What's the actual argument against black and white morality?

Compromise isn't grey morality. Black and White morality is the only way to see the world. Without a white target, where then do you aim? In practice we all fail often to hit the target, but because we have a target to aim at, many times we succeed. A "realistic" story is just entertainment.

I thought Ozzy's plan was to unite the world against a literal god?

Give an actual example.

No there was no monster god, that thing was created by Ozzy to trick people. Ozzy was just mad that people had wars and whatnot and thought he was the guy to force humanity into peace. He went nuts alone in the arctic thinking about this so he decided that since people unite against a common foe he would just kill people while masquerading as an alien god every time they had a disagreement thus killing at least as many people anyway. Asinine really.

Bump

There's no use trying to show you. This is one of the things you have to figure out for yourself. You're your own teacher.

The point is that Rorschach's brand of black and white morality is based off Mr. A and the Question, both Ditko characters which are based on the premise that the only reason crime and amoral behavior still exist is because society is too "weak" or corrupt to accept what is evil and what isn't, and that we need truly moral heroes to cut off the bullcrap.
And I get that we all feel the world is unfair at some point, but we let it degenerate to "just take immediate action against whoever is against my beliefs", which is what "black and white morality" means here, it very easily gets out of hand, because, for example, people get scared of someone who acts like that and will inevitably have to go against you to question what exactly gives you the right to act like that.
Rorschach is so obsessed with the continued existence of crime that he blames society at large for letting it exist, in spite of the fact he became a vigilante to protect society. He's driven by rage and does shit like kill the dogs that ate the girl's corpse, even though they're dumb animals who didn't even kill her. He's constantly coping and shifting the goalposts to rationalize whoever he kills as evil because of his obsession with acting always in the right in spite of no longer having the internal compass for doing so and acting on instinct.
The finale is built as an absurd ultimate proof against his mindset, because what Ozzy did is absolutely evil, but if Rorschach brings him to justice he lets people die as a result of the escalation, meaning that there is no perfectly good choice.
Honestly, I don't buy into the arguments of people who say that Ozzy isn't a villain, because he's pretty clearly a megalomaniac who wasted time and resources for the stupid squid plan just so that he could be the one controlling the world. Still, the Rorschach part of the moral quandary is pretty obvious: don't be a bitter moralfag because it's harder than you think and it will drive you insane.

Attached: bravo king.png (1151x600, 1.33M)

>No argument

You don't understand yet. Whatever I tell you, you'll dismiss, You're not open to a different viewpoint, It's something you have to teach yourself.

This. You can't win debates on Yea Forums. They end up with childish name calling until one guy gets tired of how hopeless it is, Have you ever admitted you were wrong on a board? Of course not, nobody does.

myopia in the face of existential threats, which is a big point of the book. Aside from that, not much.

twitter

>Without a white target, where then do you aim?
The existence of grey does not preclude the existence of black and white. There is objective right, and there is objective wrong, but lots of things fall somewhere in between depending on your point of view.

literally just a single example faggot

Agreed. Most everything is life falls on a scale. Either/or thinking is usually a failing.

You just made my point. Your mind is already closed. If you're not open to a different viewpoint, there is no point in wasting time with you.

Maybe you will learn better in time, Many people do.

>noo i wont make an argument because uuhhhh we're on Yea Forums and you wont listen to my totally valid argument

who dictates whats black and white?
You?
when are you ever impartial and always right?

There is no objective right and wrong. How do you quantify it?

Wrong again. You are not presenting your case. You simply want someone to say something you can dismiss. you're not ready.

Literally one example

Don't you understand still? You'll dismiss anything I say. You're not open to learning. Maybe in time you'll see,.

Rape-product baby born to a teenage girl of meager means. She is fat and stupid and isn't known to be pregnant until fetus is fully/near fully formed.
What do?
>a. Kill baby.
>b. Force girl to raise baby.
>c. Force girl's parents to raise baby.
>d. Give baby up for adoption.
>e. Throw baby in dumpster.
>f. Put baby in basket and float down river.
>g. Eat baby.
>h. Other.

>He can't even argue in good faith

probably abort the baby, obviously its not right to kill the baby, but it wouldnt help anybody to keep the baby. adoption is preferable though.

List one example.

oscillating between two extremes is hardly productive.

I can't explain it any simpler than I already have,.

you end up killing yourself like rorschach when faced with a dilemma for which neither black or white is acceptable

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
>Russell's paradox shows that every set theory that contains an unrestricted comprehension principle leads to contradictions.

Black and white morality inevitably fails because -any- rigid attempt at categorization eventually falls apart, because categories are a creation of the human imagination and not part of objective reality, where everything is actually just energy existing at different states

GG NO RE

Attached: Bertrand_Russell_transparent_bg.png (1255x1859, 1.65M)

First of all, this is more a question for /his/ but given you posted a pic of Rorschach I'm okay with it. Second of all, Black and white morality misses a lot of the nuance and tends to see all crimes as equally vile. For instance, swiping a Kit-Kat bar from the gas station and kicking a pregnant woman down a flight of stairs in order to cripple her and kill the baby inside are both seen as "crime" on the "crime or innocent" binary, so they would warrant equal punishment. Anyone can tell you that those two things don't warrant equal punishment and the pregnant kicking is a far more serious crime. The only correct way to handle Black and White morality is to temper it with a copious amount of mercy and lenience. Which we, as humans, are mostly incapable of, generally people get upset when they see someone else get off the hook for the same thing they did, or see someone trying to game the system and plead for forgiveness every time and then do the same thing again. Only someone with perfect wisdom could ever make it happen, and we, as humans, are incapable of perfect wisdom. We would only fail such a morality system and be left as hypocrites.

yeah but moral dilemma are part of human construction too. and youre a faggot

Stealing from a rich person to feed a poor child

Look up what "triage" is. Emergency Room personnel have to quickly decide who to treat and who to let go. It's never clear which way they should decide, there are too many factors and variables complicating things,. While you read this, many ER doctors and nurses had to do triage,

Bump

this

>murder is bad until you have to defend yourself
>self defense is good until you're drafting children to fight in wars that might have been avoidable
>stealing is bad until you have to do something to balance out systemic resource issues
>rape is bad unless they're into it
Etc etc, nuance is the death of black/white mentality

Attached: D6-a_dVUEAEwTnM.png (546x458, 11.93K)

Whether or not it is ok to use physical violence to accomplish a goal. If you add any other criteria then the idea of it being black and white morality does not fit. Either it is always moral to use force to accomplish a goal or it is never ok to use violence to accomplish a goal. If using physical violence is *sometimes* moral based on the circumstance then it isn’t black or white, it is grey.

And Abortion is grey.

The poor child is young Hitler, boom next question

Even Hitler deserves mercy, user. Every time an evil person is shown kindness and he continues to do evil it "heaps coals upon his head" which could either mean it makes his punishment in the next life more gruesome or it weighs on his conscience and eventually turns him to refrain from evil. Who knows, maybe if Hitler had been shown more kindness as a child he might have stayed in art school and been a successful painter? We know Hitler was abused badly as a kid, his father beat him to the point that he spent a couple months bedridden as a child from busted up legs, and that he had to watch his mother receive beatings too.

But then again, Hitler was also massively incompetent as a leader and spent much of his reign as dictator hopped up on amphetamines and making stupid plans like shoving the Black Forest full of raccoons, or pulling officers from the battlefields every few weeks to redesign their uniforms over and over again. If Hitler stayed an artist someone worse and more pragmatic like Goebbels might have come to power instead and made the war in Europe even nastier. But I like to be optimistic and think that Hitler's personality itself is what led him to be dictator and without him Germany would have never been radicalized the way it was, and kindness could have made a difference.

Attached: dont fuck with artists.jpg (693x5906, 985.64K)

Reality.

Self defense is not murder. You could have said killing, but you didn't.

You have autism

You have poor diction.

Murder is killing for evil reasons or no reason at all. Self-defense is not evil.

I'll dick you if you're not careful

You would like that wouldn't you faggot

Doesn't sound like you're being careful, you clearly want to get dicked

Fiction isn't reality

See why I said there is no point getting into a conversation with him?

But they don't have to, not all the time, which OP felt was the case. Nobody wants to humanize Hitler. Perfectly okay for him (and Trump, Putin, etc.) to be characterized as objectively evil by the mainstream. No one is against grey morality as a concept, but its over-saturation and frank excess, to the point where no one is ever really happy and the baseline is misery and all we can do survive, isn't really a good place for pop culture to be in.

user that was 20 minutes ago

Everybody thinks they are the heroes of their own story. Even tyrants and the worst kind of serial murderes can claim they are in a mission from god amd that you are evil for trying to stop them.

It sounds nice in theory but in practice it fails because there's no objective arbiter of morality and the information available to people is imperfect. It could be that there is a true moral standard that all human beings, or even living creatures, could be held to, but the imperfection of humans prevents us from attaining it. Such a thing is only possible for a fictional character like Ditko's Question, whose moral compass is always correct.

>It could be that there is a true moral standard that all human beings, or even living creatures, could be held to, but the imperfection of humans prevents us from attaining it.
/thread