Vendetta....

[demoteamone]

Good to go... I love the conspiracy go around,only shit....
what I can say I really enjoy!
I love the Knife scene.....Too.

 

[demoteamone]

"I always saw V as an extreme representation of an idea, he isn't developed beyond a basic outline of what made him," Mr Cliff the all idea was more revenge than liberty...I believe :thumbup:

 

[Lucky Bob]

I finished the comic about a week ago, so I'm eager to see how well it is adapted into film. Pretty well, from what I've read.

The one thing I'm REALLY pissed about in the (otherwise excellent) movie, was that they changed what the facists came to power in response to. There's a big difference, in terms of intent, between a manufactured biological epidemic, and mild atomic warfare.

 

[Will P.]

There's a moral difference between anti-government terrorism directed against strategic targets within a illegitimate government and religious terrorism that target civilians for being part of a culture the fanatic disagrees with.

The movie's political commentary isn't about terrorism, but about the government's consolidation of power in the name of national security. While the current administration has been criticized for this behavior, it's hardly a liberal issue. It's more of a libertarian issue.

 

[ocelot777]

There's a moral difference between anti-government terrorism directed against strategic targets within a illegitimate government and religious terrorism that target civilians for being part of a culture the fanatic disagrees with.

Within my personal moral framework, I couldn't (and don't) disagree with Will's statement (especially as I'm an atheist). Other people have different criteria regarding what is and isn't "moral". I reject any notion of "moral absolutes" (yes, I'm a "moral relativist") and I think people generally adopt a moral stance that reflects their experiences in life.

In the film, the viewer is obviously intended to characterise the government as "illegitimate" and support the "terroristic" actions of V, but I suspect there are not a few who would identify more closely with the oppressors

I suppose that it all boils down to the question of who you think gets to decide what is legitimate/moral or otherwise. From my point of view, it's me; from your point of view it may be you, or G*d/Allah/Yahweh, or your dad/mum.

Ultimately, all of history seems to indicate that "might is right" in the sense that those with the biggest sticks get to decide questions of morality/legitimacy until someone comes along with a bigger stick . . .

 

[David Schott]

In the film, the viewer is obviously intended to characterise the government as "illegitimate" and support the "terroristic" actions of V, but I suspect there are not a few who would identify more closely with the oppressors

Srry but I think I'd prefer organized oppressive control over random, obviously egocentric and revengeful people deciding its their right to send subways full of explosives into major urban areas just to prove a point. I also think we are giving a skin-deep movie much more credit that it deserves. I feel like most of this debate is like reading argumentative, deep rooted political commentary which finds its roots in the clothing choices illustrators made in the wheres waldo books.

 

[Artfully Martial]

I'd like to take a moment to discuss the ethical relativism here, which people have been touching on here and there throughout the whole conversation.

I'm extremely busy these two weeks, so I'm boiling this down to a few bullet points for us to consider.

Cultural ethical relativism necessarily has these problems. You either just accept the problems with the package or you reject ethical relativism. I rejected ethical relativism.

1: Just because we haven't found an overarching moral absolute does not mean it does not exist.
2: Within the framework of an ethical relativist's mind, there can be no cross cultural judgements. You necessarily cannot say that slavery in another country is wrong--if the country is okay with slavery, than as far as you must be concerned, it is not only okay but in fact moral to have slaves.
3: There can be no moral progress--what are you progressing towards?

There are others, but these three are the most relevant.

Atheists needn't be ethical relativists--atheism does not necessarily entail that there can be no morality. It does, of course, imply that nothing you do matters anyway.

I would encourage you to jump ship on the theory--no one wants to live in the ethical relativists' world.

 

[Will P.]

Srry but I think I'd prefer organized oppressive control over random, obviously egocentric and revengeful people deciding its their right to send subways full of explosives into major urban areas just to prove a point. I also think we are giving a skin-deep movie much more credit that it deserves. I feel like most of this debate is like reading argumentative, deep rooted political commentary which finds its roots in the clothing choices illustrators made in the wheres waldo books.

The building's V blows up are pretty clearly unoccupied.
The government killed 80,000+ people to consolidate power.

The movie's morality is intended to be fairly black and white.

You're just arguing because you want to argue.

 

[ocelot777]

Artfully Martial -- If we keep this up, this thread will be moved to the Political Forum

But:

Cultural ethical relativism necessarily has these problems. You either just accept the problems with the package or you reject ethical relativism. I rejected ethical relativism.

It seems to me that ethical relativism simply is, in the sense that Mount Everest is (and that Alma Cogan isn't), given the absence thus far of any "overarching moral absolute". There must also be ethical relativism within cultures as well as between them. Additionally, inter-individual ethical relativism seems to me to be entailed by the very nature of humanity. That is not to say that there cannot be a majoritarian consensus on certain fundamental ethical issues.

1: Just because we haven't found an overarching moral absolute does not mean it does not exist.

Doesn't mean it does exist either and, for an atheist, it's difficult to see how it could. So, in the absence of this hypothetical "moral absolute", you are still a "moral absolutist"? Isn't that like saying "my morals are absolutely right because I believe that they are"? In truth, I suspect that, in practical terms, everyone operates on that basis . . .

2: Within the framework of an ethical relativist's mind, there can be no cross cultural judgements. You necessarily cannot say that slavery in another country is wrong--if the country is okay with slavery, than as far as you must be concerned, it is not only okay but in fact moral to have slaves.

Ahh, but I can and do make cross-cultural (and inter-individual) judgements along with everyone else. I can say that slavery in another culture (or my own culture) is wrong, while simultaneously acknowledging that the slave-holders might not think so (bet the slaves would though).

3: There can be no moral progress--what are you progressing towards?

This begs the question, in the sense that not everyone would agree that "moral progress" (a) could take place or (b) would even be desirable or (c) that there is anything to progress towards. From my relativist stance, I'd be happy if people were to to try just "be excellent to each other" .

Atheists needn't be ethical relativists--atheism does not necessarily entail that there can be no morality. It does, of course, imply that nothing you do matters anyway.

I disagree with your first point, since in the absence of a supernatural arbiter, who can judge, with absolute authority, between various moral positions? I do not claim that there is no morality, just that morality cannot be absolute.

As for nothing mattering, things obviously do matter to individuals, communities, etc., but I don't think "things matter" in any transcendant way.

I would encourage you to jump ship on the theory--no one wants to live in the ethical relativists' world.

Sadly, I jumped onto this particular ship in the interests of intellectual honesty. I can't say it has made me happy though :grumpy:

 

[ocelot777]

You're just arguing because you want to argue.

Yup (errrrrr . . . I mean "No we're not!")

 

[Artfully Martial]

This requires more examination.

Morality exists out of God. God did not create morality. I have a very strong argument to demonstrate this, or you can just trust me here.

You're right, the lack of an acknowledge moral absolute doesn't indicate that we just haven't found it yet. But those of us (Kant, Bentham, Mill) that want a world that can hypothetically operate with any morality whatsoever, instead of the effective ethical nhilism that appears to necessarily result from ethical relativism.

The concensus you bring up is more of a metaphysical and epistomological difference...can it happen? Hypothetically. But it won't, so I find it irrelevent...

Kantian ethics does not entail moral absoluteness, which is the ethics I tend to run by, but then, neither do Bentham\Mill utilitarianism. Ethical relativism is NOT the only choice for atheists--utilitarianism and kantian ethics are both designed to be completely, 100% secular.

You can never have a relevant cross cultural judgement conversation. I mean, you can say I feel this way, but you're probably aware that if your theory holds true, your opinions mean you grew up in a certain geographical area and political climate...ultimately, your conversation with the group you disagree will go like this:
I think what you do is wrong.

We think what we do is right.

Then you both go home and drink a beer. Because there's definitely nothing that can be said about it.

Kant and Bentham, on the other hand, can say something about this and it'll be relevant.

There can be no moral progress, and it appears you agree. But you can't be happy that people try to be excellent towards each other. Basically, you can only be for whatever your culture brought you up about. But it's still meaningless and futile. It's okay if you're ignorant, but once you become self aware and accept ethical relativism, surely you're also aware of the necessary arbitrary nature of any moral feeling you have. You believe you have discovered for yourself (and you may be right) that ethical relativism is true, and that's okay, but we must consider the implications of our beliefs.

And nothing matters at all. The existentialists want us to believe that we give subjective meaning to our own lives. And they're probably right. But who cares? We're talking about the REAL meaning of life. The purpose of everything--objectively. And there isn't one. Nhilism is the only way to go once you've taken the steps towards existentialism...

 

[ocelot777]

Hmm, Artful -- this is getting interesting (and less and less knife-related), but unfortunately I have stuff to do just now

Perhaps we can take this up later (I'll certainly respond to your last post once I've read some Kant/Bentham/etc. ), but this probably isn't the best place.

This all would probably be best discussed over a beer, but, IIRC, you don't drink and are in the distant US of A. Weren't you looking at studying in Oxford (UK, where I exist, existentially) a while back? If that actually comes about I'll buy you a (root) beer and see what we come up with

A bientot

 

[Grover_Cephas]

The one thing I'm REALLY pissed about in the (otherwise excellent) movie, was that they changed what the facists came to power in response to. There's a big difference, in terms of intent, between a manufactured biological epidemic, and mild atomic warfare.

It was likely seen as a necessary change. I know that Moore used to say he considered V for Vendetta "a little naive" in its assumption that England could survive even limited nuclear war.

 

[David Schott]

You're just arguing because you want to argue.

i would argue that everyone who has ever argued did so because they wanted to. Otherwise, they would have kept their mouth shut.

My only point was that people could continue quoting from the last philosophy book they read but it wouldnt change my belief that the movie is not possibly well developed enough to warrant all these highbrow debates. It, to me, was a movie with what I thought to be a poorly developed comic book character and not much else and just dont see where we can get to a point that we are debating great philosophers in time because of THIS movie.

Rantoff. Ill drop out of this to not get in the way. It seems there are much more important things to discuss about the movie than anything in the movie itself and ill leave it to the "experts" to rationalize their correctness

 

[Grover_Cephas]

It, to me, was a movie with what I thought to be a poorly developed comic book character and not much else

The film is an adaptation of a graphic novel that was developed in serial form over several years by a competent writer who's given the matter a great deal of thought. You may disagree with his conclusions, or take issue with his underlying assumptions, but if you think that there _are_ no underlying assumptions, and that the viewers are just imagining philosophical themes in a shallow, childish caricature, then you're simply incorrect.

 

[David Schott]

I just think whatever mastery of depth the graphic novel might have accomplished did not seem apparent to me, having never had the experience of seeing that competent writer's work. Unless, that is, he was the scriptwriter and took part in the film. Im just commenting on the film, which to me DID seem philosophically shallow. To me, looking one layer underneath the surface, there were endless problems with that philosophy and the film's callous violent embracing of the reaction to that philosphy.

Theres nothing saying you can't step outside the movie and address separate issues, but all i was trying to say was that from the content of the movie I saw, taking debate as far as we have seems a bit "big" for the movie's intended audience or its own ability to support those debates.

Im no expert, but just wanted to put an alternative viewpoint out there since everyone else seemed to think this was some kind of artistic masterpiece.

 

[Artfully Martial]

Well, I'm not making any claim as to the film's authenticity or philosophical depth...just saying that it's an entertaining film, and I don't think it has any direct connection to current politics. I've seen it twice.