Moral Ambiguity in V for Vendetta

V for Vendetta written by Allan Moore and illustrated David Lloyd is set in a dystopian not-too-distant future in a totalitarian state in the 1980’s. Just after a nuclear war has taken place, Africa and continental Europe seem absolutely shattered and Britain is on the verge of economic collapse.  

The protagonist “V” (a shadowy radical anarchist) attempts to destroy that government ruled by Fascist High Chancellor Adan Susan, who rules through fear and intimidation. Great Britain is no longer safe, and the fascist regime has set up concentration camps for anyone who is considered undesirable for the leaders.  Furthermore, by intervening media channels, the government filters information to manage citizens’ behaviours and opinions.

Although “V” is mentioned in media as a “dangerous terrorist”, we can see at the beginning of the story that the protagonist saves Evey a 16-year-old girl. Everything V does in order to fight the government has usually been associated with a “moral dilemma” of whether his hostile behaviour is detrimental or beneficial.

In my opinion, V’s behaviour is morally ambiguous, because on one hand, some people rationalize the atrocities he commits just for the sake of a “higher goal” (perceived as Liberation). On the other hand, he does kill hundreds of people, bombs the parliament and so on. (Perceived as “Terrorism”)

First of all, we need to understand moral ambiguity is usually the result of uncertainty. What we do is that we question ourselves regarding how we should feel or react to specific actions or situations and, as there is a gap between the intentions of the author and the audience’s reaction. When moral ambiguity occurs, the readers are not openly communicated about what is right or wrong causing confusion in the audience.

  

Is it everything we do just right or wrong? It is Good vs. Evil? There seems to be a blurred line between them. In V for Vendetta, V fights for freedom (this should be considered right, shouldn’t it?), but HOW DOES V DO IT? It is done through killing (the innocent and guilty ones), capturing and torturing people. Such actions are not of a hero, but V believes it is right! It is for the good of the country.

On the other hand, Eric Finch does kill V, because he thinks he is doing right as V does not believe in Fascism. Moore has intentionally established a context where THERE ARE NO MORAL CERTAINTIES WHATSOEVER. There is no black and white in our lives, and I don’t think there will be as we are constantly dealing with an internal fight about what is wrong and what is right.

In your opinion, to what extent do the ends justify the means?

References

Moore, Alan y David Lloyd. V for Vendetta. DC COMICS, 1989.

“The Ethics of Ambiguity” Simone de Beauvoir (1947). In marxists.org. Retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/ambiguity/ch03.htm#s5