Philosophy in "Watchmen" (part 1)

Today I am going to discuss some of the subtle philosophical and political commentary in Zach Snyder’s film adaptation of the Alan Moore graphic novel Watchmen. If you haven’t seen the film, today’s discussion probably isn’t going to make much sense.

First, I’d like to look at some of the characters. Not surprisingly, each has his/her own extreme philosophical viewpoint, and it is these contrasting beliefs that make the film so interesting. (I say not surprisingly because Alan Moore often includes philosophy in his works, such as in V for Vendetta.) Let’s look at the characters and their views one by one.

Ozymandias: utilitarianism. Ozymandias is a classic example of utilitarian ethics. He is obsessed with the “greater good,” and had devoted himself to creating peace on earth. At the end of the film, Ozymandias destroys most of the world’s major cities to prevent the Cold War from resulting in a nuclear annihilation. In other words, he is “killing millions to save billions”—a textbook example of utilitarian morality. Likewise, Ozymandias has no moral qualms about killing off his fellow Watchmen because he is working for the greater good. Specifically, Ozymandias is an act utilitarian—he does not believe in any specific code that brings about the greater good; he believes that any action that maximizes utility is moral.

The Comedian: nihilism. Edward Blake (alias “The Comedian”) is a nihilist, at least in part. He sees the universe as random and chaotic, and states repeatedly that human nature is animalistic and chaotic. He laughs at the fact that humans are smart enough to build nuclear weapons, since they will probably lead to man’s destruction. Blake’s actions certainly reflect his nihilistic attitudes: in a sequence of flashbacks, he is shown gleefully gunning down Viet Cong in the Vietnam War, killing a pregnant woman, and shooting a crowd of protesters. However, Blake is not completely nihilistic in that he still cares for his own life and the lives of many others. Though he laughs at the inevitability of nuclear war, Blake still worries that Ozymandias’s scheme—which involves mass killing—will come to fruition.

Rorschach: moral absolutism. Rorschach, the film’s central character, is a paranoid conservative moralist, as evidenced by his narration of the film and by his actions. He believes in a clearly defined good and evil and that evil should be punished and destroyed. For the most part, his morality is act-based: an action is automatically good or automatically evil, even if it is well intentioned or brings about good results. Rorschach repeatedly affirms his hatred for what he considers to be immoral behavior, and repeatedly murders criminals mercilessly. At the end of the film, he refuses to submit to Ozymandias’ benevolent regime, and condemns his actions, which Rorschach sees as mass murder. Rorschach is also politically conservative—he states several times that he hates communists and people with “liberal sentiments.”

Dr. Manhattan: anti-anthropocentrism. Dr. Manhattan is one of the more bizarre characters in the film. After an incident in a nuclear research lab, Dr. Manhattan (as he is renamed) is given godlike powers, including the ability to manipulate matter in any way he likes. However, these powers also serve to isolate him from society—as the plot progress, he begins to distance himself from people more and more, eventually resulting in his self-exile on the barren surface of Mars. Manhattan is oddly anti-anthropocentric, his knowledge of the universe bringing him a strange sense of humility. He states at one point that the desolate surface of Mars “gets along fine without life.” He feels almost no sympathy for other human beings or for human suffering, stating that “a dead human being has the same number of atoms as a live one.” I have difficult coming to terms with this mentality—it is hard to understand what Manhattan means by a barren planet “getting along fine.” But that’s a discussion for another day. 

Later today I will examine some the film’s political commentary.