Cited by 2Comics and Graphic NarrativesPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryEthics, Aesthetics, and Art

The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 3 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Means, Ends, and the Critique of Pure Superheroes

Open access
Loftis, J. Robert·2022·Introducing Philosophy Through Pop Culture

Abstract

The characters Ozymandias and Rorschach from Watchmen seem to represent opposite sides in the debate in philosophical ethics between consequentialists, who believe that the ends sometimes justify the means, and deontologists, who want us not to think in terms of ends and means at all. This chapter shows that the attitude of both Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons toward both consequentialism and deontology in Watchmen is profoundly negative. The ultimate target of the comic's critique is authoritarianism, the idea that anyone should set themselves up as a guardian of society. Superheroes serve as the images of power and authority in Watchmen ; the ideologies that the heroes pretend to follow are rationalizations of that power; and the corruption of the superheroes serves as a critique of both power and its rationalizations. Utilitarianism gets its motivation from the basic instinct that pain is bad and pleasure is good.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This chapter argues that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons's *Watchmen* uses its two central antagonists—Ozymandias and Rorschach—to discredit consequentialism and deontology as thin rationalizations for power, with the comic's real target being authoritarianism. Neither character is faithful to the ethical theory he claims: Ozymandias is a parody of utilitarianism, and Rorschach's "deontology" is a mask for fascist thuggery.

Key findings

  • Ozymandias presents himself as a consequentialist/utilitarian, but the chapter argues he fails the doctrine's core commitments: utilitarianism is "the least selfish doctrine around," whereas Veidt's scheme serves his own glory ("I did it!"), and he ignores the rights of New Yorkers, whom he uses as mere tools to end the Cold War.
  • Rorschach claims deontology ("in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise"), but the chapter identifies three failures: hypocrisy (admiring the Comedian, who attempted to rape the first Silk Spectre, and Truman's Hiroshima/Nagasaki trade-off), dichotomous black-and-white thinking that is not part of Kantian deontology, and failure to respect persons (denying rights such as fair trial).
  • The chapter's stated deeper critique comes from Dr. Manhattan, not Veidt: "'In the end'? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends." Because the future is infinite, utilitarian calculation cannot sum consequences—"you can't crunch the numbers when every one of them turns to infinity."
  • The ultimate target is authoritarianism: superheroes in *Watchmen* are "images of power and authority," and their ideologies are rationalizations of that power. The most moral characters, the two Nite Owls, are "basically nonideological," and the lesson is that "no one, no matter what his or her ideology, should be entrusted with too much power."

Methods

  • Design: a philosophical/textual analysis (a book chapter in *Introducing Philosophy Through Pop Culture*), not an empirical study.
  • Data: close reading of *Watchmen* (with chapter/page citations), Shelley's "Ozymandias," Juvenal's *Satires*, the Tower Commission Report, and works by Bentham, Mill, and Kant.
  • Analysis: pairs each character with an ethical theory (Ozymandias–consequentialism/utilitarianism; Rorschach–deontology), tests fidelity to that theory, then reads both as symptoms of the comic's critique of power.

Limitations

  • Not stated in the paper: the chapter offers no explicit limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: the argument is interpretive rather than empirical, resting on the author's reading of *Watchmen* and of canonical ethical theories; the author himself notes that "Moore and Gibbons don't address these nuances" of utilitarian doctrine, so the critique of utilitarianism is attributed to the author's analysis rather than to the comic's explicit content.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9781394259946.ch21

Cites

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

46 Own interpretation · 3 Sources not found · 1 Own result · 1 No basis given

Show all 7 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 42
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 16
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
44 of 44
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The future is infinite.

    “the future is infinite”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Pain is bad and pleasure is good.

    “Utilitarianism gets its motivation from the basic instinct that pain is bad and pleasure is good.”
2 of 2

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Loftis, J. R.
Corresponding author
Loftis, J. Robert
Venue
Introducing Philosophy Through Pop Culture
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-03-04
Pages
183-190
OpenAlex
W4391624956
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2022: 1
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
Locations
PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Comics and Graphic Narratives
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Ethics, Aesthetics, and Art
Keywords
Watchmen, consequentialism, deontology, means and ends, superheroes, authoritarianism, power and authority, utilitarianism, Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons, critique of power

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review