Watchmen and Ethics

Almost three decades since it's written, Watchmen, by Alan Moore, still manifests itself as one of the best works of fiction ever written. It established graphic novels as a tool to deliver groundbreaking plot and to convey message that still echoes in the modern times. One particular topic that is still debated by the public is its ending. The ambiguity of Watchmen's final moments left a tinge to the minds of its readers, because it presents the conflict between two opposing bodies of ethics: Deontology/Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism. 

In deontology, a person believes that there are certain things that are morally right or wrong based on their nature. In Utilitarianism, a deed being right or wrong depends on the benefit it produces. Since most human beings are not absolute when it comes to detecting right deeds from wrong, no matter how many times we think about who's the person who did the right thing in the end of the novel, our mind is conflicted between Rorschach and Ozymandias. The two characters fully embodies the two ethical concepts, including their strengths and weaknesses. 

Rorschach, also known as Walter Kovacs, being the righteous guy of all the Watchmen, sees the horrid thing inflicted by Ozymandias an unjustifiable act even though it is clearly for the better. He didn't compromise because he has his principles; he will never compromise unjustifiable acts even in the face of armagedon. In deontology, it's someone's conscience that imposes what's right and what's wrong, and killing lots of people by implanting horrid images that tend to make them kill themselves is a huge ripple in one's conscience.The problem with him and deontologists is they don't think about the consequences of their act. They have certain rules that if broken, the act a person did is already a wrong thing. They will continue to do the thing that they think is morally correct even though the results will impose a greater threat. At the end of the book, if Rorschach successfully exposed Ozymandias, he will then make the deaths of millions of people all for nothing, amd yet in a way will avenge their fate.

Ozymandias or Adrian Veidt on the other hand, uses logic to know what to do next; measuring what act will impose more happiness to people. In utilitarianism, one good basis on measuring the benefit of a deed, which in the book Ozymandias uses, is the number of people that will benefit from it. Surely, it is better to have a million deaths than seeing the perish of billions of people. Also, the end of the book tells us that his plan really did work in unifying the world. It's the logical thinking that works when you are utilitarian, and most of the time you should not listen in your conscience. There are certain problems in a utilitarian thinking. One problem is the unpredictability of future. There are certain instances that we thought our deeds would improve a situation, but it does not. What if Ozymandias's plan didn't work out to be as he anticipated? One million people just died for a lost cause. Another problem is the limit on measuring the benefit of the deed. When will we stop measuring the happiness that an act would give? This weakness of utilitarianism is highlighted by Dr. Manhattan. He had a conversation with Ozymandias before he disappeared from their world. Adrian asked whether he did the right thing in the end, but Manhattan just replied that nothing ever ends. 

A lot of other works also utilizes these two concepts in order to make a big impression to the audience or reader. Another work by Moore, The Killing Joke, has an ambiguous ending that tests Batman's morality and also the readers'. The last page presents a possibility that Batman killed the Joker once and for all. Killing the Joker would violate his principles, yet letting him live may impose greater danger to the public. On the game The Last of Us, in order to create a vaccine for the pandemic tha killed almost all human beings, the Fireflies need to extract the substance inside Ellie's brain that would evidently kill her. Joel is unwilling to sacrifice Ellie, that's why he rescued her from the camp and killed the members of the Fireflies. These kinds of endings works because most of the people are not absolute when it comes to their ethical beliefs. We always use both our conscience and logical thinking that causes imternal debacle in our brain. At the same time, it also tests a person's response whenever s/he encounter dilemmas.