I'm a huge fan of Alan Moore's Watchmen. It is undoubtedly one of my favourtie books to date. The brutal and masterful way he creates a world, and then explores it's humanity is almost unmatched in it's uniqueness. Whilst each character was as deep and as interesting as the next, the one which grabbed me most was that of Veidt. A man who intentionally removes himself from all inherited oppoprtunites to begin anew with nothing, and then rises to the top of society through strength of character and will, and embracing the responsibilities and ethical mandate that comes with such power.
What is most interesting though is the reveal. Veidt takes it upon himself to orchestrate the slaughter of millions of humans around the globe, the only perceivable way that he, the most intelligent man in the world, can prevent a nuclear apocalypse, by uniting the world against an invented extra-terrrestial enemy.
The scenario invented presents all kinds of comments on the nature of man, war and morality, and it is deeply interesting to see how people respond to it. Many are dismissive of it, taking it as high fantasy, uncomfortable with the idea that such situations could become reality. Some embrace the act as heroic, that a man would take it upon himself such abominations to protect the survival of the human race, whilst others condemn him for making a judgement that was far beyond his jurisdiction.
I'd love to explore further what people think of Adrian Veidt, but this last case is one I found most interesting.
There is so much complexity in exploring the moral frameworks with which we function. Judgements don't come easily to empathic, unlike they do to the ignorant, too the point where they make few judgements at all. The unfortunate truth seems to be that right and wrong are not so obvious, especially in terms of human life, it is not unusual to ask who are we to judge others?
But it seems that in this situation a judgement must be made.
And that is the peculiar thing about Adrian Veidt. He didn't justify the horror of his actions. He ensured he understood the pain he was inflicting upon the world. But felt morally behelden to the survival of the human race, wether it was right or wrong. Perhaps if that's what it takes to save the world, then it is better off dead? Perhaps the ends justifies the means, and survival at any cost is better than anhilation? Is he a necessary evil? Or is he the greatest hero of all, sacraficing even his own perceptions of righteousness and integrity to ensure the survival of the human race?
But what about less extreme circumstances?
Who are to judge how others raise their children? Yet how much suffering must a child endure before intervention is necessary?
Or even less so, who are to judge how others treat their bodies? Yet how many physical and mental diseases must manifest before we illegalize a substance?
Who are we to judge another person's cultural or religious beliefs? Yet under what circumstance are we to let something like infantile genital mutilation continue?
The answers to these questions don't come easily. Morality and humans are so vastly complicated, there are so many variables, so many agendas and so many bias'. How could we ever hope to fully justify a response?
But I think the rub is in this:
A response is unavoidable. I think a lack of judgement is a judgement within itself, just as indecision is an on-going decision. Regardless of how a situation presents itself a response manifests. Even ignoring it presents a response in itself.
The implication as I understand it then, is that we cannot evade passing judgement. We are beholden to it, as we are to anything we've perceived. Even silence will not allow us to avoid this responsibility. Observation doesn't ask for response, for judgement, it evokes it.
The challenge then isn't not to judge, for that is an impossibility. It is to judge the best that we are able to, according to what we know, and probably more importantly, in light of what we don't. Perhaps that involves witholding our judgements, or making them flexible, or quite the opposite.
What a horribly complicated subject, so ready to be tangled in a sea of semantics.
What do others think of Adrian Vedit?
P.S. I recommend the Watchmen. it's a comic book so it's easy to read...sort of.
No comments:
Post a Comment