SPOILER ALERT: This essay assumes that you have either seen the film Watchmen, read the graphic novel, or both. Spoilers abound.
Image Courtesy Warner Bros.
One of the delightful things about Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ classic graphic novel Watchmen, as well as the recent film adaptation, is that it provides a truly nuanced, insightful look into serious moral and ethical issues. Indeed, in imagining a world in which costumed crimefighters really did exist, Moore developed quite a bit of different motives for each of the heroes to put on a mask. Here, we’ll focus on four of the biggest heroes of the bunch: The Comedian, Ozymandias, Rorschach and Nite Owl, because each, in their own way, exemplifies a different branch of ethics.
The Comedian - The Ultimate Nihilist
Eddie Blake, a.k.a. The Comedian, is in many ways the central figure of Watchmen, even though he dies in the opening scene of both the book and film. One of the first active superheroes in the world of Watchmen, he is active from the 40s through 1985 when the story takes place.
In contrast to the other heroes of the era he first started fighting crime, The Comedian doesn’t really see himself as a “do-gooder.” Indeed, it’s pretty much implied that he starts out as a crimefighter so that he can beat people up without worrying about being arrested. As time goes on, Blake hitches himself to the far-right in a manner described by Adrian Veidt in the book as being “an amoral mercenary working for the side that grants him the greatest license.”
This, as well as other scenes in Watchmen, tags Blake as an exemplar of nihilism - the belief that life has no meaning and that morals and values are invented and have no meaning. To the Comedian, life is a joke, and it’s not worth trying to improve the world because “within 30 years the nukes’ll be flying like mayflies.” Blake accepts the idea that life has no meaning and therefore simply does as he pleases, whether that be rape, murder, or what have you.
That’s hardly the stuff of regular superheroics in literature, which makes Edward Blake a unique and disturbing figure.
Ozymandias - Utilitarian
Adrian Veidt, a.k.a. Ozymandias, is one of the most ambiguous figures in modern literature. Is he a hero for attempting to unite the world in peace? Or is he a villain for building the foundations of that peace with the bodies of millions of innocents? Although Ozymandias is clearly troubled by the deaths he caused, he ultimately belived that he did the right thing.
This “end justifying the means” mentality displayed by Ozymandias shows him to be a clear adherent of utilitarianism, which is the ethical school that teaches that moral action consists of those actions which produce the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. (Or, to put it in Star Trek terms, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”)
It’s this principle that is clearly motivating Ozymandias in his plot to destroy part of New York (in the book) and other cities (in the film). In Ozymandias’ view, yes, many will die. But still more lives will have been saved from the threat of nuclear annihilation. In Ozymandias’s mind, that makes the deaths of innocents, however regrettable, to have been necessary casualties.
Rorschach - Existentialist
Rorschach is frequently cited as the fan-favorite character of Watchmen, and critics of the work often refer to him as the sociopathic “moral compass” of the work. This is an ironic observation, because Rorschach doesn’t truly have a moral compass, per se. Although Alan Moore based the character of Rorschach off of Steve Ditko’s Ayn Rand-inspired superhero The Question, Rorschach’s moral philosophy is very different. Whereas Ayn Rand (and the Question) saw a world of moral absolutes that are rooted in human nature and the nature of reality, Rorschach’s moral philosophy is, in fact, rooted in the existential thought of Albert Camus. Which is ironic, as Rorschach would no doubt have disdained Camus as a “liberal intellectual.”
This is made very clear in issue 6 of the comic, where Rorschach is being questioned by a psychiatrist about his motivations to fight crime. After telling the story of Rorschach tracking down and killing a criminal who had kidnapped and murdered a little girl, Rorschach offered this observation:
Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.
This is a fairly good distillation (slightly distorted) of Camus’ description of what he calls “The Absurd,” which Julian Sanchez describes thusly:
Human beings are driven to seek greater meaning and purpose in a universe where, for the good and wicked alike, all roads lead to the grave.
[...]
In the face of an absurd universe—one lacking transcendent, factory-installed meanings—we are compelled to create our own.
This is, of course, exactly the point that Roschach makes when he says that he “free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.” That he does not compromise his principles even though he knows full well they are made up seems, well, absurd. But it makes perfect sense in the context of Rorschach’s thinking. We’re all going to die anyway, so it’s best to die well and “live life free of compromise.”
Nite Owl II - Man of Virtue
When we first meet Dan Dreiberg, a.k.a. Nite Owl II, in Watchmen, he is, as Rorschach describes him, a “flabby, whimphering failure.” When the Keene Act was past in 1977, Nite Owl put away his crimefighting toys and has lived as a man without much purpose or strength since. It isn’t until Silk Spectre II convinces him to put the costume back on and he helps to rescue innocent people from a fire that he regains his sense of purpose and confidence. After that, he succesfully leads the charge to rescue Rorschach from prison and is able to use his detective skills to determine that Adrian Veidt is the man behind the villainous plot of the story.
This character progression shows Nite Owl to be an exemplar of virtue ethics. Developed by the Ancient Greeks, virtue ethics places less moral focus on particular acts and more focus on the type of character to be developed that produces ethical behavior. Thus, one’s actions are merely a reflection of the inner morality of the person within. A person who follows the virtues, then, strives to improve his character.
The goal of virtue ethics is the achievement of Eudaimonia, or human flourishing. This is the state in which a person has practiced the virtues to the point that he is living the well-lived life and is able to accomplish his goals. When we first meet Dan Dreiberg, he is clearly not in this state. But we know from flashbacks and other points in the story that at one time he was. He was a genius inventor and capable crimefighter. And mid-way through the book, once Dan Dreiberg accepts his career as a superhero again, we see this aspect of him coming through the forefront. By working to rescue people, fight crime, etc., we see that as Nite Owl, Dreiberg achieves Eudaimonia.
Conclusion
Watchmen is one of the richest, multi-layered works of art of the past thirty years. What on the surface appears to be a “deconstruction” of the superhero is really a layered look at ethics and other aspects of philosophy. This essay has barely scratched the surface of the riches within (the effect of Dr. Manhattan’s perception of time on his ethics is worth an essay all it’s own, for example). Which is why, truly, you should go back and re-read the book or re-watch the film. Both provide plenty of food for thought.
Yeah, but Rorschach is the only one with a justifiable position, except he’s all dark, broody and hyperbolic about it.
And what does it say about his morality that he has bad hygiene?
Rorschach as an existentialist? Wouldn’t his diary start out something like:
“Comedian died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know.”
The Comedian is actually closer to an ethical egoist, not a nihilist, if he believed nothing mattered he would kill himself.
Utilitarianism doesn’t actually include the ‘means justify the ends’ it is an ends based philosophy, but only in some conceptions allows sacrificing people, some versions don’t let you sacrifice even one person because they attempt to get the highest possible happiness for each human, so even if a hundred suffer a little to help one suffer much less, it’s acceptable.
Sartre would disagree with Rorschach about ethics, Rorschach believes ethics is inherent, his atheism only makes him an atheist, not an existentialist. He thinks he serves justice, which an existentialist wouldn’t say exists. An existentialist accepts that they serve themselves. Rorschach acts like he serves justice, and Sartre’s point about good faith is that no one serves anything but themselves.
Nite Owl is actually just an old cop, No thoughts about morality, only law.
In conclusion, Watchmen is vacuous and emo.
you said “Rorschach acts like he serves justice, and Sartre’s point about good faith is that no one serves anything but themselves.”
perhaps Rorschach believes he is the only justice that is left out there, so in a way by serving to justice he is serving to himself…
I was writing on exactly on this topic just a month ago! I feel so stupid not having found this site earlier!
Great article, by the way. Kinda disagree with the Camus theory simply on the basis of nit-picky terminology, but it still fits Rorschach regardless.
Oh, and you completely missed out on Dr. Manhattan. His psychological profile is remarkable considering his power, and it fits that of a detached scientist working on the atomic bomb, knowing full well its intentions but is apathetic regardless.
hmm…
5 pictures, 4 potted philosophical thingos. who the hell is the skinny one with the stilettos? what does this individual represent????
…resounding silence….
same old crap, first from film makers who want us to believe that a female in heels is a good idea as token fuck-pot./superhero. and then from the spewdo-intellectual wankers who cover the bullshit with their ersatz gravitas.
Since you didn’t get to it, I would just like to point out the moral similarities between Dr. Manhattan and Borges’ short story, “The Immortal.” Each is a reflection on the temporality and mortality that are, perhaps, prerequisites for moral reflections.
“Taught by centuries of living, the republic of immortal men had achieved a perfection of tolerance, almost of disdain. They knew over an infinitely long period of time, all things happen to all men. As reward for his past or future virtures, every man merited kindness–yet also betrayal, as a reward for his past and future inequities….Viewed in that way, all our acts are just, though also unimportant.” Collected Fictions, p. 191
@You were wrong - I would disagree with your descriptions.
There are many types of Nihilism. The comedian is a moral Nihilist which means he does not believe that morals exist rather than believing nothing had meaning.
In fact it is Dr. Manhattan who throughout most watchman is a existential nihilist which believes that life has no greater meaning in the grander scheme of things. He had no care about human life or even his own life. Everything is fated to occur through the cascading effects of physics.
Ozymandias is in fact a utilitarian. He would qualify as a two-rule utilitarian, meaning most of the time he would follow standard moral rules but on occasional he would follow the end justifies the means philosophy.
Rorschach does NOT believe that morals are inherent. He did NOT believe he was serving a greater inherent justice or god. He believes in his code without comprise. He lives to serve only his code, his design that he has chosen to impose. This clearly makes him an atheistic existentialist.
Night Owl obviously cares more about virtues than law as he breaks the law several times without regard: breaking Rorschach out of jail, continuing to crime fight, not capturing Ozymandias, etc.
“taught by centuries of living” - - and there is our own apathy
created through recorded history, to point where cut and paste philosophy in supernatural realms becomes the argument while the real world continues to happen outside. the medium and the means which create the medium keep us locked contemplating and veiwing people as aggregate of historical fictions vs the mere causalities they are. Really it is idea that the world needs to be saved which creates strife.
yeah yeah insert picture of twin towers, tie in the “end justifies the means” and there you have a blatant propagandist use of a comic to support a useless war.
perhaps if they stop exploiting buildings to get a reaction out of people, they would actually have a decent work of fiction. because as far as I can tell it would have been an interesting story had it not focused around communists in a way to parallel current affairs.
let me explain..
And as far as the acting was concerned, Ozymandias had no remorse for killing. Visually, without any voice over narrations, he seemed to only say that to save his own tail. It was very ‘dio en machina’ that suddenly a mock president with a very exaggerated nose says they made peace with the USSR and somehow this solves everything. in actuality all they did was make criminals out of their selves. Following a normal order of events, the others would be associated as criminals (where in fact they were accomplices to Ozy unbeknown to the public by keeping it a secret.) for simply being superheros.
Chances are that the forces united would not stop at attacking Dr Manhattan (blowing up mars? heh) but would also vent on any superheros resulting in a very ‘X-man’ situation. Also, even if there was a truce with the USSR who is to say that it would solve anything. “Peace” made with violence can only last so long. So, what, is the plan now (in truly Batman style) that the heroes must become scape goats in order to save the world:
” Oh look, another country is attacking. well, there are not that many superheros around. Silk Spector, why don’t you go destroy a city so that we can make peace again. So what if you have to go on the run permanently. So what if people die. That’s okay.”
to answer hz, the girl in the heels represents exploited feminism and, quite honestly, seems a little pitiful. Silk Spector version one is particularly notable as portraying this role and is yet another enforcer in the ideals of “the ends justify the means”. Her daughter, version 2, seems to be a very flat character representing the oh-so-common girl bimbo persona. You know the kind, tight outfits, sleeps around, can only save the world when told to (when a ‘giant blue man’ says, basically, come convince me to save the world.)
all movies parallel “moral exemplars” you just have to pay attention to what you are watching. Why? Because all movies are meant to convey a message. They always relate to current affairs in some way, you just have to read into their purpose. In this one, the purpose was quite obvious. The symbolism was there. Oddly enough it was saying the Heroes are murderers but murder is okay..
But what does it matter?
and here is a bonus challenge: name my moral category.
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
Well, Cat, I would assume that your heavily rooted in both Sophist philosophy, a bit of Aristotle, with heavy influences from Abrahamic religion, skepticism and a bit of your own twist on the world.
Moreover, the ideology you speak of in paragraph 4, with the nations uniting, fits under ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’ and thus, would cause, at least temporary peace. After that, who knows.
As for the X-Men future you prophesize, that’s very possible. Though, given that all but Manhattan are very mortal, the government would simply neutralize them in an instant and if they did not, it would be more likely for the media to turn on them rather than the entire country. As for Manhattan, nothing can really be done against him, given that he is gone from the story, and for all intents and purposes, immortal. All the people could do is huddle in fear of his might and try to find a way to kill him.
People people people, need we be so ferocious in our commentary? A couple of you are speaking like you just know everything about everything. The imagery in the actual comic is so important to the plot that the movie could never convey the potential of the book. Judging by the responses we could all stand to read the book nice and slowly making sure too look at every picture and think about what it means.
My favorite line was “In conclusion, Watchmen is vacuous and emo.” No buddy, that’s you.
“perhaps if they stop exploiting buildings to get a reaction out of people, they would actually have a decent work of fiction. because as far as I can tell it would have been an interesting story had it not focused around communists in a way to parallel current affairs.”
Perhaps if you knew what the fuck you were talking about you’d realize that the story from which the movie comes from was written in the 80’s, you would’ve actually had a decent commentary on the subject. Because as far as I can tell it would’ve been an interesting commentary if you had not focused it around the movie in a way to sound like you actually did your homework on something when you didn’t.
Great analysis. I never thought of Rorschach as an existentialist, but atheistic existentialism fits him fantastically.
March 16th, 2009
read an amusing online site….more liberal intellectual crap…but amusing. I’m alive, and I’m watching all of you….
you forgot to talk about the archetype of the silk spectre, you know the woman who doesn’t need a mask because her face doesn’t matter.
this movie was pure pornographic woman-hating bullshit. the writer/director is clearly a misogynist, rape-fantasizer.
please don’t try to make it deeper than the teen circle jerk that it truly is.
rofl @ earl savoy HURR DURR
It is impossible for me to emphasize how much more can be gleaned philosophically from the Graphic Novel than from the movie. So much meaning is lost, and much is taken out of context in the movie.
Some of these comments are astounding.
“In conclusion, Watchmen is vacuous and emo.”
Are you trying to be stupid?
wow, the comments are terrible, but the post is pretty cool
I don’t know that Ozymadis isn’t kidding himself wrt. having saved the world. The situation is only so tense because he took Dr. Manhatten out of the picture, first by blinding him, them by getting him to leave, changing the balance of power. I believe he just wants power, to compensate for his sense of being alone, a sense that would vanish if he admitted he’s not that smart (I mean really why WOULDN’T you except Rorscach to keep a diary or to mail it to someone? He’s the ultimate in power-mad, self-deluded assholes. Dr. Manhattern is just as bad. He simply doesn’t try to use his immense intelligence to solve human problems. He knows the commedian is going pretty much insane, does nothing about it. He knows that Ozymandis is in effect evil and in a position to rule the world where his ex-lover lives. Does nothing about it, even though she and Nightowl are the only two people on Earth who can expose Veidt. Killing them if Dr. Manhatten lives is an obvious plan, yet the “Good Doctor” doesn’t anticipate it, because he’s too busy thinking about his vacation to Andromeda.
@Almil:
I totally agree…and I think that your statement of carefully reading over the book should apply perhaps even moreso to the philosopher’s whom have been butchered. These men aren’t banners whose philosophies fit into 5-paragraph blog posts. Aristotle’s work spans thousands of pages. I read a disagreement above that claimed a disagreement over minor technical language between Watchmen and Sartre. How can minor technical language even be relevant comparing a translated work from a couple centuries ago to a contemporary graphic novel?
I think Wikipedia is perhaps a little too influential a method of digesting information. Some things, like philosophy or literature IMO, cannot be summarized and debated so easily. I think the situation here would be a lot different if anyone had bothered to exhaustively study the works or authors they’re referencing. I’ve only read tiny smatterings, and I know that terms like “atheist existentialist” are only empty words the less intelligent ascribe to theories they haven’t bothered to fully explore. Classification implies a loss of meaning as we make slices…and there’s no way that the classes used here (or in most philosophical debate) are preserving the true spirit of these ideas.
Anyways, bit of a rant, but slow it down. Philosophy isn’t software—you don’t just interchange modules with different names.
Great discussion - you may also be interested in the book “Watchmen and Philosophy: A Rorschach Test” (Wiley), which discusses many of these themes and more.
I’ve seen several of these Watchmen a vs. b lists on the net. Although good I think they can easily distract us–distract us by encouraging us to focus on certain polar relationships, but ignoring other relationships. What’s great about Watchmen is not that it highlights some typical philosophical positions (utilitarian / deontological; nihilism / virtue; etc), but what it says about our world and us.
From these comments, I can be a little flip, and say ‘This movie is like a Rorschach test of our ethics’.
I like it because it can stimulate discussions like these, and probed much of our fascination with dark characters.
In your estimations of Dr. Manhattan, do you think of him as someone repressing an awful lot of screaming?
Cheers,
Juz
Man I watched this film the other day. Three hours of absolute bollocks.