"Brave New World", "Brave New World" and "Watchmen" all use their dystopian worlds to engage in moral discussion, critically evaluate the morality that the world considers “correct.” In the face of destruction, the novels' characters must evaluate their morality, the correct course of action that will sustain humanity is unclear. Aldous Huxley, John Wyndham, and Alan Moore invite us each to examine how the world is behaving now in order to avoid devastation in the future. Their imagined post-apocalyptic realities attempt to keep humanity's vanity from falling into the abyss. If we examine our views now, we can prevent, for example, a possible autocracy of control: no one will need to ask the question "Who monitors the guards?" (Chapter 1, p.9, panel 7)#. In each novel, humanity itself is on the brink of extinction. The underlying Cold War tensions in "Watchmen" and "The Day of the Triffids" show how human vanity and the tendency of individuals and nations to consider themselves "better" or "more important" than others others create the potential for disaster. As a result, man is reminded of his own contingency. Because of the arrogance of their creators, these human empires are contingent and easy to suppress. Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley may proclaim that he is “the king of kings,” but there remains “nothing else.” Man's vanity is ultimately his downfall and the reason for humanity's volatility and fragility. The crisis in each of these dystopian novels raises questions of morality. While Sir Thomas More's "utopia" offers the solution of an imagined perfect society, which contrasts with his 16th century civilization, these dystopian novels, conversely, focus on the negative of the current moral value system and take it to its logical conclusion. Say no. to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Although writing in very different eras, for each author the central theme is a debate about morality. Huxley's Brave New World, published in 1932, lies on the border between dystopia and utopia. The novel's moral system seems justified to the inhabitants of its civilization, but seems decidedly dystopian to the majority of readers. Unlike George Orwell's "1984", in which the Oceanic continent is clearly imperfect, the society created by Huxley is significantly more ambiguous. Huxley's advanced society revolves around the concept that "everyone is happy these days" # (p. 79) because the world is supposed to be perfect. . Additionally, everyone is encouraged to take a happiness-boosting drug called “soma”2 (p.78). However, some parts of the belief system are presented negatively. The novel suggests that distributing antidepressants to the population is probably not the solution to society's problems. Tom Andrews argues that “to be considered a dystopia [an imaginary place], it has to be an expression of fear” (p.ix). By exaggerating contemporary opinions, Huxley suggests that ultimately our happiness will depend on antidepressants. This aspect of “Brave New World” certainly expresses fear and can therefore be considered decidedly dystopian. Thomas More suggests, similarly, that happiness and pleasure should not be based on artificial substances or objects. Utopians claim that “once accustomed to [artificial pleasure], you lose all capacity for real pleasure and are simply obsessed with its illusory forms” (p. 74). More asks: “WhatIs he one of those people who accumulate superfluous wealth for the sole purpose of enjoying looking at it? Is their pleasure real, or simply a form of illusion? 3 (p.75). he gives this example, equivalent to soma, as an ultimately detrimental pleasure. However, instead of just analyzing contemporary values ​​negatively, More provides a more positive narrative. It makes a direct comparison between today's society and utopian society, while Brave New World casts a disapproving light on contemporary values ​​by advancing those values ​​towards a disastrous future. More gives an account of two “real pleasures” 3 (p.76). he argues that “mental pleasures include the satisfaction one obtains from understanding something” and that “physical pleasures…are those which fill the whole organism with a conscious feeling of pleasure” 3 (p.76) . More highlights societal issues that transcend the 16th century, but offers a positive solution in the form of his utopian island. On the other hand, “Brave New World” offers a solution by describing its opposite. Huxley's society aims to promote universal "happiness" by promoting sexual promiscuity. Common morality is reversed in “Brave New World.” Sexual promiscuity is far from being taboo: it is almost obligatory. As the character Fanny states, “it is horribly wrong to continue… with one man” 2 (p. 34). She said to Lenin: “it should be a little lighter”2 (p. 36). The Huxley Company was designed to keep everyone happy at all times. It is believed that sexual freedom will contribute to the general well-being of the people. By “having” 2 (p.38) whoever one wants, no one is “forced to experience a long time interval between the awareness of a desire and its realization”, thus sparing people from “strong… horrible emotions” . 2 (p.38). However, although More concedes that “sexual intercourse” 3 (p. 77) is a form of “physical pleasure” 3 (p. 76), he does not go as far as Huxley suggests society can go. “Brave New World” amplifies changing attitudes toward sex and implies that eventually people will “have” 2 (p. 38) who they choose. The sanctity of marriage will be destroyed and the spirituality of sexual relations will become redundant. Huxley's world goes so far as to encourage "erotic play" 2 (p. 27) among young children. Huxley's contemporary morality is under threat and he seems to warn society through his seemingly utopian world. The fundamental concept behind this sexual activity is summarized in the phrase “everyone belongs to everyone” 2 (p. 37). According to the societal codes of the novel, solidarity is tolerated and being alone is prohibited. This premise allows and encourages everyone to participate in promiscuous sexual relationships, which is believed to remove unfulfilled desires from the human psyche that cause distress. The phrase “everyone belongs to everyone” suggests socialist values. In the history of the novel, the countries of the world have been united into one harmonious continent, in the communist way. While More's "utopia" is arguably a beneficial communist system, Huxley's world seems to focus on the negation of human freedoms that such a system invokes on a large scale. When “Utopia” More describes a “shopping center in the middle of [each of the city's districts]… [in which] the products of each household are collected in warehouses, then distributed according to their type between different stores” 3 (p. 60). This system of pooling resources closely resembles communist collective farms. Huxley's society once again appears to advance ideas, in this case Marxist socialism, to their logical conclusion andnegative. The novel's brave new world sometimes resembles a utopian world in which everyone is happy thanks to the communist system; however, the novel ultimately ends with “a pair of… dangling feet… just beneath the crown of the arcade” 2 (p.229). When the savage hangs himself at the denouement, the novel highlights the problems that Huxley's society produces from concepts of sexual freedom and functioning almost like a socialist society. In "Day of the Triffids", published in 1951, traditional morality is challenged in discussions of repopulation. Since everyone has become blind, it seems necessary to start having as many sighted babies as possible. When monogamous relationships in the “Brave New World” are not considered “correct”. A similar attitude is also present in Wyndham's novel. Dr Vorless says: “We can afford to support a limited number of women who cannot see, because they will have babies who can see. We cannot afford to support men who cannot see.” he concludes: “In our new world, babies then become much more important than husbands”# (p. 120). Traditional loyalties have become redundant due to circumstances. Josella thinks that “if [she were] those people over there… [she] would have to divide us into lots. [She] should say that any man who marries a sighted girl must also take two blind girls”4 (p. 124). People are forced by their circumstances to change their attitudes toward sex and marriage. Faced with adversity, an intense moral debate begins. After Doctor Vorless's speech, a woman asks: "Are we to believe that the last speaker advocates free love... he asks if he is suggesting the abolition of the Marriage Act" 4 (p. 121). his moral position competes with the pragmatism advocated by Vorless. Not all moral codes can be correct. Wyndham shows that on the brink of destruction, complex moral decisions must be made to survive. The woman affirms: “There is always the law of God” (p. 121). 4. She pursues blind faith in religion and does not adapt to circumstances, which will lead to her final downfall when she later creates a Christian society that is destroyed. “Brave New World” similarly suggests that faith in God is counterintuitive in modern civilization because it is “ancient.” Both authors question the reality of God and belief in Him in modern life. Mustapha Mond says: “[religious texts] speak of God hundreds of years ago. Not about God now”2 (p.204). Religion is outdated and the persistence of beliefs stupefies modern society. Instead, the society Huxley imagined places its trust in the work of Sigmund Freud and Henry Ford. These numbers represent the human ideas that revolutionized the world and the way we perceive it. The inhabitants of the “Brave New World” have combined these two figures in the concept of “Our Ford” 2 (p.27) and sometimes, when they speak of psychology “Our Freud” 2 (p.33), which represents everything what the two men created and developed. Freudian ideas such as the Oedipus complex influence Huxley's civilization and are fundamental to the novel's society. Mustapha Mond states: “Our Freud was the first to reveal the terrible dangers of family life” 2 (p.33). As a result of this theory, each human being is developed "in vitro" in such a way as to eliminate the "mothers" and "fathers" whose presence is supposed to fill the world with "madness and suicide" 2 (p. 33). The abolition of marriage and perhaps the destruction of the family unit is the destination of Doctor Vorless's pragmatic society in "The Day of theTriffids.” The philosophy may be considered “right,” given the situation, but it is obviously not morally ideal. Wyndham evaluates society's current moral values ​​and concludes that they could lead to catastrophe. It turns out that the widespread blindness that has struck Earth's population is due to a malfunction in the satellite weapon. The protagonist, Bill Masen, says that there were "an unknown number of satellite weapons continually circling the Earth" and asks us to "assume that one type was built specifically to emit radiation that our eyes would not stand… Suppose then that there has been a mistake, or perhaps an accident… which causes some of these things to explode…” 4 (p.247). By creating a dangerous universe of satellite weapons, Wyndham describes the Russian-American tension during the Cold War, which saw the invention of continental ballistic missiles (heCBMs) and other destructive satellite-operated devices. When Masen deduces, “we blamed ourselves” 4 (p. 247). Wyndham implies that humanity has become carried away by technological advances and that some in particular have the potential to undo human existence. he brings the nuclear arms race to its dystopian conclusion in "The Day of the Triffids", emphasizing the need to recognize nuclear weapons as a serious threat to humanity. “Watchmen” shares this concern with the advancement of technology and in particular the threat of nuclear fallout. . The conclusion of Chapter 4 quotes Albert Einstein: “The release of atomic power changed everything except our way of thinking…The solution to this problem lies in the heart of humanity. If only he had known, he should have become a watchmaker”1 (Chapter 4, p.28). Although humans have created weapons with enormous destructive capabilities, we have failed to understand the need for extreme caution. The fact that Einstein wished he had nothing to do with the creation of the atomic bomb highlights its disturbing nature. “Watchmen” encapsulates the darker element of nuclear weaponry through the motif of the Doomsday Clock. Throughout the novel, the clock moves closer and closer to midnight as the nuclear apocalypse draws closer and closer. “Day of the Triffids” and “Watchmen” use their imagined dystopias to show how human technologies have advanced a little too far and that unless a dramatic shift in values ​​occurs, disaster will ensue. The historical context of the novels may explain the emphasis on nuclear technologies. In 1953, two years after the publication of "Day of the Triffids", the Doomsday Clock was set at two minutes to midnight, the closest the world had ever been to theoretical destruction, which may explain Wyndham's concern about nuclear holocaust. Additionally, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists stated in 1980, six years before "Watchmen" was first published, that "[the Soviet Union and the United States] behaved like what might best be described as “nucleoholics” – drunks who continue to insist that the drink consumed is positively “the last”, but who can always find a good excuse for “just one more round”. What ultimately causes the downfall of humanity in each novel is the vanity of man. The nuclear arms race in "Day of the Triffids" and Veidt's decision to bomb Manhattan in "Watchmen" stem from the belief of a person or faction of people that they are "better" or "more capable » to make decisions than others. More asserts that "no living creature is naturally greedy, except byfear of want – or in the case of human beings, vanity,” which he defines as “the idea that you are better than people if you can display more superfluous possessions.” that they cannot” (p. 61). For More, the problem of human vanity must be erased to create his utopia. Utopians are freed from this need to impress or improve other inhabitants, which More believes makes them purer and function better than citizens of other nations. Huxley reveals a similar view through the exaggeration of current values, instead of explicitly stating the flaws of human nature. The oligarchy of "world controllers" in "Brave New World" shows human vanity at its worst, as they consider themselves more capable of making decisions than anyone else. Although More's society operates under a similar system, he gives a positive view of society. In “Utopia,” “the population is divided into groups of thirty households, each of which elects an official” (p.51). More concludes that a communal society maintained by a few controllers could be the solution to the problems of government, but suggests that it be elected by secret ballot, unlike Huxley's autocracy. The government in the novel seems utopian, as it unites the world under one way of thinking, but ultimately destroys human freedom and prevents any other way of thinking. Huxley highlights the harmful consequences of excessive technological advancement as another failure of human vanity. . Perhaps influenced by a first-hand look at commercialism in America while writing "Brave New World," Huxley shows how attempts to make life easier through technological advances can go too far. Creations such that the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Center manufacture and condition babies in different castes. They are divided into one of five different social classes: Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and semi-idiotic Epsilons. Every baby is created with a predestined class choice. Their lives are manufactured for the sole purpose of serving as a cog in the social machine. Technological advances such as the “Bokanovsky process” have made the production of human beings possible on a large scale. “A bokanovskified egg will bud, proliferate, divide. From eight to ninety-six buds, and each bud will become a perfectly formed embryo…Grow ninety-six human beings where only one grew before” (p.4). All resulting humans are genetically and physically identical. Humans are conditioned to enjoy the work they are forced to undertake. Life is so easy that it almost becomes pointless. Each person is designed to serve a purpose in society. Humanity is self-perpetuating simply for the sake of existing. The individual is made redundant because everyone is conditioned to serve society. Yet everyone in the novel is “happy,” because the World Controllers have removed anything that could lead to unhappiness. The company is moving forward perfectly and efficiently. All human technological progress, which seems to make life too simple and undermine the concept of freedom, means that everyone leads an arguably perfect existence. Thanks to Soma, they are satisfied and play their role in society perfectly. The limitation of individuality and freedom of expression is the price that society must ultimately pay for perfection, and as Mustapha Mond states, “happiness must be paid” (p. 201). The sacrifice of freedom must be made for society to function in the way Huxley envisioned. This sacrifice is what blurs the line between utopia and dystopia in “Brave New World”. The novel seems dystopian inextent that basic human freedoms have been taken away, but the world actually seems utopian because of the perfect harmony and happiness present at all levels of society. David Bradshaw argues that "whichever interpretation the reader favors, it seems more likely that the composition of Brave New World proved so problematic for Huxley... because he did not really know whether he was writing satire, a prophecy or plan” (p.xxiv). Bradshaw highlights the novel's ambivalence. The novel's protagonist, Bernard Marx, serves as a case study in a dysfunction of the system. Marx is decidedly unhappy in his life and shows that the novel seems to lean towards a sort of satirical prophecy of the future. The society imagined by Huxley fails to satisfy him. Although Huxley differs slightly, Wyndham and Moore's dystopias better fit More's definition of human vanity, regarding "superfluous wealth." The underlying theme of "Day of the Triffids" and "Guardians" is the conflict between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the United States. Each stockpiles nuclear weapons in an attempt to outdo the other. The vanity of each nation, in thinking that it was better and stronger than the other, meant that “the margin of survival [shrinked] horribly…from August 6, 1945” (p. 115). Due to the rivalry between the two nations for superiority, global security was under serious threat at the time Wyndham and Moore wrote their writings. Wyndham suggests that “the fatal slippage” would occur “sooner or later” and that when it did, “balance would have been lost and destruction would have been unleashed” (p. 116). “Destruction” refers to nuclear fallout, because it would have taken just a simple “lapse” in judgment in a moment of hysteria or, as shown in “The Day of the Triffids,” an accident to unleash nuclear devastation. in the world. Wyndham's dystopia is a hypothetical reality, which serves as an example of what can happen to the world. "Watchmen" uses a similar theme, but presents it differently in graphic form. Throughout Chapter 3, the symbol of radioactivity is used as a motif to represent the ever-present threat of a nuclear winter. The chapter cover (Chapter 3, p.1) depicts a rising skull-shaped smoke obscuring the words "FALLOUT SheLTER", making them appear as "ALL heL". These images give the same warning as Wyndham’s “[narrow] margin of survival,” but represented graphically; the result of the nuclear arms race is the possibility of a simple “slip” causing the release of “ALL heL”. The paranoia about nuclear war is, in each case, driven by the implications of the simple human vanity of the USSR and the United States. Vanity is the fundamental human flaw in each of these novels, leading humanity to its tragic and arguably inevitable end. “The Day of the Triffids” and “Watchmen” each reference Shelley’s “Ozymandias” in order to explore human vanity. In "The Day of the Triffids", Coker's character returns to post-apocalyptic London and says: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings, look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!" (p.161). The quote aptly sums up the idea that humans should not view their works, or themselves, as immortal. The Houses of Parliament provide a similar image to the “Two Vast, Trunkless Legs of Stone” in “Ozymandias.” The narrator of "The Day of the Triffids" finds it "hard to believe that [the Houses of Parliament] no longer meant anything, that they were nothing more than a pretentious confection in uncertain stone which could decompose in peace" (p. 152). . Every picturerepresents how the vanity of human nature leads him to believe that his “works” will last forever. By juxtaposing the arrogance of this self-confidence with a wasteland, the flaw in humanity is exposed. Shelley points out how human empires can easily collapse by following the statement “look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!” » with the phrase “Nothing next to it remains”. The caesural pause after this phrase provides a deafening halt to the cue, showing how humanity can just as easily be stopped. Ozymnadias' "works" are reduced to nothing, showing that his quote is little more than empty human hyperbole. Like Shelley, Wyndham describes the “silence” and oblivion of the London environs. The narrator notes: "[he] had not seen a single living creature...since [they] began." This observation underlines the baronial desert that London has become, “nothing else remains”. Moore shows similar devastation in “Watchmen” by accompanying the same quote – “My name is Ozymandias…” – with an entirely white panel (Chapter 9, p. 28, Panel 13), showing the abyss that replaced the civilization. When Adrian Veidt's character, Ozymandias, drops an atomic bomb on Manhattan, he claims to prevent the global fallout. Given Shelley's poem, however, it seems odd that Veidt would choose the pseudonym Ozymandias, as the character's empire is erased by time. Moore is perhaps suggesting that, while appearing to solve the world's problems, Veidt is just as vain as the poem's Ozymandias: he has neither successor nor equal, and in his short-sightedness and vanity he is just as flawed than any other powerful figure throughout history. Each of the novels shows how imperfect human values ​​can have disastrous consequences if allowed to progress logically. Vanity prevails throughout the novels as humanity's fundamental weakness, which will lead man to be the cause of his own annihilation. “The Guardians” and “The Day of the Tirffids” show in particular how, brought to the brink of extinction, man is confronted with his own contingency and his insignificance. The “two vast trunkless legs of stone” not only represent the vanity of man, but also emphasize the ease with which man's empires can be swept from existence. Ozymandias' arrogant exclamations of greatness are backed by "nothing", suggesting that humans should not view their creations or species as a necessary part of the world. Like Shelley, Moore contrasts a thriving human civilization with emptiness. Veidt attempts to confront humanity with its own volatility by destroying Manhattan with the same nuclear power that could wipe out the world. The population of New York, seen throughout the novel, is reduced in an instant to nothing but images of destruction. The corpses are piled up on a large clock that has struck midnight, symbolizing the doomsday clock that finally strikes midnight for humanity. This exhibition effectively shows the fragility of human existence. Just as in The Day of the Triffids, “in no direction was there any traffic, nor any noise” (p. 53). Wyndham describes the desolation of London, which was destroyed “by a mighty slash” (p. 60). Centuries of civilization can be wiped out in an instant. The post-apocalyptic void left in both novels shows how easily humanity can be reduced to nothing and exposes the insignificance of man compared to the vastness of all other existence. In “Watchmen,” Moore explores human insignificance when Jon Osterman (Dr. Manhattan) travels to Mars with Laurie Juspeczyk. She states that “everyone [on Earth] will die” because of.