I see what you mean in that Moore was primarily concerned with the weight of moral perspectives and how they are shaped, if not determined, by personal vantage point and not so much with theologically-motivated philosophical conundrums.

However, whether direct or indirect, Moore does highlight a good query: How could a being so far more advanced than ourselves truly relate to us? After all, the only thing tethering DM to mankind is, as you said, his being a former human. Had DM always existed the way he does, he would not identify with humanity in any recognizable form.

In regards to society’s relationship with such a being, it is clear that Moore suggests that society’s relationship with DM would be very similar to its current relationship with God, driven by self interest and utitlity-based.

And ultimately, it’s also debatable if it’s DM’s god-like attributes or his human qualities that bear the brunt of Moore’s critique. Yes, he’s godlike in his abilities. But, it’s his coldly material rationality/ethics that makes him truly chilling. I don’t think DM is so much a critique of religion, faith, or God as much he’s a critique of human frailties in the hands of someone with too much power. Think of him as perhaps a parallel to Moore’s version of Richard M. Nixon.

Not only is Moore’s indictment of putting godlike abilities in human hands (a la a lot of mainstream superheroes), but he’s also a device for Moore to explore a society’s relationship with such a being. He’s what is held up as the ideal hero in American culture: i.e. a weapon.

There are many aspects of the story that intrigue me, including Moore’s apparent awareness of the world’s depressing cyclical pattern of massive de-population that follows massive overpopulation, but I am compelled to make note of something.

DM’s perspective of humanity and existence as a whole is an obvious metaphor for what a god-like being’s would be, but yet if present in a typical human being, (like Veidt’s for instance), would be considered amoral and/or evil.

I suppose what I’m asking is this: why is it that comic book readers are able to immediately grasp the profound inconsitency of what a supposed God’s viewpoint on humanity would be with his supposed purity, but the rest of modern man cannot?

Obviously, however, Moore was not trying to generate peaceful solutions. His view of the world – and of mankind – is a very bleak view, where people are frequently motivated by selfish and destructive goals and use destructive means, and where there are no happy endings. Only breaks in the misery and despair. From that world view, Veidt’s solution would be horrible and yet in keeping with the nature of mankind: the only way we can stop killing each other is through the death of millions. And even that only buys us a little window of peace before the next war.

That’s why.

But at least in my case the worlds of sci-fi & fantasy do intersect quite heavily.

Funny that; I would have thought there would be more, given how both universes are niche-breakers. Watchmen transcended comics to make it into mainstream sci-fi and Potter transcended kid lit to make it into mainstream fantasy. And they both have messages to convey that takes them a fair distance into mainstream mainstream.

Maybe the answer is that the worlds of fantasy and sci-fi do not intersect?

I enjoyed the posts, btw. I’m hoping you have a few more in you.

I mean they are not abstract principles in the sense of being merely theoretical. As if they were disconnected from the world or from concrete reality. Truth, justice, & love are very real things & have real world impact. In a sense they are abstract but that’s not all they are nor do they remain in the realm of abstractness.

I would argue that truth & justice are not abstract principles, just as love is not an abstract principle.

If they are not abstract principles, what are they?