Debatable. Burning down that which is not owned by you or in your care, without practical reason of greater theoretical agreed benefit than any harm caused, could almost certainly be said to be a general rule. But controlled burns are used to burn down all sorts of natural and man made structures or collections, and are sometimes the right thing to do. Of course- one could argue in moral absolutism that the use of fire specifically as a tool of destruction is morally reprehensible as it destroys things and creates environmental pollution- but then again... morality is ill defined. Is it absolute or subjective? Humanity has never agreed upon a universal morality, although many specific things share a general, near universal condemnation on grounds of morality. Of course, this has often been fluid in history.
It poses many questions. Is it morally reprehensible to burn down a mans home while he is in it, where that man is about to trigger a bomb that will kill a thousand innocent kids? Lots of places to debate morality there. On the sum total, most people would probably agree that killing a man, and the collateral damage to the house, would be not morally ideal. A non violent solution would better fit most ideal views of morality, and one without death more so. But- comparatively, as the lesser evil o would find it hard to believer most people would see burning down a building full of dangerous men where no better option exists to stop danger, as morally permissible or excusable, not reprehensible.
This could go on forever. It’s a very, deep and subjective topic you have brought up here. For what it may or may not matter- my comment was a joke based on the fact that the US came from British claimed lands, and fought a destructive war of independence to gain freedom, and thusly, the idea of destroying parliament, especially when linked (through true original joke) to American democratic processes, would be another instance of America causing destruction to the British because of our own experiments with democracy. I was not advocating destruction of parliament or anything else by anyone, merely making a topical joke which played off the original joke which was to take a joke which could imply reference to the current American elections and framing it as implying one should destroy parliament- and thus I played off that to complete the circle.
Verily do I vouch that I did not visit the volumes of the vibrant graphic novel. Yet most valiantly did I view the video adaption of the vigilante's visage.
V is no doubt an iconic character. Apparently in the movie has was made to be a little more sympathetic, whereas in the graphic novel he was more morally ambiguous. What really sticks out is Hugo Weaving's performance as V. He can't show any facial expressions, but he just oozes charisma throughout the film. I can see why people would listen to him.
It is important to remember that this is a work of fiction though. I mean, people wearing masks, a disease afflicting the entirety of England, overbearing government and excessive police surveillance, not to mention the US turning on itself? Pffft, man, Alan Moore be crazy, right?
That would be so wrong
V is no doubt an iconic character. Apparently in the movie has was made to be a little more sympathetic, whereas in the graphic novel he was more morally ambiguous. What really sticks out is Hugo Weaving's performance as V. He can't show any facial expressions, but he just oozes charisma throughout the film. I can see why people would listen to him.
It is important to remember that this is a work of fiction though. I mean, people wearing masks, a disease afflicting the entirety of England, overbearing government and excessive police surveillance, not to mention the US turning on itself? Pffft, man, Alan Moore be crazy, right?