I was listening to the soundtrack tonight, as I do frequently lately, and I started wondering why I like it so much. Or most of Joss Whedon's stuff, for that matter. (I can't say "all" anymore, not feeling Dollhouse just yet. That may change. Buffy wasn't so hot it's first season.) I realized it's because his stuff is rife with characters battling with ambiguity in their lives, particularly morally.
Angel - vampire with a soul. He's a good guy... sort of. He's also a vampire, which makes him a bloodsucking fiend. And geez, the whole final season was one huge moral ambiguity.
Dr Horrible - Evil Genius that simply wants to change the world and isn't keen on the idea of murdering to accomplish the goal. He wants to see change in the world and the only way he can see that happening is if he rules it. And he passionately loves a girl who also wants to make the world better, she's just doing it the way that is morally acceptable.
The question of ends justifying the means comes up when I discuss Watchmen with (intelligent) people that have seen/read it. I love the discussion and I usually take the side of the justification, mostly because it really gets people's hackles up. But it's also just a discussion that I can't seem to resolve in my mind. I prefer to actually err on the side of ends not justifying the means, but there are times when I still wonder. If Dr Horrible really did rule the world and in the end the "symptom" of homelessness was solved, would that be a bad thing?
Loss of freedom in exchange for near utopia? But in the end, how much freedom do we really have that we'd lose under a supreme dictator?
Okay, I've thrown out some purposely vague points. Discuss!!
