And then ruin his continuing plans for guiding the world toward peace?

That doesn't sound very good especially when killing Veidt some time after means that the temporary peace would just slowly breakdown until nuclear holocaust was on the brink again... only this time no Veidt to stop it, no Doctor Manhattan to stop it... the world would be even more screwed.

Ozy is a dangerous megalomaniac who should be brought to justice, I agree with Rorschach completely in that regard. I don't think the world would be better off with him guiding it. He reminds me a lot of R'as al Ghul(sp?) from Batman. There was no guarantee that nuclear war would have happened, and the truce is not likely to last regardless, so it was a bad plan from start to finish. It is not justifiable to kill millions of people because maybe Russia will start a nuclear war.

If Veidt was really smart he would have found a way to infiltrate the Russian government and killed everyone who was leaning towards starting a nuclear war, and getting someone in power who had half a brain. Same for the U.S.

 

[Gilpesh]

Ozy is a dangerous megalomaniac who should be brought to justice, I agree with Rorschach completely in that regard.

That's hilarious. Rorschach is just as guilty of that.... maybe even more so.

I don't think the world would be better off with him guiding it. He reminds me a lot of R'as al Ghul(sp?) from Batman.

So... you just want the three million dead to have died for nothing? Because the world would just go right back to where it was before they died.

There was no guarantee that nuclear war would have happened, and the truce is not likely to last regardless, so it was a bad plan from start to finish. It is not justifiable to kill millions of people because maybe Russia will start a nuclear war.

It was going to happen. Just look at everything Nixon was doing. He was ready.... in a bunker... with the nuclear football... looking through his bombing options. Russia was doing the same.

If Veidt was really smart he would have found a way to infiltrate the Russian government and killed everyone who was leaning towards starting a nuclear war, and getting someone in power who had half a brain. Same for the U.S.

What a Rorschach way of doing things... it would actually bring about the nuclear holocaust faster.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Im certainly not Manhattan cause I believe in morality. And I wouldnt do what Ozy did. So I guess Rorschach, out of those choices

 

[Jick]

If you had to pick one who was closest to your moral philosophy, would it be...

Rorschach: There is good, and there is evil. Evil must be punished.

This.
Nothing more, nothing less. It is exactly how I think.
My simple philosophy: good must live, evil must perish.

 

[SuperFerret]

I agree most with Dreiberg. Do what's right as best you can, and yeah, sometimes you need to make some sacrifices to do that (or accept that others have the best intentions when they make such sacrifices).

 

[Gilpesh]

This.
Nothing more, nothing less. It is exactly how I think.
My simple philosophy: good must live, evil must perish.

What is good? And what is evil? Who decides? Who is allowed to decide? If it's you? What makes you think you are able to correctly identify good? Correctly identify evil? If killing is evil and perish means the evil have to die... doesn't that make you evil? Will you perish yourself for being evil?

 

[John Galt]

I agree most with Dreiberg. Do what's right as best you can, and yeah, sometimes you need to make some sacrifices to do that (or accept that others have the best intentions when they make such sacrifices).

Dreiberg was a wuss compared to the other characters. He had no conviction and was nearly incapable of forming his own opinions.

 

[Jick]

What is good? And what is evil? Who decides? Who is allowed to decide? If it's you? What makes you think you are able to correctly identify good? Correctly identify evil? If killing is evil and perish means the evil have to die... doesn't that make you evil? Will you perish yourself for being evil?

There are those people who wake up from bed in the morning, have breakfast, go to work, work honestly to have their payment at the end of the month, then come back at the end of the day to spent the rest of the night with their families, see their children, their wives or husbands and spent the weekend together, without ruining other people's lives. They just don't want confusion. Want to live peacefully. This is good.
There are those people who wake up from bed in the morning, take a knife, hide in the pocket, go rob a bank, rape innocent children, kill innocent people without no reason. This is bad.
If bad perishes, good prevails. An impossible dream, actually.
Like I said, it is my simple philosophy. That's what I believe. That doesn't make it a fact.