Whats so bad about compromising?

>>77835398
neither party gets what they want and what is right is ultimately forfeited for what is "fair"

you don't compromise with people lives, they're too important

He was a Randian objectivist. "there is wrong and there is right, and there's nothing in between." Compromising was not even an option.

>>77835398
>>77835506

this, Rorschach was being asked to compromise on fucking genocide

and Alan Moore wonders why people romanticize his character

>>77835398
Only autists bitch about compromising.
>living in a world full of other people with their own interests, but only MINE matter
>thinking it's "get what I want" instead of "both parties get what is most plausible"

>>77835398

It's all there in the book, punctuated by the Tales of the Black Freighter. Adrian thinks that the world is doomed to nuclear annihilation. He makes plans and unites the USSR and USA under the threat of a common enemy by killing half of New York.

But, the thing is neither the USSR nor USA were crazy enough to send nukes flying. Adrian killed them all for nothing. He prevented both USSR and USA from ever getting to a position to start disarming. In the end, he did more harm than good.

>>77835596
The "get what I want" was saving people from a mass genocide which was ultimately pointless, as foreshadowed by Dr Manhattan's words to Adrian.

If we're speaking about the comic (which I hope we are), nuclear fallout was not certain and therefore Adrian's actions were stupid and Rorschach stating that they shouldn't compromise was actually the right choice.

>>77835506
Why not? We do it everyday.

>>77835565

More of a strawman than an accurate representation.

>>77835398

To put it this way, when good comprises with evil, evil wins. It's more about not sacrificing your principles and convictions.

>>77835596

That's called a trade-off. Both parties getting what they want is a trade-off, the opposite of a compromise. A compromise one loses and the other wins. Usually the person with the worst intention is the one pushing for the compromise.

>>77836702

Now that I'm thinking about it I think Adrian was doing it for his own ego, really. He just wanted to pull off a plan and be smug about it.

>People think you can compromise with morals

I should have known that plebeians who spend their time arguing about children's cartoons would be moral relativist scum.

>B-but my utilitarianism
>B-but when in Rome

>>77836661
Isn't Watchmen meant to rely on the then-intense paranoia Westerners had of an impending nuclear holocaust? It's been a while since I read it, so I can't cite specific examples of how high tensions were, but the number of close calls in the real world make it a little difficult to accept that all the Doomsday Clock business was just for show. It seemed to be really pushing the idea that if something didn't happen everyone would indeed get glassed.

>>77835596
isnt he autistic though?

>>77836965
Yeah it lost a lot of its impact once the cold war ended.

>>77835398
The slippery slope.

The fact that he never compromised was all he had left. That was the only thing that he could claim no matter what.

That's why he could still talk some shit on Nite Owl, Silk Specter, even Manhattan.

>>77837082
I always saw the Watchmen universe as one where tensions were even higher, potentially to the point of actual nuclear warfare, all thanks to just the presence of Dr. Manhattan

>>77835571
>and Alan Moore wonders why people romanticize his character

because exposing said genocide could lead to further genocide and no one wanted to take that risk.

>>77836809
>A compromise one loses and the other wins.

Or, if it's an actual compromise, both get a portion of what they wanted and a portion of what they don't.

>>77837476
So both lose?

>>77837082
But the cold war was still going on when Alan Moore wrote the story and the book came out. Reagan was still president, and people were more scared than ever that the U.S. and what was then known as The Soviet Union or U.S.S.R. WOULD have a "Limited" nuclear war. Let's not forget that President Reagan actually thought he could launch a satellite into space armed with lasers and a tracking device that could shoot down Russian nuclear missiles before they reached the U.S., and was willing to try it out.

>>77836809
>A compromise one loses and the other wins.
Whoah, buddy. Not only is that highly reductionist, but wrong.

>>77835398
Only a Jedi would deal in compromise.

>>77836809
>Now that I'm thinking about it I think Adrian was doing it for his own ego, really. He just wanted to pull off a plan and be smug about it.
>Claims one anon is using a strawman instead of an accurate representation
>Does likewise with Veidt
No, Veidt is definitely egotistical, but he didn't want to just be smug. If you see his face when Comedian burns the map he is genuinely contemplative.

It would be better to say his ego makes him think he has to save the world, he's the only one who could save the world and only his plan and nothing else would save the world.

>>77837789
He also sees other people as ants compared to him, so he justifies the killing that way as well.

>>77837789
>>77837832

That is what I meant though. Adrian's that snarky person who know's what's best for everyone, but really doesn't. He's too arrogant. He let his pride float above his own humanity and subsequently all of humanity.

Rorscarch represents the more down-to-earth, morality-based-in-reality. Killing in non-defense is wrong, period. There is no justifying it. Veidt thinks he can justify anything because he's that smart and capable.

Moore did an awesome job of leaving this all open-ended. That's why I like Watchmen, the moral/ethical/philosophical problems it tackles.

>>77838225
I feel the same
The fact that we're STILL talking about this decades later means something

>>77835398
He was based on Mr. A, who was a character that DID NOT compromise.
"There is good, and there is evil. And there is nothing, NOTHING, in between."

>>77837502

If you have a glass half empty perspective, yeah.

File: image.jpg (76KB, 445x372px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 445x372px

>>77837727

>>77835596
Actually, you are retarded.
I'm not a huge Rorschach guy but compromise isn't always good. It isn't even usually good.
It's really not hard to explain.
A compromise with Hitler would be killing three million people. Why the fuck would you settle for that? It's not good.
A compromise with a rapist is letting him suck your tits a little. Sure, it's better than being raped, but it's still not good.

>>77838662
This.

Plus you have to question the ethical foundations of encouraging a system that cuts corners. It's like trying to stop bullying by murdering the bully's parents. How you do something is an important part of your end result.

>>77835398
What happens when food compromises with poison?

Poison wins.

Reminder Rorsharch was completely okay with the Japanese being nuked to end World War 2, but when it happened to Americans suddenly he had a huge stick up his ass

>>77843326
>Rorsharch was completely okay with the Japanese being nuked to end World War 2
That was before he became Rorschach, and long before the incident with the dogs drastically changed his mind about everything.

>>77838662
>Why the fuck would you settle for that?
Because if the only other alternative is 6 million, then at least you've fucking saved half of them.

Any moral philosophy that say 6 million dying is better than 3 as long as we stick to our principles is downright retarded.

>>77835571
Not caring where your actions might lead you is stupid.

Kovacs was caring only about the fact of revealing the truth, but he had no plans on what to do next, he couldn't have done anything anyway.

>>77843526
This. Deontology has its moments, but when dealing with global politics, war, etc. it should be a completely utilitarian approach.

>>77843442
No, because Hitler wouldn't have to go to war if you compromised.

>>77838662
Hitler did nothing wrong though