While considering our past discussions about "Justice" and morality...
Do you think that V's methods are the best way to bring down the government? Do the ends justify the means, or is V a terrorist himself? Explain some of your thoughts about how to (properly, morally) go against the established order. What is permissible?
Do you think that V's methods are the best way to bring down the government? Do the ends justify the means, or is V a terrorist himself? Explain some of your thoughts about how to (properly, morally) go against the established order. What is permissible?
I don't think V's methods are the best way to bring down a government. I think the best way is to have a passive aggressive protest initially (just like the civil rights movement with MLK Jr). With enough people, I feel like you can at least convince the government to change a few things. If the government begins to get violent with you to stop the protests however, then you get your weapons of mass destruction and take down the fed. I do not think V is a terrorist however because it's not like he just hates the country of England, he just wants a justifiable government for his country. While his methods aren't right in my opinion, I do like how he is trying to rally the country of England together against a corrupt government.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it's the best way, but I don't disagree with V. Peaceful protests have proven, throughout history, to successfully resolve people vs. Government conflicts, but sometimes people won't listen unless you get their attention. Some people need to learn the "hard way" because they are naturally a stubborn person. I believe that both violent and nonviolent approaches have there pros AND con's and although I always (no matter what choice has been made) think that there is a better way or method over what is being done. This is why I agree with V's choice of protest, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be an even BETTER option to go with to get the results he desires.
ReplyDeleteI do not belive that it is the best way to resolve the issue however I believe that in some situations you have to do something big to get peoples attention. V isn't a terrorist in my opinion because he's doing what he things best for London. The only thing that I don't believe is morally okay is the killing. I believe he could do something to get the people's attention without murder. I feel like he skipped the peaceful resolution and went straight to the violent one instead of trying to resolve it quietly. I agree with his thoughts but I would go about the situation differently.
ReplyDeleteI think V's ways of bringing down the government should be considered borderline terrorism. Although he is fighting for what he believes in, the way he is approaching it with killing innocent people to make a statement to me that seems wrong. Much like Josh, I think there are better ways to protest. With examples like MLK Jr. and Ghandi, they both used peaceful protesting to get their words spread. They caused no harm to others and they eventually got what they intended for. While MLK Jr. inspired the Civil Rights Movement, Ghandi helped rid the insane salt tax his people was receiving from Britian. If V went for a more civil way of protesting, I would have no problem with his methods.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that he is going the right way in taking down the government but I don't think he would be classified as a terrorist. the actions he's taking is to show the government and the people that life now isn't how it should be. He taking a stand and as you figure out the only people he's killed are all linked together. So far the people he's killed I wouldn't count as innocent because they had to do with the experiment in the Detention center. in his mind its morally right what he's doing, but I have to agree with Kaytlin that if V went to a more civil way of protesting his methods work be more understandable.
ReplyDeleteGood comments so far!
ReplyDeleteWHAT IS PERMISSIBLE (if what V is doing isn't)?
As far as taking down the government goes, I personally believe the people have a right to do so, especially if said government isn't holding up its end of the social contract. The social contract theory is that the government will protect its people from harm, and in return the people will give up some rights that they would normally have in a society autonomous from government. I don't believe that a government that breeds ignorant people and lies to them about the clear and present dangers of the world is protecting them. They're merely lying to them. Once the truth catches up with said country, the people will blame the government for leaving them in the dark, and rightfully so. Therefore, I think what V is doing to take down the government is permissible, according to the social contract theory. However, in a moral sense, I personally don't think V is doing what is correct. If I consider Kant's thoughts on morality and "intent", I would guess that what V is doing is wrong. However, we don't yet know exactly why he is going about things this way. What's his motivation? We know he has a dark past, but why? What adversity has he suffered? The scene with him screaming in the flaming and devastated area is still a bit unclear, at least at this point in the movie. However, I'm going to say that he probably has a pretty good reason for his actions, considering the fact that he seems quite passionate about justice and the good of the people. He seems to be someone who cares about fairness, and I do as well. As long as he's legitimately looking out for the interests of the whole community and protecting them from a corrupt government, rather than becoming a hero to be glorified, I believe what he is doing is permissible.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is permissible to rebel against a government that is not following the social contract, but for me that means peacefully petition, protest, assemble, etc. I do not believe that violence should be used in any shape form or fashion. In the case of V, I believe that he is going about it in all the wrong way. I do not believe that we can overlook the fact that he has killed people and what has made him the judge of human life in the first place whether he thinks that what those people did was wrong or not. I also believe that if you are faithful in a cause and someone takes violent action on you, it is actually more impressive for you to turn the other check than to lower yourself to their level and take place in the same inhumane and brutal actions. There is always going to be a better way of doing something than what is going on now but I believe that V should have gone with a more passive aggressive attitude than he is taking.
ReplyDeleteI agree with josh, I definitely think V is not a terrorist and his approach was good and got the attention he so desired. Also, I believe the traumatic experiences V went through in the detention center helps him justify the killings, but I personally think they deserve what they got. I think if the government got to such power then it will be permissible if he/she makes it a success but it might not be permissible until its a success.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in life there is an absolute force of good and an absolute force of evil, and that our actions become moral or immoral depending on which of these absolute principles they propagate. In this case, V is acting in order to further the causes of justice and freedom, and so despite the fact that he is killing, I believe that he is morally vindicated. Ultimately, in a regime as oppressive as the one in the movie, there are really only two options: fight or be silent. I think the true immoral act would be allowing the repression to continue, standing idly by as people are subjugated by the looming terror of government torture. There is no passive way to dismantle a system that actively oppresses everyone who is a part of it.
ReplyDeleteI do not think V has the best method of bringing down the government. I think he is killing way too many people and not focusing on freeing the minds of the citizens as much. He is working for revenge more than he is working towards a better life for everyone. EV said it best after viewing his favorite movie. She felt sad for the girl because all the mans attention was out towards getting revenge rather than on her. Some foreshadowing right there!
ReplyDeleteI think that V’s way to bring down the government is the best way to bring down a government like the one in the movie. I think that in this situation you are going to have to do something drastic to get the people in that country to rebel against the government. An oppressive government like that one can’t be fought peacefully but violence must occur to get that governments attention. I think that in this situation the end does justify the means because everything else has failed so something must be done to get freedom for the people. I think that it is difficult to morally go against the government because if the government is corrupt they will do everything in their power to discredit you and to try to stop you from gaining a following. I think that if the government has crossed the line of corruption and is actively trying to hurt the people that they are over, then the people have the right to use any means necessary to overthrow the government. I think that just like most people would choose to fight back against an attacker rather than just let their attacker kill them you are fighting back against the government who is attacking your rights and your human dignities.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that he is doing any good. He is killing a lot of people and giving himself a bad image. Gandhi successfully led a revolution without violence so why can't V? If he had the people behind his back, he could change the english government. He is bringing a lot of destruction that no one wants.
ReplyDeleteHave you posted on time?
ReplyDeleteI don't think v's way of taking down the gov is moral but I believe it will work. He just wants to take down the gov and he doesn't care how he does it as long as the gov is over thrown. I don't think it's moral how he is going around and killing people. He shouldn't just take it upon himself, he should get a ton of people to get together and maybe protest and over throw then that way. Although for him there is a personal thing about it. Because of what they did to him and the others that died he has a personal relationship so it is different towards him then others. He is defending everyone and getting revenge so it is still not moral but I just might have done the same..
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's the best way to to bring down the government I do and don't agree with it justifying the means because he was tortured but one wrong doesn't make a right, because he was tortured doesn't mean I'm going to kill the people that were at head office. He is killing more people than needed, he needs to focus on the better for the people and not revenge. I thought his main goal was to over throw the government, but it doesn't seem to be that way
ReplyDeleteI believe V's methods of taking down the government is the best option there is. The ends do justify the means and in the end V sadly is still a terrorist. In the end V is still a monster of a person but, this needed to happen to take down the government. After V secedes then he will be obsolete and others will be needed to pick up the pieces to recreate Britain's society for a more free place. It is permissible for V to play the part of an intellectual terrorist to give other moral and enlightened people to recreate the government. It is sad to see V be so intellectual and free with his ideas and actions and then be able to do a lot of immoral acts that from one angle can be seen as just but, with a hint of insanity that drives this character to unveil the tyrannical government and help burn it to the ground so, that a new one may sprout into a more enlightened government .
ReplyDeleteI believe there are many other ways in which he could take down the government, although they may not be as fast-acting and effective.Therefore, even though it is the best, quickest option for V, I don't think that it is morally permissible. But at the same time, I think that the ends do justify the means. So even though he is being immoral and taking down all of these enemies, he is (overall) doing it for the right reason: to give a voice to those who thought that they didn't have a voice anymore. So after all is said and done, I think that the morality of saving the citizens of London actually outweighs the immoral acts which V is committing. (But it does not ignore the fact that he is going about giving them a voice in a very immoral way)
ReplyDeleteI feel like V ways for bringing down the government is unique, because the most he's threatening to do is blow up a building, and he's allowing society to decided what's the right thing to do themselves, he just advertised it to them, I think its a clever way. V isn't a terrorist, because he's only killing the people who caused him the suffering, its revenge on specifically those people, its not mass killings or random citizens, their people from his past. As far as going against the order, I couldn't think of a more clever way, but don't think there is a morally correct way to go against it at all, and it wouldn't be permissible, even though its wrong, I would just follow the status quo, and not try to get involved, cause there's not correct way to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh, history has proven that peaceful protests have succeeded. Now I am all for using brilliant plans, like V does, to bring down the government, but I know there are easier, and less tragic, ways to bring down the gov't. I don't think that V is a terrorist because instead of trying to hurt thousands of people, he is trying to save them. He is killing all the people that have done wrong to others, so he is carrying out his vendetta against the government. I believe that sometimes violence seems like the only way to overcome powerful evil. Basically you have to fight fire with fire. To be honest, I think anything becomes permissible when evil becomes this powerful. I would do anything and everything to try and make things right.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe V's actions are justified and I do not believe his past justifies killing anyone either, but I do believe because of what he has gone through he has some justification for wanting to murder people, but not for actually doing it. At the same time I do not think he is a terrorist, mostly because he is combating a terrorist type government. Which can in the end make him a hero.
ReplyDeleteAll posts above have been read and entered...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh, it is not the best way, but the best way is not always the way that works. I believe that with what they did to him that he is not a terrorist and that his actions are justified. I believe that to go against the established order that you must first get a following because like we saw in the ted talk, a lone person can not do much but as he gains followers people will follow more easily. If the government needs to be fought against than I think that almost anything should be permissible because it needs action.
ReplyDeleteEntered...
ReplyDeleteNo. He does not handle it in a sane way. Killing people and making all sorts of destruction is not effective. Yes he was doing it for the right cause, but it was not the best way. I do not know how I would handle things if I was V, but I would not have done the things that he had done. A nice petition or everyone straight up leaving the country seems more effective.
ReplyDelete