V for Vendetta & Metaphysics of Morals

V for Vendetta is a film by James McTeigue. The film is set in a near-futuristic London, at a time where a totalitarian government has formed and Britain seems to have emerged as the leading world power at the cost of the freedom of it's citizens. The film attempts to call attention to the possibilities of a government gaining too much power through fear. While heavy-handed political symbology is used throughout, (see the Catholic symbols used to resemble the Nazi Swastika) the film uses a more interpersonal dramatic story line to gain it’s largest effect. After a run in with a zealot in a Guy Fawkes mask(V), the character Evey finds herself in the middle of his revolutionary plot.

Throughout the film, V is the primary force upon the plot. There’s a shot of him pushing a large group of dominos down that is very much representative of how the plot works. This also creates one of the films largest yet soft-spoken dilemmas. The question must arise; who gives V the right to be the decider of the fate of several individuals and a nation? This is even the question on which V laments as he dies before his plan is finally carried out by his protege of sorts, Evey.

This brings about the very question of morality. (ethics, rather) There’s a pervasive question that is; what is the definition of good and bad, right and wrong? Immanuel Kent writes upon the ideas of morality in Groundwork for the Metaphysical. As we question right and wrong we have to consider the empirical attitude it would take to make such decision, though we must; “a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition even of our worthiness to be happy” (Kant, 258). This idea contradicts another idea of what morality is and what it’s value is based on what it can achieve. While V is working to free the people of Britain, he’s still somewhat unsure of whether or not he is doing the right thing, or rather if he is someone who even deserves to do so.  This is quite a contrast with what one must suppose this character does intend. This can be more accurately captured with another quote from Kent, “That judgement rather is based on the idea that our existence has another and much worthier purpose, for which, and not for happiness, our reason is properly intended, an end which, therefore, is the supreme condition to which our private ends must for the most part be subordinated” (Kant, 259). 

I think there’s no way to be certain of any true moral reason to be sure or unsure of whether or not larger ideological concepts are good or bad. It’s very difficult to weigh the true value of good and bad based solely on information one could not possibly attain regarding self and community. The attempt can only be made to do best and to hand that power to the majority.