CaptainMarvelous said:
Happyninja42 said:
See, this logic of "he can't abuse his power" and "decide who lives and dies" because he's the most powerful being always annoys me. How is that any different from any other person on this planet? Just because random person X isn't the most powerful person on the planet, doesn't mean he's just as capable of making those decisions, but you don't see Supes running around making sure nobody ever kills anybody. He doesn't stop cops from using lethal force when it's required, or any other life and death situation. He's fine with that stuff. So why is he suddenly restricted from having that same level of moral choice as anyone else on the planet? It's not like him deciding to kill someone automatically makes it immoral, just because he's the alpha predator in the area. So what? If the choice is still necessary, it doesn't matter if he does it, or some other superhero. It needed to be done, and someone had to do it. Honestly I'd feel better about the biggest boyscout in the world making the life or death call compared to anyone else. He's established over years that he has a very deep set moral code. Unless the world suddenly feels that killing is aboslutely never the answer anymore (and nobody else in the comic book universe really thinks that way, that's what differentiates Supes and Bats from most of them, their no-kill policy). Which would you rather have make the choice on who lives or dies? A benevolent demi god who genuinely tries to make the world a better place for everyone that he can, being selfless and altruistic every chance he gets? Or some political figure from a government? I mean, it makes no sense.
I mean, this is personal interpretation, it's probably because he's meant to be inspiring. Wayne doesn't kill because he doesn't want to be like the people he fights, Kent doesn't kill because he has to think about the message that sends.
I mean, imagine the position he's in: he's the most powerful thing on the planet. If he decided that he wanted to, say, shutdown every Taco Bell in Florida. He could do that. If he wanted to kill everyone who wears crocs in public. He could do that. When there really isn't much of a limit to what you CAN do then WHAT you do is very, very important. So, should he step in and MANUALLY force everyone to be nice? Fly around and take every gun in North America and throw them in the ocean? What would humanity learn from that? (We'd learn that Into the Badlands could actually happen if Superman decided to be kind of an ass). Isn't it better if he just shows them that you don't have to kill? That it's possible to sort things out without resorting to violence?
I mean, have you seen that mini-comic where three robbers talk about jobs in Coast City, Gotham and Metropolis? How Green Lantern made it humiliating, Batman put them in traction and Superman? He stopped them and gave them a heartfelt talk about life choices.
Of course the real dilemma here, and what Lex Luthor is saying, is that rather than inspiring Superman makes people lazy. That having him around stagnates humanity's growth and it makes for an interesting split of good intentions/actions having negative consequences.
At least, that's my take on it
See, you keep equating him deciding to kill someone to suddenly deciding to become some totalitarian dictator, who apparently decides all T-Bell's should be shut down. There is NEVER any concept of scale with this argument. Either Superman is the ultimate boyscout, and never kills, and rescues puppies, and all that shit, or he's a global tyrant that shoots lazers from orbit and cuts people down. I mean seriously people, there are levels of severity beyond those 2 extremes. People act like if he drops his No Kill policy, he's going to just start raping and murdering and killing left and right, like a crack addict suddenly let loose in a police drug supply locker. It's ludicrous. We don't assume that happens to
anyone else on this planet who actually does have the authority to make life and death decisions, so why should Supes be any different? Also, this idea that "because he's the ultimate authority due to his power and strength, he can't make life/death choices, because it's somehow amoral." Um, sorry, but in real life, the people in power and authority are
exactly the people we have given the right to make those choices. There are guidelines and laws restricting how, but when they are done properly, nobody loses their shit about it. But if you put Superman in the same scenario, suddenly all rational thought goes out the window in the discussion and the response becomes "NO! He can't kill people! Because he's too powerful!!" Well, sorry but there isn't actually anything stopping Supes from killing us, other than his moral code not to. He could decide to start doing it any day. Just like every other person in this world, who chooses on a daily basis to not cause harm to others. But we also allow the rest of the planet, the choice to make that decision if need be, based on the circumstances. Self-Defense, extenuating circumstances, these terms exist because we understand that it's not a black and white issues, there are millions of shades of grey in the discussion.
I just, it really annoys me, to see this same point brought up over and over, and it only ever applies to Superman, or other heroes. If this rule about not killing applies to them, then it should apply to everyone on the planet, but nobody writes that story, and nobody assumes that other forms of authority in the world are suddenly beholden to Superman's No Kill policy, hell not even Superman expects them to. Because he understands, unlike the fans, that it's not an easy discussion, and there is no one answer that applies to every situation. The fact that his "Should superhero stories abandon the No Kill plot" keeps popping up over and over, for years, is testimony to the fact that it's not a clear cut issue. So if the rest of the planet in the comic-verse is allowed to make that moral choice based on circumstances, then the heroes should be allowed to make that choice too. I'm all for them trying to resolve it without killing, as I personally feel the same way, but I take issue of someone coming along and saying that I don't have the right to take a life if it turns out to be the only course left to me. Even with as much as I personally hate violence, and my ultra-pacifistic nature on a personal level, I still accept that at some point, I might have to kill someone to protect myself, or those I love. And I reserve the right to make that choice. I hope I never have to make it, but to say that I have no right to make it, is simply stupid. And I feel superheroes should have that same right in their universes, especially considering the things they put themselves against to defend us are ridiculously more lethal than anything we are dealing with. Their opponents are sometimes beings that can literally flatten planets, and if we are going to require Superman to act on our defense, because he has the power to do so, and hold him accountable if he doesn't protect us "Why didn't you save them Superman! Where were you?!". If we're going to foist that level of moral responsibility on him, simply because he's got the power and strength to act as our planetary defender, then it's unfair to then restrict his authority by saying he can't make decisions based on the situation to enact that authority we've given him.
Now if you want to discuss other aspects of crime fighting, like how Superman differs from Green Lantern, and Batman, in how they deal with criminals, that's fine.
But that is a separate discussion from this one. I don't care how the heroes deal with criminals when they are using their non-lethal arsenal, the subject is how they deal with the situation that can't be resolved without lethal force.
Now, please understand, in that rant, I'm not directing my frustration at you CaptainMarvelous, just at the discussion point itself. I've seen this brought up over and over, and the double standard of it annoys me. On the one hand, we hold him up to our moral standards of right and wrong, and expect him to put himself in harms way on our behalf (even though he is under no actual obligation to do so.) And if he doesn't defend us, we hold him accountable for the actions he didn't take on our behalf. But on the other hand, we tie his hands and say "No, you can't kill, you are too powerful to be allowed to kill, as you will be a tyrant and monster if you decide that killing is a viable option to deal with the threats to us." And I'm talking about the fans in this equation, their expectations of what Superman should/shouldn't do and
why he shouldn't do them.
And again, I am not arguing against Superman, or any of the heroes having a personal stance to not kill.
I am totally fine with that, and personally agree with it. My issue is with this very specific argument that because of his level of power/strength, he is somehow without the right to kill, as it makes no sense, and I call bullshit on it. If Superman chooses not to kill, because deep down, he truly believes that everyone can be saved, and turn their life around, fine. I personally think that the beings they toss against superheroes make this belief fundamentally wrong, as comic writer
love creating just pure evil villains to toss at badguys, who literally have no redeeming qualities, and are in some cases, actually
engineered to be pure evil. But fine, he feels that everyone can change. I'm fine with that, and on a certain level, I like to think the same way about people. But when someone tries to say that he doesn't have the
right to kill, because he's too powerful, too strong, and he would basically be lording over us as a dictator, I call bullshit on that rationale. Because frankly, he's already lording over us as a dictator, he just happens to be a nice one. My point is that if he decided that lethal force was a viable option, it doesn't mean he's going to suddenly fall to the Dark Side, and just start running everything with a Kryptonian Fist. It just means that he might decide that killing a particular threat is the necessary action. If he keeps his moral center that we've given him (Farm grown, salt of the earth, blue collar 'Murican morality), then why are we actually afraid he would become a tyrant? He's got a good upbringing right? Then surely, if those morals are good enough for him right now, to be a good guy, then surely he would be responsible
because of his upbringing on how and when he would use lethal force. Killing someone doesn't make you suddenly toss out your entire moral character, but that seems to be what everyone assumes will happen. Like if he kills a badguy because there was no other choice, he's somehow going to pull an Anakin Skywalker, and suddenly walk into an orphanage and start killing children. Those two things just don't automatically lead to each other. And frankly, I find it a little disturbing that people assume it's that simple of a slide. One death, you're suddenly Darth Vader, no matter if the death was actually justified and proper, given the situation. Nope, sorry, you either don't kill, or you are the most evil being on the planet. There is no middle ground for comic fans. And I call bullshit on that entirely.
