Philosophy of Watchmen

So Holla Forums, do the ends justify the means or do the means justify the ends? Kantian vs Utilitarian.


Scenario: 5% of the world's population are slaves living in horrible conditions, however, the rest of the 95% of the world lives in utopia.

That scenario inherently favors Utilitarian thought because all Utilitarians need to do is keep the status quo.

I'm gonna make this my family's motto when I become the patriarch

But to a Kantian, you can't guarantee that future. The future doesn't matter, what matters is the now, the moment. Just do it and all that

Love that book

More to the point of discussion, Kantian thought operates in tandem with principles of objective morality. Utilitarian thought plays well with the thought of subjective morality.


To a Kantian, you don't write your future, you're merely a part of it. What matters most is that you do what you can in the present to the fullest of your abilities, because that is all you are accountable for. That doesn't mean you don't care about the future, only that you don't let your destination dictate your journey, in a manner of speaking.

To Illustrate, a pure utilitarian would favor taking the straightest path with the fewest compromises in the journey towards a destination. A kantian would take a path most suitable to the comfort of the traveller, but he definitely is going somewhere. If he isn't then its more akin to nihilism or some other more chaotic philosophy.

I feel u

Would a kantian really take the past most comfortable? From what I just read for the first time on the wiki, no bully it sounds like a kantian would take the path that makes the most sense to them individually.

Kantian has way less overhead

Making utilitarian decisions in the moment requires a full measurement of cost / benefit, while rule-based decisions require much less processing.

Additionally, humans are unreliable decision makers. One's perspective can shift - one day you like the 5%, one day you're pissed. In the long term however, we tend to average out to a relatively stable set of values.

Hard rules, written and edited in the long-term, are the most efficient means of decision-making.

That's what makes it the most comfortable path.

What I mean to say is, A kantian takes in the details of his immediate surroundings when he wants to make a decision. He's worried about what will happen now, to him, the people and the places around him. To a utilitarian, all these things are secondary to an ultimate achievement.

The Trolley problem illustrates the viewpoints of both trends of thought.

A utilitarian would pull the lever, saving five people but killing one by his own hand.

A kantian would not, he is not responsible for the lives of the five but if he pulls the lever he is personally responsible for killing the one. In a way, its a very christian philosophy, because it places emphasis on personal responsibility over environmental control.


Kantian thought is a lot more egocentric, in some ways, as well.

So you favor decision making by what is due?

Scenario: Less than 5% of the world want to enslave the other 95%.
Wait, it is not a scenario, it is the NWO. Soros, your turn!

Alan Moore is an edgy anarchist. He made Rorschach to be the crazy straw man of Republicans, ironically he become everyone's favorite character

It was against some black and white comic book character. Rorschach is the best because he's the only one who does anything, other than the blonde guy, but he's a faggot.

But to me Adrian's whole side is invalid, because he didn't do it to save the world.

He did it to make money.

Throughout the novel he is planning what he's going to do when the market changes into a whole new beast, because he's going to change it, and his whole plan relies on the US and Russia not being willing to nuke one another, even when New York is blown off the map.

He's a greedy mass murderering asshole and everyone else is his bitch.

He is literally Hillary Clinton.

...

He may be a scumbag but he ensured peace for a time at least and created a common enemy, do the ends not justify the means?

Considering its the opposite of what we have now its not a bad scenario at all

I think we're on same page here

It's all a big fucking joke

Literally nothing was justified.
Like if you rage every time. For the smartest man in the world, he sure was a retarded faggot. They should have at least killed him off at the end so he couldn't kill more people when he inevitably decided his last plan wasn't good enough. Don't even get me started on Manhattan, useless, edgy fucker. It wasn't a complicated issue, it wasn't for the greater good. It was ultimately millions of lives taken in vain by a psychopath, no different than, for example, when Joker blew up Metropolis in Injustice. Pretty much everyone was objectively in the wrong or just plain evil except for Rorschach.

But nothing ever ends, user.

Well yeah, thats basic utilitarianism. As long as the good outweighs the bad it doesnt matter how you get there

Utopia makes people lax, dependent, and hedonistic. There must be struggle without cruelty among people. Both utopianisticism and salvery are wrong. Challenge - don't cripple or coddle.

The ends always justify the means in which the ends are acheived. Our history as humans has shown that to be true, even when it is not. We could be terrible, kill millions, destroy everything, but as long as humanity at the end of day is still here, we can justify even the most heinous of acts. The only time in which it cannot be true is if the means result in our destruction.

so um

i take it you didnt get it

...

switch the percentages and thats reality now see how it makes any sense

...

...

If those were actually his ends: perhaps, but he knew war wasn't inevitable, his plan hinged on it. He did it to make cash.

Utilitarian all the way and if you don't agree you suck dicks