What Alignment is Rorschach?

[mlund]

What you are describing is actually known as "rule-utilitarianism," or "rule-consequentialism," (depending on the flavor) which is a subset of consequentialist thought.

Deontology can be divided up into "duty-based" and "right-based" deontological frameworks.

Actually, I think what I'm trying to point out is that I find the dichotomy between Deontology and Consequentialism to ring false.

Humans are creatures that assign values to everything around then and then act based on their understanding of those values. Even Kant, the much-maligned Deontologist, was ultimately steeped in the belief that right action aligned itself with an objective or natural Good, which was itself the greatest possible positive outcome from his view.

People can have broadly contrasting conceptions of what is and is not a positive outcome, after all. It makes me think of two objects moving in different straight lines across the surface of a sphere at the same speed. Though their paths are different the inevitable converge on the opposite side of the sphere.

- Marty Lund

 

[ppaladin123]

Actually, I think what I'm trying to point out is that I find the dichotomy between Deontology and Consequentialism to ring false.

Humans are creatures that assign values to everything around then and then act based on their understanding of those values. Even Kant, the much-maligned Deontologist, was ultimately steeped in the belief that right action aligned itself with an objective or natural Good, which was itself the greatest possible positive outcome from his view.

People can have broadly contrasting conceptions of what is and is not a positive outcome, after all. It makes me think of two objects moving in different straight lines across the surface of a sphere at the same speed. Though their paths are different the inevitable converge on the opposite side of the sphere.

- Marty Lund

There are certainly philosophers who agree with you and are attempting to a find a way to reconcile the two schools of thought. There are others who believe that this is impossible. The two frameworks are rather difficult to fit together.

Here is a rather long explanation of the differences and attempts to bridge the gap. The author is not optimistic:

Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Celebrim]

The Cold War wasn't cold for millions of people, but most people forget that because it happened in the third world.

Yes, but I was living in the third world in much of the period in question, and actually witnessed a communist revolution first hand. "Classes will be shortened today due to the revolution, try not to get machetted or shot going home.", sort of thing. So, slightly different perspective for me.

As for the rest, despite the fact that I agree with you on some points (like the character of Mr. Dawkins) and the fact that I have much the same data as you, I still largely reject your analysis. However, I won't be able to get into that argument. I might get away with skirting the rules on politics if I get back on topic quickly enough, but if I start an actual argument over politics its going to attract attention.

 

[darkseraphim]

We came even closer to nuclear holocaust in 1983 than we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I don't think anyone who lived through the "evil empire" speech, the shooting down of Korean Air 007 and the recognition that the USSR felt a first strike was imminent would call the Cold War merely a battle of ideas.

Stanislav Petrov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Krensky]

Yes, but I was living in the third world in much of the period in question, and actually witnessed a communist revolution first hand. "Classes will be shortened today due to the revolution, try not to get machetted or shot going home.", sort of thing. So, slightly different perspective for me.

As for the rest, despite the fact that I agree with you on some points (like the character of Mr. Dawkins) and the fact that I have much the same data as you, I still largely reject your analysis. However, I won't be able to get into that argument. I might get away with skirting the rules on politics if I get back on topic quickly enough, but if I start an actual argument over politics its going to attract attention.

It's not really a political debate. The question isn't about whether any side was right or wrong, but how the leaders and general populace thought. The fact that you, if I understand correctly, weren't living in the US in the 1980s means you might not have the best handle on the time, culturally. Terror wasn't the word, profound unease is perhaps more accurate. Watchmen was written after both KAL 007, Abel Archer 83, the leak of Reagan's "We begin bombing in five minutes" joke, the whole SDI thing, Afghanistan, combined with Andropov and Chernenko being just as hard line as Reagan and Thatcher didn't help.

Watchmen was written against this backdrop, the sense of unease and regular news about Afganistan, and the apparent runaway crime and poverty and decay in US cities, and social unrest. Watchmen is a product of it's time that reflects parts of that time. To understand and analysie it, you need to understand it's time and context. You also need to recognise that the book is an alternate history, one where diplomatic relations between the US and USSR had not changed since the 1960s, and where the balance of power had overwhelmingly been in the US's favor since that same time as well.

 

[Klaus]

If anyone is interested in talking about politics of the Cold War, I suggest heading over to Circvs Maximvs and starting a thread in The Senate there.

 

[WizarDru]

Looking back on it the idea of a successful preemptive strike seemed laughable and the idea of the government actually trying to pull it off seemed divorced from reality.

Only if you weren't from OUR reality. A preemptive first-strike was considered a best-option-amongst-bad-options kind of issue. MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, was the policy of the day. The idea was that pulling the trigger kills us both...and knowing that prevents anyone from pulling the trigger. Which led to the cold war, where the two super-powers would fight by proxy in places like Afghanistan and Nicaragua. A pre-emptive strike presupposed that maybe...MAYBE...you could do enough damage to your enemy before they had a chance to damage you and thereby limit their capacity. For varying values of 'success' in this case, which would be, losing tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions. MAYBE.

I'm just saying that no matter how strongly he felt that way the world he portrayed was more divorced from reality than he probably realized.

As others have already pointed out, the world he portrayed was much closer to the mark than you know. Links are provided above, but seriously...we have come close to nuclear conflict several times, particularly in the heated atmosphere of 1983, when we came damned close. Moore may have turned up the rhetoric a might, but the danger and threat in the real world were very real.

There was propaganda everywhere trying to sway people politically and not a whole lot of information resources available to the general public.

We DID have ways of passing information around before the Internet that didn't involve depending on what we saw on Television, you know. Sometimes the information channels were slower or clumsier or uglier to look at, but there were plenty outlets and venues for that information to be circulated. Trust the folks who actually lived through it...we weren't blind puppets to some propaganda machine. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were just as heavily criticized as any other US or UK leaders (which is to say, heavily).

Of the many criticisms that one could levy against the Watchmen, the fear of a full-scale nuclear war being apocryphal is not one of them.

 

[Krensky]

Only if you weren't from OUR reality. A preemptive first-strike was considered a best-option-amongst-bad-options kind of issue. MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, was the policy of the day. The idea was that pulling the trigger kills us both...and knowing that prevents anyone from pulling the trigger. Which led to the cold war, where the two super-powers would fight by proxy in places like Afghanistan and Nicaragua. A pre-emptive strike presupposed that maybe...MAYBE...you could do enough damage to your enemy before they had a chance to damage you and thereby limit their capacity. For varying values of 'success' in this case, which would be, losing tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions. MAYBE.

And, to be explicit, understanding this and the role of game-theory in the Cold War generally, and in nuclear deterrence specifically, is important to understanding Watchmen. So much that one of the post comic 'essays' is about it. Dr. Manhattan destroyed this idea. He destroyed the concept of MAD. He could devastate the majority of the USSR and stop at least 60% of the Soviet strike, whether first or retaliatory, simultaneously (from our mortal perspective, everything was apparently simultaneous to some degree from his).

Also, to be clear and fend off responses that will pull this into an actual political discussion, I am not and do not wish to discuss the politics of the Cold War, other then as elements of history needed to provide context for discussing the work in question, and only in the most emotionless, academic way.

 

[WizarDru]

Also, to be clear and fend off responses that will pull this into an actual political discussion, I am not and do not wish to discuss the politics of the Cold War, other then as elements of history needed to provide context for discussing the work in question, and only in the most emotionless, academic way.

Seconded. I'm not arguing the merits of the policies or the legitimacy of them. I'm only highlighting them to point out the greater context of the Watchmen as a literary work of it's time. My point was merely that for the intended audience, this was a very topical current event subject that loomed large in the average Watchmen reader and that it was a legitimate concern, not some boondoggle of Moore's paranoia.

 

[Celebrim]

It's not really a political debate.

I'm afraid it is. I can't construct a counter-narrative to what you describe without broaching alot of topics which will be political.

It's not that I have different data than you have. It's not like I've never seen or didn't experience any of these things that you are linking to. It's that my experience of them, and my interpretation of them both at the time and in hindsight (especially in hindsight) is very different than how you interpret them.

I'm aware that Watchman is a novel of its time. I'm aware that it was percieved as being highly relevant by probably the majority of people. I also believe that especially hindsight, that you ought to be able to look back and see that it wasn't nearly as relevant as people thought it was. In particular, I believe Moore was wrong about virtually everything, and that he'd totally misread the time that he was in. He got it all wrong.

It's one thing to say that we came closer to nuclear crisis in 1983 than we did in the Cuban Missile crisis, because now that we have access to the decision making process of both sides, their diaries, and records and we can see that we didn't come very close to nuclear war in the Cuban Missile crisis at all. The Soviets didn't even put their forces on alert. For all their brinkmanship, the Soviets were terrified of the possibility of nuclear war, even to the point of rescinding standing orders that commanders in Cuba had the descrestion to use tactical nuclear weapons if attacked. There are a few stories circulating about how close we got with this or that submarine, but if you investigate them you find that the are stories that grow larger in the telling and have grown larger because sensationalizing them is more interesting (and maybe more useful) than the naked facts.

I interpretted the presence of Reagan in the U.S.A. (and Thatcher) as a very positive sign for peace, that it would force the Soviets to come to the table seeking peace where they'd felt no previous compunction, and that it would mean an American administration that actually had the political clout and trust of the American people to make peace. And that's why I wasn't terrified during the '80's, and that's what actually happened. And you know, I was pretty far from the only person in the 80's that held similar opinions.