• 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio

DISCLAIMER: Because it is human nature for many people to jump to conclusions before listening to an entire argument or suggestion, I want to make a few things clear:

  1. Superman has a no-kill code. In my opinion, it is a very good thing that he has that code. I hope he never loses it. I do not believe Superman should kill. Please don't read a few of my words and then make the unwarranted extrapolation that I believe Superman should kill.... He shouldn't kill.
  2. I believe 'heroes' should kill ONLY when absolutely necessary and there, quite simply, is no other option.

Now, about the movie "Superman vs. The Elite" I liked it. I recommend it, even though I disagree with the final conclusion.

I want to warn you that, even though I will try to avoid giving away spoilers, you might want to wait until you've seen the movie before your read this...

I'll just give some basic details about the story:

  • Superman is your basic Superman, AND yet, he and Lois are together. That's nice...
  • The Elite are a group of four people with powers who came together to stop 'evil wankers.' They're actually very interesting characters both individually and as a group.
  • The Elite, unlike Superman, believe that is not only acceptable to kill 'evil wankers' in order to protect the innocent, but that it is sometimes necessary. This is the major point of contention in the story. Superman is the ultimate boy-scout with the no-kill code (and I don't mean that in a bad way.) The Elite have more of a Punisher mentality.

Now, it's a Superman movie so you know going in that Superman wins. That's a given... And it turns out that the Elite have a bit of Evil Wanker in each of them. It's a necessary plot device.

BUT.... Let's change things just a bit. Let's make it so that The Elite have No 'evil wanker' in them... Let's imagine that they are people with super powers that simply believe there is a time and a place to kill evil wankers in order to protect the world... Basically, they believe it is right and necessary to kill terrorists. This point is made in the movie...

So...Were they right? Is it sometimes right and necessary to kill terrorists? When Osama Bin Laden was killed, many people in the world celebrated. They saw his being killed as a good thing. And it wasn't just Bin Laden who was killed but many of his 'associates.' Was it right to kill them? If he could have been captured and put into prison, would that have been the right thing to do?

Now, let's imagine that the world had a "Superman." Would it have been appropriate for HIM to kill Ben Laden? A part of me thinks 'yes' and a bigger part of me thinks, "Hell no. He's Superman. Superman doesn't kill. He's better than that." But I think the catch here is that he is SUPERMAN. He's SUPERMAN, so yes, he is better than that. But the rest of us. We're NOT Superman. Superman wants to lead by example. He wants to show the world that it is possible to stop evil without the loss of a single life. I think one of the problems here is that Superman has the belief that everyone can be like him...Unfortunately, he doesn't get that the rest of the universe is NOT like him...

In the movie, Superman shows that there is 'always a way to stop evil without killing.' But then, he's Superman. He can easily fly at Mach 7 (and faster), he is bulletproof, fire-proof, radiation-proof. He is about the strongest being the universe (let's not argue over who is stronger or whose is bigger...) HE...IS...SUPERMAN and so HE absolutely CAN always find a way to stop evil without killing.... But, the rest of the universe ISN'T Superman and sometimes there simply is no other way... That's what I think...

On the other hand.... Does Superman ever REALLY stop evil without the loss of a single life. Mathematically, the answer is, not only no but HELL NO...

  • Think of a villain that Superman has captured.
  • Did that villain kill before he was captured?
  • Did that villain escape and kill again? Did Superman stop the villain, AGAIN?

We can all think of villains that Superman has stopped, who later escaped and killed again, only to be stopped again by the Man of Steel... Consider what happens in the movie:

So, did Superman stop evil without the loss of a single life? Not only no, but hell no... Many people were killed in that scene. Just not the villain.

Rather than saying, "It's possible to stop evil without the loss of a single life," A more accurate saying (for Superman) would be, "It's possible to capture the villains and stop their current reign of terror without killing THEM."

So, what's my point? What am I getting at? Well...

I think it is good that heroes such as Superman have a no-kill code and they do not put themselves above the law... But he has such power that he is able to hold to that no--kill code. Unfortunately, it is not a perfect system and he cannot truly STOP the evil; he can only detain or delay them.

I DO believe that there is a point at which a villain cannot be reformed and they cannot be stopped. Not completely. I would prefer we not drag the Joker into this discussion as he would SEEM like the logical example, but he isn't. He's insane. That's a discussion for another time. But let's consider villains who, quite simply, are evil. Let's think about villains who honestly believe it is their right to kill. Is it good, is it right, is it acceptable, is it practical to simply capture and detain these villains when, in all likelihood, they will escape and kill again.

  • How many innocents does a villain get to kill before it is right to kill the villain?
  • What is an acceptable number of lives that can be destroyed by paralysis, dismemberment, or loss of all property?

Superman and Spider-Man have a no-kill code. I'm glad they do and I hope they never change... But, honestly, I think they are only a 'partial solution.' Some people are simply evil. I do believe there is a time to kill... ( a principle of Biblical proportion.) I do not believe all heroes should do it, but I do believe some not only should, but must; in both the comic book universe and in the real world.

#1 Posted by corpsecraft (55 posts) - - Show Bio

Personally, I like the way Identity Crisis did it: Superman is aware that sometimes, you have to do horrible things to horrible people, and he turns a blind-eye to it.

I really wish more writers would explore that concept, of Superman lying to himself about the inherent good in the world while a group of assassins (Suicide Squad?) kill the villains that need to be killed.

#2 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@corpsecraft: I'd have to go back and read Identity Crisis.  But in it, did he 'do the horrible deed' himself, or simply allow it?  Just curious....  I LIKE the idea that he acknowledges the necessity of it, but doesn't do it himself.
#3 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

well, I dont agree with one thing. i dont think it's easier for Superman not to kill than other weaker heroes. yeah superman is incredibly strong and he trains to control his powers but HE IS SUPERMAN, he is extremelly overpowered, do you really think he can easily control his powers? I dont, I bet he has a harder time restricting them than simply killing them. trying to stop them without damagin anything around. specially when they are a lot stronger than your regular super villain.

that kinda of makes it more inspirational. even though he has that much power, he doesn't kill, even though it would probably be easier for him.

For someone like Spider-man, it's easier not to kill IMO, because unless he is fighting someone really weak, he can go all out and not kill the evil guy/gal. so unless it's a villain that outmatches Spidey, he has chances of winning and to improve those he can go all out.

but that's just my view on the whole "superman has it easier on the no kill code, because he is a demi god" thing. a lot of people think that.

but on the other hand, there's Batman who also doesn't kill and it's just a human

oh well......

#4 Posted by corpsecraft (55 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm: He's aware that the rest of the League mindwiped Dr. Light, but doesn't acknowledge it.

#5 Posted by mk111 (3139 posts) - - Show Bio

While I think killing is wrong, I also think its naive to believe that there is always an alternative.

I remember in one comic, where Batman realized that to stop Darkseid, he would have to kill him. He didn't want to, but THE PLANET was at stake. Its one life vs billions. In that case, then of course you'll have to kill.

#6 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jorgevy said:

well, I dont agree with one thing. i dont think it's easier for Superman not to kill than other weaker heroes. yeah superman is incredibly strong and he trains to control his powers but HE IS SUPERMAN, he is extremelly overpowered, do you really think he can easily control his powers? I dont, I bet he has a harder time restricting them than simply killing them. trying to stop them without damagin anything around. specially when they are a lot stronger than your regular super villain.

that kinda of makes it more inspirational. even though he has that much power, he doesn't kill, even though it would probably be easier for him.

For someone like Spider-man, it's easier not to kill IMO, because unless he is fighting someone really weak, he can go all out and not kill the evil guy/gal. so unless it's a villain that outmatches Spidey, he has chances of winning and to improve those he can go all out.

but that's just my view on the whole "superman has it easier on the no kill code, because he is a demi god" thing. a lot of people think that.

but on the other hand, there's Batman who also doesn't kill and it's just a human

oh well......

i see what you're saying, but I think you misunderstand me, or perhaps, I didn't make my point properly.   What I meant was that his powers give him options that most other heroes simply do not have.  
For example, if Green Arrow were to go up against a suicide bomber, it's possible that his only option would be to kill the bomber before they activated the bomb.  Superman, on the other hand, has Super speed; he could simply fly in there, remove the bomb, and fly it into the upper atmosphere before it blew.
I could make up a hundred scenarios and probably scan just as many, but the point is, there always seems to be a way for Superman to stop the villain because he has such vast strength, and super speed, and invulnerability.  He has options others don't.  
 
Regarding his not accidentally killing, I have a hard time imagining how he does that.  How does he manage to pat someone on the back and say, "good job" without crushing their spine once in a while?  LOL... That must take extreme concentration and focus.  I absolutely cannot fathom how he and Lois could be 'intimate' without him killing her...  So, in that respect, not killing must be very difficult for him...  I only meant, he has choices and options others don't...
#7 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@Timandm: @mk111 said:

While I think killing is wrong, I also think its naive to believe that there is always an alternative.

I remember in one comic, where Batman realized that to stop Darkseid, he would have to kill him. He didn't want to, but THE PLANET was at stake. Its one life vs billions. In that case, then of course you'll have to kill.

I  think sometimes it's that simple.  It's not easy, but simple.
#8 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6532 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm:Are these people referred to as 'Evil W---ers' in the film? I can't tell if you used the term for effect or if they're actually referred to as such.

That would be a weird choice of word to use. I didn't think that word was even used in America.

#9 Posted by Lvenger (21143 posts) - - Show Bio

The reason why I model my morals on Superman is because he always tries to find another, better way of solving problems and dealing with evil people. And I hold that no one should have a right to take away human life, not criminals and not the law. There's a better way of imprisoning people and I can't understand why people would feel the need to ever take away someone's life.

#10 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm: Green Arrow also has other ways. that's why he has trick arrows. that's why Batman has remote controlled batarangs and all inda of crazy gadgets. yeah sometimes they may not have other ways, but they are rarer than what you think and they are with people at the same level or above

you cant use the same exemple for GA and Supes. Supes is a whole diff super hero level. he actually has powers. if you say the bomber has the same speed as superman, or close to it, then it makes it comparable to GA's situation. and then Superman is in a more difficult situation. then he and GA have to think quick, use heat vision to incapacitate the bomber, or a poisoned arrow to take out the bomber.

what Im saying is that obviously, a GA level threat is nothing compared to Supes, that's why he would have so many options. if you give him a comparable threat then he has to make a more intimidating choice, just like GA or Bats when they face a terrorist (who is human, like them)

#11 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh for f**k's sake, this debate again...

#12 Posted by BlackWind (7181 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd take the side of Superman over the Elite, who were basically Punishers with some public approval. If killing the problem is your first thought, they aren't heroes. Ones who stay their hand and take life to save others, nit wanton'y are the real good guys.

#13 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@V_Scarlotte_Rose said:

@Timandm:Are these people referred to as 'Evil W---ers' in the film? I can't tell if you used the term for effect or if they're actually referred to as such.

That would be a weird choice of word to use. I didn't think that word was even used in America.

The leader of The Elite is english.  He actually uses the term wanker more than once in the movie.  I'm not sure if he specifically said, "Evil Wanker" but he did give a warning to all the "wankers" in the world...  I have a number of British friends so I'm used to hearing words such as wanker, tosser, bloody, and bollocks...
@Jorgevy
I think you're missing my point...  Superman can do things most people can't.   Holding a bomb between your hands and letting blow up isn't really an option for Green Arrow or Batman or a bunch of others.  Now, obviously, if they have planned and if they are prepared they have ways of dealing with certain threats.  I could make an endless list of threats and you could tell me some way Batman and all the other street level heroes could deal with them, IF they were prepared....
But there ARE some things, some threats, some situations that they could not handle the same way as Superman...
 
You mention the difference between a Superman level threat and a Green Arrow level threat, but you're operating on the assumption that Green Arrow (or other street levels) would never encounter a larger threat than they are prepared to handle..  In the movie, Superman is teleported to the Moon, and faces a powerful telepath/telekinetic, sorcerer, some kind of power generating guy who can punch hard enough to knock superman around, and a woman who...um...is like part bat, part insect, and can project little flesh eating worms from her body...  Superman, because of the powers he has (including his intelect and access to Kryptonian technology) can defeat these four without killing them.....
 
Would someone like Batgirl or Starling or Red Robin be able to take down four powerful foes, on the moon, without killing them?   MAYBE, but I doubt it.  Their options are far more limited.  Am I saying they have no options whatsoever?  No, of course not...  But they have far less than Superman.
 
When I was younger I was very much into martial arts.  I kickboxed for a few years.  It became obvious to me, that in a dangerous situation, such as being attacked with a weapon, that is far easier to kill someone, than subdue them.  It is frightening how fragile the human body really is.  We can dish out far more damage than are bodies are designed to withstand..  Now, think about this.  You are a cop and you see a small girl being charged by a psycho wielding two large sharp knives.   She's small and it won't take much for him to kill her...  He'll reach her in a matter of seconds.  it would take you twice that amount of time to run to him and tackle him.  What do you do?    You would likely try to shoot him in the legs and that MIGHT bring him down.  It MIGHT even stop him from reaching the girl and killing her.  But the girl is an innocent who should be protected.  Would it not be easier to try emptying your clip into him (assuming you had a clear shot, of course).   My point?  It would be easier to kill him, than subdue or stop him...  
 
Of course, the fact that its' EASIER to kill than subdue, doesn't make it the right choice...  But sometimes the choices are extremely limited.  What I'm saying is that, Superman is not as limited as human beings.   He believes that all human beings can stop evil without killing, because HE CAN.  Well, Superman could easily stop a serial killer who attacks him, but Aunt May would stand a better chance if she had a gun, and if she aimed to kill.
 
@BlackWind said:

I'd take the side of Superman over the Elite, who were basically Punishers with some public approval. If killing the problem is your first thought, they aren't heroes. Ones who stay their hand and take life to save others, nit wanton'y are the real good guys.

Killing the problem should NEVER be the first course of action...  But do you think it would NEVER be the solution?
#14 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6532 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm: That's a little surprising. It's not really the sort of word you can say in a cartoon over here.

#15 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@InnerVenom123 said:

Oh for f**k's sake, this debate again...

Thanks for taking the time to say that...  Those of us who haven't discussed the issue  do appreciate you condescending to us...  We ask that you forgive us for not knowing everything that you do...@V_Scarlotte_Rose said:

@Timandm: That's a little surprising. It's not really the sort of word you can say in a cartoon over here.

Check out the movie...
#16 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm: obviously Im under the assumption they wont find stronger threats because if they do that's the stronger heroes function, to take care of those threats. that's why there are various degrees, and each degree has it's diffculties in comparison. all of them have the choice to kill or not depending on the situation and even stronger heroes like Superman or Thor could be faced with situations they can't handle. that actually happens a lot, hence why there are super hero teams. we can always escalate, there's always something stronger than you so yeah you can hold yourself and not kill when it's around your level, but you need extreme control for that, no matter what level you are in. with higher threats, you either go for the kill and might fail, or you get owned or you ask for help. that happens with everyone, because as I already said, everyone has someone above them, even Superman

#17 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm: It's the second most often debated topic, right behind "LOL WHY DOESN'T BATMAN KILL THE JOKER?"

It gets old fast.

#18 Edited by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jorgevy: So, you believe that no super hero will ever face a threat that's more than he can handle?  That there will always be someone that can come in and handle the situation instead of them?
 
@InnerVenom123 said:

@Timandm: It's the second most often debated topic, right behind "LOL WHY DOESN'T BATMAN KILL THE JOKER?"

It gets old fast.


Really, people have debated " whether or not Superman believes normal human beings can do the same things that he can do so he expects them to do as he does"  that often?
I've not seen that thread.  Can you post a link?
#19 Posted by spinningbirdcake (1430 posts) - - Show Bio

The issue with capital punishment is whether or not someone ends up reveling in the killing. I believe that sometimes taking the criminal out is the best course of action, the problem is when killing that criminal leads to a lusting of violence. Can't become the monster you're fighting and all that. If the person is able to retain their humanity, and the criminal is either not able to be rehabilitated or committed a severe enough crime, then kill them.

#20 Posted by Blood1991 (8082 posts) - - Show Bio

If we justify killing we end up with Kingdom Come

We end up with superhuman beings justifying their actions for the "greater" good. The line exist to keep these people from being loose cannons. The governments in the comic universes should be harder on criminals, but heroes whom command these immense powers do need some form of control. The idea of a man who can move the damn moon is scary enough without him killing people he deems evil.

#21 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

Ooh great topic eh, Risk Assessment 101, with a side class of Alternative Options studies. If Superman believes there are alternatives to killing enemies, then why doesn't he believe there are alternatives to using his fists? Surely if he believed in alternatives and was strong in his convictions he could use his super speed, super intelligence, super reading, numerous other abilities as well as access to all his hero friends intelligences and resources to come up with methods of neutralization that are non violent. Then he could rehabilitate Doomsday to such an extent Doomsday could get parole early and maybe even go on to attend a local community college. Superman using super abilities with super ethics to truly rehabilitate a being like Doomsday would be an awesome book I would love to read.

Except sometimes Superman isn't given the option of pacifism and he has to punch and WAIT A MINUTE... hmmm its almost as if this Superman fella is a fictional character, one his writers try to portray as an action figure who engages in fights albeit reluctantly (and naturally with the Bad guys, who tootin dang it deserve a punch to the jaw) but also is often painted in a relatively, varying idealistic light because that also appeals to the reader. Those two traits can clash a little bit, usually the guy that punches people wins out in the end, but naturally since punching a (bad) guy and killing a (bad) guy are two different things its not something that really trips up the character.

Moderator
#22 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@spinningbirdcake said:

The issue with capital punishment is whether or not someone ends up reveling in the killing. I believe that sometimes taking the criminal out is the best course of action, the problem is when killing that criminal leads to a lusting of violence. Can't become the monster you're fighting and all that. If the person is able to retain their humanity, and the criminal is either not able to be rehabilitated or committed a severe enough crime, then kill them.

Kind of like how Batman is afraid to kill anyone because if he does, he's afraid he won't stop...  I see the point, but it's a slippery slope kind of thing...  If you do THIS, THEN this MIGHT happen... and if THAT happens, then the NEXT bad thing MIGHT happen...... with Bruce Wayne, I think he knows himself well enough such that he KNOWS he'll keep on doing it... So for him I don't really think it's a slippery slope...  But for most others....I think it's likely.
 
I'm thinking of extreme cases where the options are limited.  A case where the only real choices are to let the villain live and let the innocent die... Or kill the villain and let the innocent live..  I think Superman NEVER sees a situation in which he cannot stop the villain without killing them...  But, as in this movie we're talking about, innocent people DID in fact die.  
 
In the movie, at about the 44 minute mark, you see Superman fighting the Atomic Skull.  He is trying to stop the Skull but holding back so he doesn't kill him... and while he is doing that, the Skull kills innocent people....  WHILE Superman is fighting him...  Superman did NOT stop the villain without the loss of a life...several lives were lost...  So, it's not inconceivable that other super heroes could face a situation like that...  
 
Now, while they might be worried that killing might become too easy for them and they might start doing it too often, innocent people could be dying anyway... Know what I mean?   On the other hand, I'm kind of sleepy and I could be rambling...
#23 Posted by spinningbirdcake (1430 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC: Yeah I think Superman isn't wired in a way to think he has to kill the villain to have the best, safest outcome. I mean Metropolis would be a hugely safer place if he just blitz rushed his enemies and took them out. Part of that has to do with his upbringing, it's part of the reason why I'm not thrilled they killed Clark's adopted parents. If he started killing villains he'd be turning his back on what he was taught, even if he did it once. Other characters, like Punisher for instance, think a little more pragmatically instead of idealistically, for instance:killing the villain means one less villain.

#24 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@Lvenger said:

The reason why I model my morals on Superman is because he always tries to find another, better way of solving problems and dealing with evil people. And I hold that no one should have a right to take away human life, not criminals and not the law. There's a better way of imprisoning people and I can't understand why people would feel the need to ever take away someone's life.

Heroes should always try to find a better way than killing, no doubt...  but does such a way ALWAYS exist?  It didn't in the movie....  Have you seen it?
 
After escaping, the second time, the Skull is attacking again... The Elite show up and they can't stop him.  Then Superman shows up and starts trying to stop the Skull.  Obviously, Superman isn't trying to kill the Skull.  He's Superman... and he's holding back... Now, while he is doing that, the Skull kills more innocent people...  He basically microwaves them to death....   If Superman had hit the Skull harder and killed him, THEN the Skull would not have been able to kill those innocent people....
 
And many would still believe, that even though innocents will die when heroes show restraint, that it is still the right thing to do...  They might be right....  But if it were one of my daughters on the street, and a super hero or a cop could stop the bad guys by killing them BEFORE they killed one of my children, I would be all for that...
 
How about a REAL LIFE example?  Consider the case of Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsărean...  Back in 1997, in LA, they robbed a bank.  They were heavily armed and they were wearing body armor.   The police tried to stop the pair of bank robbers, but the criminals refused to surrender.  Things degradded into a horrible shootout.  You can read about it in Wikipedia
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
Both robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and the police.
 
ELEVEN police officers dead....  SEVEN civilians injured...
 
I remember watching the shootout on the news.the shootout lasted a long time...  Now, these men had killed before in a robbery a few years prior to this one...   They had already committed a number of armed robberies... they had killed before... and they were killing police that day........
 
You say you "can't understand why people would feel the need to ever take away someone's life."  Those are your words...  So, with that in mind, what do you think the police should have done?   instead of killing these two robbers who had murdered before, what would you suggest would have been a viable option?  I'm not trying to be insulting here.  I HONESTLY want to know, what you think the police could have done INSTEAD of killing these two...
#25 Edited by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: I love the way you think....
 
@Blood1991: So, am I correct in assuming that you think this blog is 'really' about whether or not Super heroes should kill?
 
@spinningbirdcake said:

@SC: Yeah I think Superman isn't wired in a way to think he has to kill the villain to have the best, safest outcome. I mean Metropolis would be a hugely safer place if he just blitz rushed his enemies and took them out. Part of that has to do with his upbringing, it's part of the reason why I'm not thrilled they killed Clark's adopted parents. If he started killing villains he'd be turning his back on what he was taught, even if he did it once. Other characters, like Punisher for instance, think a little more pragmatically instead of idealistically, for instance:killing the villain means one less villain.


Aren't his parents alive again?!?!  Well, they were in the movie... 
And speaking of "rushing in and blitzing the bad guy"  he actually ends up doing that at the very end... he shows just how easily he could do EXACTLY that... and one has to wonder, "Why the smurf didn't he do that before the Atomic Skull microwaved innocent people to death?"
but, I guess the real answer to that question is, because it would make the story too short and dull....  If the writers let Superman solve the problems as easily as he could, then there really wouldn't be that much conflict.  The problem would be solved by page two... and then we get to spend the rest of the issue reading about Clark Kent typing up the article for the Daily Bugle...
 
But what was bugging me the most, is that he believes just because HE can avoid killing, normal human beings can...
 
You know, just yesterday, I am sorry to say I became extremely frustrated with some of my students...  We were in lab (it's one of my chemistry classes.)  Well, to me, the experiment they had to do was INCREDIBLY simple.  It was EASY.  I could have done the whole thing, calculations and all, in about 30 minutes... and I couldn't understand why, after 2 1/2 hours many of them still weren't finished...   After they left, and I calmed down i remembered something that no prof. should forget:   They haven't done this stuff before... They're new to it.... They're learning  it... That's why they are there... I felt like a complete asshat...  Sure it WAS an easy experiment for ME....  but I've been doing this kind of thing for years.  I'm SUPPOSED to know it.  That's one of the reasons I have this job....  My point?   it was ridiculous of me to expect that THEY could do something, just because " I " could do it...
 
Now, extend that to what Superman was saying the movie...  "Look at me.  I just proved my point!  I stopped these people without killing...  If I can do it, so can you!"       and I'm thinking, "Well, no, Supes, we can't.  There's no way I could fly at Mach 7 (which he did) and scoop up a bad guy and lock him away... I'd have a better chance of just shooting him....
 
Superman's argument that 'humans can avoid killing, because he can..."   he's inherently flawed...
#26 Posted by Blood1991 (8082 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm: No, I understand your argument based by examples those are just my general thoughts on the matter.

#27 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@Blood1991 said:

@Timandm: No, I understand your argument based by examples those are just my general thoughts on the matter.

I should have done a better job of getting across my real point...  I'm not disagreeing with what you said...
 
I was actually TRYING to point out that I thought it was wrong for Superman to say, "Look, I stopped the villains without killing.  If I can do it, so can all of you!"   I think he forgets that he can do things that normal humans (and even most super humans) can't...    Whether or not it's right for Superheroes to kill is really a whole other can of worms, but I did sort of get it all mingled together...
#28 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

@spinningbirdcake said:

@SC: Yeah I think Superman isn't wired in a way to think he has to kill the villain to have the best, safest outcome. I mean Metropolis would be a hugely safer place if he just blitz rushed his enemies and took them out. Part of that has to do with his upbringing, it's part of the reason why I'm not thrilled they killed Clark's adopted parents. If he started killing villains he'd be turning his back on what he was taught, even if he did it once. Other characters, like Punisher for instance, think a little more pragmatically instead of idealistically, for instance:killing the villain means one less villain.

I agree, you sort of criss cross and overlap Superman the fictional character and Superman the alien guy from an exploding planet raised by the Kents too, which I am sure you are aware of. Since not only is Superman wired that way, thats sort of how his writers and fans are to some extent - at least as far as viewing Superman. There is this short mini story where it has two criminals who get caught and they discuss how different Superheroes administer justice and even though Superman was the hero that was hardest to avoid and the one they had no hope of beating, he was so much nicer, which to me is something absolutely badass, at the same time, my personal preference would be a Superman that was more involved in prevention and rehabilitation however that would dramatically influence how his stories are told. To me, when I think of super men? I think of people with extraordinary patience, intelligence, reasoning and consideration, not super strength. Superman was created in an era where it was a virtue to be morally upstanding and respectful to ones parents - think of the advances in technology, education, reasoning and thinking since he was created? Morally and ethically he should have far greater potential for morality than his adopted parents, just by virtue to the generation gap, let alone his ability to read books in seconds and learn and be aware and experience much more. Thats not me saying mind you he should kill villains, more that he should have better and more complicated reasoning behind his own decisions, their repercussions and the decisions and repercussions of others. Aware and acknowledging the two won't always line up and neither can be so simply black and white. At least thats how I view him, and who he potentially could be.

Many of his fans - long time fans are more than content with just simply a good guy who tries his best to do good in a reality with some not so good men and aliens. A punch is welcome, its old fashioned, its innocent, killing is not and thats simply what it is. Thats also something that I have to be aware of and acknowledge as far as the fictional character presented to me and my own personal preferences.

@Timandm: Cheers ^_^

Moderator
#29 Posted by Blood1991 (8082 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm said:

@Blood1991 said:

@Timandm: No, I understand your argument based by examples those are just my general thoughts on the matter.

I should have done a better job of getting across my real point... I'm not disagreeing with what you said... I was actually TRYING to point out that I thought it was wrong for Superman to say, "Look, I stopped the villains without killing. If I can do it, so can all of you!" I think he forgets that he can do things that normal humans (and even most super humans) can't... Whether or not it's right for Superheroes to kill is really a whole other can of worms, but I did sort of get it all mingled together...

The point there was to show that people can be merciful and still be strong, or at least that is what I felt about his ending speech. Like we can face bigotry with kindness, turn the other cheek, and other "human" ways of dealing with injustice and hate.

#30 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@Blood1991 said:

@Timandm said:

@Blood1991 said:

@Timandm: No, I understand your argument based by examples those are just my general thoughts on the matter.

I should have done a better job of getting across my real point... I'm not disagreeing with what you said... I was actually TRYING to point out that I thought it was wrong for Superman to say, "Look, I stopped the villains without killing. If I can do it, so can all of you!" I think he forgets that he can do things that normal humans (and even most super humans) can't... Whether or not it's right for Superheroes to kill is really a whole other can of worms, but I did sort of get it all mingled together...

The point there was to show that people can be merciful and still be strong, or at least that is what I felt about his ending speech. Like we can face bigotry with kindness, turn the other cheek, and other "human" ways of dealing with injustice and hate.

Not only would I agree with that, I'd go even further and say it shows MORE strength to show mercy and compassion.  The belief that being merciful is something done by the weak, is SO very backwards...  it takes a much stronger person to show restraint.  it takes a strong person to forgive...  and I believe it is the higher path...
#31 Posted by Blood1991 (8082 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm said:

@Blood1991 said:

@Timandm said:

@Blood1991 said:

@Timandm: No, I understand your argument based by examples those are just my general thoughts on the matter.

I should have done a better job of getting across my real point... I'm not disagreeing with what you said... I was actually TRYING to point out that I thought it was wrong for Superman to say, "Look, I stopped the villains without killing. If I can do it, so can all of you!" I think he forgets that he can do things that normal humans (and even most super humans) can't... Whether or not it's right for Superheroes to kill is really a whole other can of worms, but I did sort of get it all mingled together...

The point there was to show that people can be merciful and still be strong, or at least that is what I felt about his ending speech. Like we can face bigotry with kindness, turn the other cheek, and other "human" ways of dealing with injustice and hate.

Not only would I agree with that, I'd go even further and say it shows MORE strength to show mercy and compassion. The belief that being merciful is something done by the weak, is SO very backwards... it takes a much stronger person to show restraint. it takes a strong person to forgive... and I believe it is the higher path...

I agree 100%

One of the reasons I like Superman is because despite how easily he could end it he doesn't because he stands for something more than himself, more than justice. He stands for the strength it takes to show mercy, compassion and love for those who most would think don't deserve it.

#32 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@Blood1991: Would I be correct in assuming you're a big fan of Les Miserables?  It's my favorite musical.  And I love it for the music but I love it even more for what it is about...  Mercy versus Justice and which is truly stronger....
#33 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm: Oops.

#34 Posted by Blood1991 (8082 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm said:

@Blood1991: Would I be correct in assuming you're a big fan of Les Miserables? It's my favorite musical. And I love it for the music but I love it even more for what it is about... Mercy versus Justice and which is truly stronger....

I haven't scene it yet mostly because I usually don't care for musicals/operas, but I'll probably watch it on dvd. I do find the concept incredibly interesting. When does something become unforgivable? Can any action be met with mercy? Can any person find redemption? These questions run deep into the veins of what makes us human.

#35 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@Blood1991: you should definitely see it, if this is an important concept to you...
Jean Valjean, an ex-convict who was imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread, represents mercy... Javier is a police officer who represents Justice and he is ENTIRELY about Justice and the Law.  He is SO much about the law and his belief that every crime must be met with punishment, that he, himself, can't accept mercy.  in fact, the fact that he is shown mercy by one that he believed deserved punishment, leads to a conflict within himself that he cannot resolve...
 
If you get a chance to see it, do yourself a favor and pay attention to the lyrics of the songs...  Okay, I'm rambling.  Hey!  Let me know what you think after you see it...
#36 Posted by Timandm (3316 posts) - - Show Bio
@InnerVenom123 said:

@Timandm: Oops.

So... How bout those Braves, eh?!
#37 Posted by Blood1991 (8082 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm: Sounds interesting. I'll try and remember :p

#38 Posted by The Stegman (25965 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman was right. S'all I gotta say.

#39 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

@spinningbirdcake said:

@SC: Yeah I think Superman isn't wired in a way to think he has to kill the villain to have the best, safest outcome. I mean Metropolis would be a hugely safer place if he just blitz rushed his enemies and took them out. Part of that has to do with his upbringing, it's part of the reason why I'm not thrilled they killed Clark's adopted parents. If he started killing villains he'd be turning his back on what he was taught, even if he did it once. Other characters, like Punisher for instance, think a little more pragmatically instead of idealistically, for instance:killing the villain means one less villain.

I agree, you sort of criss cross and overlap Superman the fictional character and Superman the alien guy from an exploding planet raised by the Kents too, which I am sure you are aware of. Since not only is Superman wired that way, thats sort of how his writers and fans are to some extent - at least as far as viewing Superman. There is this short mini story where it has two criminals who get caught and they discuss how different Superheroes administer justice and even though Superman was the hero that was hardest to avoid and the one they had no hope of beating, he was so much nicer, which to me is something absolutely badass, at the same time, my personal preference would be a Superman that was more involved in prevention and rehabilitation however that would dramatically influence how his stories are told. To me, when I think of super men? I think of people with extraordinary patience, intelligence, reasoning and consideration, not super strength. Superman was created in an era where it was a virtue to be morally upstanding and respectful to ones parents - think of the advances in technology, education, reasoning and thinking since he was created? Morally and ethically he should have far greater potential for morality than his adopted parents, just by virtue to the generation gap, let alone his ability to read books in seconds and learn and be aware and experience much more. Thats not me saying mind you he should kill villains, more that he should have better and more complicated reasoning behind his own decisions, their repercussions and the decisions and repercussions of others. Aware and acknowledging the two won't always line up and neither can be so simply black and white. At least thats how I view him, and who he potentially could be.

Many of his fans - long time fans are more than content with just simply a good guy who tries his best to do good in a reality with some not so good men and aliens. A punch is welcome, its old fashioned, its innocent, killing is not and thats simply what it is. Thats also something that I have to be aware of and acknowledge as far as the fictional character presented to me and my own personal preferences.

@Timandm: Cheers ^_^

When you said that Superman is much nicer than other superheroes to me its because he can afford to be,I mean he is vastly powerful,but when you compare him with Batman,he isn't a super powerful being from an alien world.So he has to resort to other tactics like using fear because it gives him a different edge.

I agree that his intelligence is under used when compared with his physical powers.But for some reason I always think of him as someone who fights villains who are equal to him and who aren't human as opposed to dealing with earthly villains and thugs just like I usually think of Batman as dealing with those kinds of villains as opposed to super powerful villains.Since I think it is much more interesting having a villain who is a good match for the hero.So with that in mind the kinds of villains Superman usually fights are ones that cannot be rehabilitated,partly because many do not share our understandings of our society and morality,they are from a different place entirely.Of course there is Lex Luthor as well.

I also think that could be Supermans short comings when it comes to writing him,really because he is so powerful it can be alot harder to right interesting stories with him in where he doesn't hit people.And that stories are written around that characters best abilities and for Superman it is his superpowers,but take Batman for example and it is his mind,which has alot more potential for interesting stories.

#40 Posted by lightsout (1836 posts) - - Show Bio

I think what no-kill codes by heroes really centers around is the fact that they operate outside the law. It's then heightened if they are super-powered (by nature or technology). Those who have that code feel that they use their "abilities" to help those who can't help themselves. To do what most people aren't capable of doing. As a society, we are capable of putting the accused on trial, jailing them**, and doling out punishments. That's why many heroes chose to remove themselves from the justice process once they apprehend the villain in question. Specifically in the case of high-powered heroes like Superman, there's also a case of "I'm not a God who's tending to my subjects -- so I'm not going to take on a responsibility of deciding who lives & who dies".

Hastily assembled example -- Say joe-citizen sees a murder taking place, and said murder happens to be a serial killer who we would likely give the death penalty. If he runs down the murder & kills him (by w/e means), would that be ok/accepted? Sure, the course of "justice" was probably that this man would lose his life, but we would likely not look kindly on 1 person assuming this and bypassing the aforementioned system of trial by jury. It's not about whether the perp. should die to prevent further misdeed, it's about 1-man (/woman) making the decision rather than "society" (This would not include situations comparable to a police officer shooting the perp in the middle of a shoot-out, when fast decisions must be made (perhaps one to preserve the officer's own life). At least with heroes like Superman, they have such immense power that there'd seldom be a comparable situation (too fast, too strong, etc. - they could just subdue the villain). This is regarding cases comparable to a perp being arrested by the police, and then executed on the spot (bypassing trial, etc)).

**I must say that the argument of villains constantly escaping from jail is purely a method to forward plots. With the super-technology available in both Marvel & DC worlds, I would expect them to develop prisons capable of holding in all but the most elite super-villains. They only escape so the heroes don't run out of enemies to do battle with, and to make the local authorities look like buffoons (it makes us more in awe of the super heroes).

#41 Posted by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

When you said that Superman is much nicer than other superheroes to me its because he can afford to be,I mean he is vastly powerful,but when you compare him with Batman,he isn't a super powerful being from an alien world.So he has to resort to other tactics like using fear because it gives him a different edge.

Sure, he can afford to, so he can allow his personality to factor into the equation. Like all other characters his challenges, villains, solutions and character development are built around him. He sort of reminds me of Bill from JMS Thor run heh heh.

Batman I could view as being nice to, but he can't allow his personality to get in the way of what he is trying to achieve but I would enjoy his prevention and rehabilitation efforts as well.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Since I think it is much more interesting having a villain who is a good match for the hero.So with that in mind the kinds of villains Superman usually fights are ones that cannot be rehabilitated,partly because many do not share our understandings of our society and morality,they are from a different place entirely.Of course there is Lex Luthor as well.

To me, anyone can be rehabilitated, the question is that of practicality. Not just that, but interest as well, peoples interest, since not that many would be interested in Superman thinking of ways to safely hold Doomsday, observe him and his behavior, look at his physiology, break it down, theorize how he got that way and then thus figure out ways to turn him into a healthy and productive sentient creature before even deciding whether this was practical or not (practical use of his time, findings, the potential value of a rehabilitated Doomsday)

You can still rehabilitate those who do not share our understanding and or social morality, it just depends on how they differ in that sense.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I also think that could be Supermans short comings when it comes to writing him,really because he is so powerful it can be alot harder to right interesting stories with him in where he doesn't hit people.And that stories are written around that characters best abilities and for Superman it is his superpowers,but take Batman for example and it is his mind,which has alot more potential for interesting stories.

To me personally and I differ in my tastes to most comic fans, heh most characters stories where they just hit things are boring. So thats where a disassociation exists for me.

Moderator
#42 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

When you said that Superman is much nicer than other superheroes to me its because he can afford to be,I mean he is vastly powerful,but when you compare him with Batman,he isn't a super powerful being from an alien world.So he has to resort to other tactics like using fear because it gives him a different edge.

Sure, he can afford to, so he can allow his personality to factor into the equation. Like all other characters his challenges, villains, solutions and character development are built around him. He sort of reminds me of Bill from JMS Thor run heh heh.

Batman I could view as being nice to, but he can't allow his personality to get in the way of what he is trying to achieve but I would enjoy his prevention and rehabilitation efforts as well.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Since I think it is much more interesting having a villain who is a good match for the hero.So with that in mind the kinds of villains Superman usually fights are ones that cannot be rehabilitated,partly because many do not share our understandings of our society and morality,they are from a different place entirely.Of course there is Lex Luthor as well.

To me, anyone can be rehabilitated, the question is that of practicality. Not just that, but interest as well, peoples interest, since not that many would be interested in Superman thinking of ways to safely hold Doomsday, observe him and his behavior, look at his physiology, break it down, theorize how he got that way and then thus figure out ways to turn him into a healthy and productive sentient creature before even deciding whether this was practical or not (practical use of his time, findings, the potential value of a rehabilitated Doomsday)

You can still rehabilitate those who do not share our understanding and or social morality, it just depends on how they differ in that sense.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I also think that could be Supermans short comings when it comes to writing him,really because he is so powerful it can be alot harder to right interesting stories with him in where he doesn't hit people.And that stories are written around that characters best abilities and for Superman it is his superpowers,but take Batman for example and it is his mind,which has alot more potential for interesting stories.

To me personally and I differ in my tastes to most comic fans, heh most characters stories where they just hit things are boring. So thats where a disassociation exists for me.

Yeah,I suppose that is what he is like,whilst Batman is more of a loner and he doesn't really trust easily,I think he is genuinely more darker (?) for a lack of a better word.And he feels he has to take that kind of an approach to super powered beings because he doesn't know what they might use that power for.

I mean alot of the villains Batman faces seem beyond rehabilitated.I don't agree that all characters can be,well at least maybe not for good.I mean Joker is a good example of that,in multiple stories he has been "cured" of his apparent ways only to later go back to how he was.

Also alot of villains are not from our planet and I presume you are talking about rehabilitating them not in the sense we do with criminals,but doing something to make them "good" Is that correct? I think the problem with that though is there are many characters that come from so many different planets with so many different views that to them what they are doing is perfectly fine and acceptable and to alot of villains the heroes are the ones in the wrong and are the ones who must change not them.

I also think most villains don't perceive themselves to be "evil" that what they are doing is fine.

#43 Posted by Sharkbite (293 posts) - - Show Bio

There is this horrible tendancy amongst comic book fans to think only in extremes.

No Kill = Batman
Does Kill = Punisher

No Kill = Hero
Does Kill = Antihero/Vigilante/Villain

No Kill = Good Person
Does Kill = Criminal

To this, I would humbly suggest a slightly differant model: Commissioner Jim Gordon. Does Gordon believe in and uphold the law? Yes. Does Gordon protect the people of Gotham? Yes. Is Gordon a hero? A resounding yes. It is easy to stand in front of a gunman when you are bulletproof, or to run into a burning building when you are indestructable. Superman doesn't actually have to risk his life in order to fight against most criminals. Gordon puts the life of innocent people as higher than his own life, placing himself at risk in order to defend them. Superman puts the life of innocent people as higher than his own time, being willing to engage in an activity without personal risk in order to defend them. This is not an insult toward Superman; he's done nothing wrong by being indestructable and if depowered I'm certain he would still wish to defend the innocent. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that, on a morality level, Gordon is at least as heroic as Superman, if not moreso.

Now, does Gordon believe in killing? Yes. Police officers, something that does exist in real life, something to which there are actually rules which can be analyzed without making unfounded assumptions, are taught in Academy that lethal force may be necessary in some instances. Police do not go all Punisher and shoot every criminal they find. Officers do try to detain every subject alive if possible. But, when placed in a situation of defending life, when forced to choose between the life of the criminal or the life of the victim, an Officer is taught to value the victim over the criminal. When some guy carries a submachinegun onto a college campus and starts mowing down students, the police do not yell for him to surrender while he kills even more; they put him down.

Does a police officer become a vigilante/antihero/villain if they kill a murderer in order to defend the life of a victim? Nope. Heck, they might even get a medal for it. That's what the law says. Legally, it is okay to kill in certain circumstances. Being a hero doesn't mean that you never kill; being a hero means that you value life, so you never take it casually. You don't kill if you don't have to, but when you do have to, you accept the responsability that comes along with it and make the difficult decisions that other people are unwilling or unable to do. The cop shoots the murderer to save the victim because the cop is the one trained to do it, the cop is the one prepared for the situation, and the cop is the one willing to accept the responsability and live with the consequences. For some real life police officers it may mean years of nightmares or counseling in order to come to terms with what they have done, but they accept that upon themselves in order to protect other people from having to suffer instead. Because a hero is willing to sacrifice for the good of others.

The law grants provisions for anyone, including persons whom are not sworn police officers, to be able to kill in certain situations. The most commonly regarded, of course, is Self-Defense. Regardless of his legal status, the second someone starts opening fire on Batman and shooting willy-nilly, he is actually legally justified in returning fire. He can take a life in that situation in order to defend his own. This is differant for Superman because, as Superman's powers result in him not actually being in danger from most attacks, he doesn't have to defend himself. If a knife-wielding psycho decides to stab Superman, Superman does not have to kill him because Superman is not in any danger; he can thwart this criminal simply by standing around waiting for the cops to show up. Jimmy Olsen, however, is not immune to stab wounds. If that same psycho decides to stab Jimmy, Superman is justified in killing them to save Jimmy.

The policy is to use "the least degree of force necessary in order to overcome resistance, obtain compliance, and establish the public safety". In short, lethal force is the last resort. Anyone can kill the man who breaks into their home and holds their family at gunpoint, but only if killing is the only reasonable way to stop them. For you or I, killing that man is reasonable. For Batman, with his extra training and equipment, he may be capable of doing something that we cannot. For Superman, immune to bullets and able to move faster than the human eye, it is hard to justify these actions because he has more options at his disposal than the rest of us.

But when Superman fights Metallo, or Doomsday, or Kryptonite Man, in those instances suddenly the option of killing in order to defend his own life and others is much more on the table.

The rigid No-Kill Code is an attitude of selfishness and irresponsability. Imagine a Police Officer who permits a serial killer to stab someone right in front of him and then escape and continue his killing spree all because he was unwilling to shoot when the situation warranted it. Imagine a soldier who permits dozens of his fellow mates to die under a bombing because he is unwilling to shoot the enemy at the controls. The No-Kill Code takes no regard for the victims and only considers the self: what would killing this person do to me? What would I become? The No-Kill Code refuses to make the difficult decisions, because ultimately the No-Kill Code is a cowardly choice of forcing the responsability onto others.

It's okay that Superman doesn't kill the normal criminal, because he doesn't have to. But when Superman faces the Super-Criminal, the person he legitimately needs to kill in order to defend human life, he has an obligation. We've all heard the "..great power.. great responsability.." speech, and there is no responsability greater than making decisions of life and death.

#44 Posted by ssejllenrad (12790 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman should not be above the law. Want Superman to kill. Give him the license to kill. Make him an "honorary" part of the police force or whatever. Nyehehehehehe!

#45 Posted by Lvenger (21143 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm said:

Heroes should always try to find a better way than killing, no doubt... but does such a way ALWAYS exist? It didn't in the movie.... Have you seen it?

After escaping, the second time, the Skull is attacking again... The Elite show up and they can't stop him. Then Superman shows up and starts trying to stop the Skull. Obviously, Superman isn't trying to kill the Skull. He's Superman... and he's holding back... Now, while he is doing that, the Skull kills more innocent people... He basically microwaves them to death.... If Superman had hit the Skull harder and killed him, THEN the Skull would not have been able to kill those innocent people....

And many would still believe, that even though innocents will die when heroes show restraint, that it is still the right thing to do... They might be right.... But if it were one of my daughters on the street, and a super hero or a cop could stop the bad guys by killing them BEFORE they killed one of my children, I would be all for that...

How about a REAL LIFE example? Consider the case of Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsărean... Back in 1997, in LA, they robbed a bank. They were heavily armed and they were wearing body armor. The police tried to stop the pair of bank robbers, but the criminals refused to surrender. Things degradded into a horrible shootout. You can read about it in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootoutBoth robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and the police. ELEVEN police officers dead.... SEVEN civilians injured... I remember watching the shootout on the news.the shootout lasted a long time... Now, these men had killed before in a robbery a few years prior to this one... They had already committed a number of armed robberies... they had killed before... and they were killing police that day........ You say you "can't understand why people would feel the need to ever take away someone's life." Those are your words... So, with that in mind, what do you think the police should have done? instead of killing these two robbers who had murdered before, what would you suggest would have been a viable option? I'm not trying to be insulting here. I HONESTLY want to know, what you think the police could have done INSTEAD of killing these two...

Police officers are in a whole different set of circumstances than I am. The reason why I would never work in the police force or the army is that at some point I may have to take a life and that's something I do not wish to do as the value of human life in all its small probability is what makes it so unique and worth cherishing. Look the fact is that just holding Superman and Spider-Man's no killing statuses as examples isn't enough. By taking the lives of criminals and those who deserve it, you're just enforcing a vicious circle of an eye for an eye justice. And as Gandhi put it "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." If that kind of justice was enforced then it would degrade into more and more cases requiring death and the society we live in would be a less fair and just one and that's not what Superman stands for. He stands for showing mercy to those who you feel don't deserve it, doing the right thing against all the insurmountable odds and striving for a better world to live in. That's why I'm inspired by Superman's moral code.

#46 Posted by Lvenger (21143 posts) - - Show Bio

@Sharkbite: That's an utterly unfair and childish argument to make. The No Kill code is all the more stronger for one who refuses to take life. It's easy to take a knife and stab someone with it or to shoot someone. It's much harder to catch an evil person and show a fair yet just punishment for their crime. With all his powers, Superman is obligated to look for other methods to solve problems and a better society would involve teaching people the value of life. If we enforce killing as a way to justify the ends,what example are we setting? That we're just the same as the murderer, just as willing to take life as they are? What does that say about us as a species that we have not come as far developing our morals as we thought we have.

#47 Posted by Jorgevy (5114 posts) - - Show Bio

@Timandm: they will face them, but for the sake of writing someone else will come in. until it cant go up any more, like TOAA and Presence.

#48 Edited by SC (13341 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Yeah,I suppose that is what he is like,whilst Batman is more of a loner and he doesn't really trust easily,I think he is genuinely more darker (?) for a lack of a better word.And he feels he has to take that kind of an approach to super powered beings because he doesn't know what they might use that power for.

Well yes, he is less outgoing, less trusting, he has to spend more time weighing up the options. Hence why its probably safer to assume most would probably assert Superman is more naive than Batman.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I mean a lot of the villains Batman faces seem beyond rehabilitated.

Really because they are fictional characters and as such they exist to provide entertainment for stories, so Batman may be able to do the impossible in stories, but only as far as for providing for the story (as opposed to reflecting his unique character attributes)

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I don't agree that all characters can be,well at least maybe not for good.I mean Joker is a good example of that,in multiple stories he has been "cured" of his apparent ways only to later go back to how he was.

Ooh I am not talking about the in narrative though. Batman's greatest victory would probably be identifying what is wrong with Joker and fixing/addressing that but he won't ever get to do that - in the main reality.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Also alot of villains are not from our planet and I presume you are talking about rehabilitating them not in the sense we do with criminals,but doing something to make them "good" Is that correct? I think the problem with that though is there are many characters that come from so many different planets with so many different views that to them what they are doing is perfectly fine and acceptable and to alot of villains the heroes are the ones in the wrong and are the ones who must change not them. I also think most villains don't perceive themselves to be "evil" that what they are doing is fine.

I mean in the sense if they have a brain and capacity for actions? They can be made aware of actions that will benefit themselves and others. The most dangerous villains are the most intelligent ones, so the ones for the most potential as far as good and bad, and true they may believe their actions are just, hence the extra step of having to point out and demonstrate how things can be better. Like I said before though, its not in the best interest of comics to do such things.

Moderator
#49 Posted by Sharkbite (293 posts) - - Show Bio

@Lvenger:

How does being a police officer make the situation differant? (Sincere question, not sarcasm) If you're talking in terms of the actual laws and statutes, there are dozens of provisions which allow for someone who is not a Police Officer to be justified in taking a life. Legally, there is a huge difference between Killing and Murder.

If a man breaks into your house tonight while you sleep, takes a knife, and murders a member of your family, that is a horrible tragedy. Are you justified in killing him? Maybe, but maybe not. Killing him as punishment for what he has done, no, that is illegal. You may not kill him for revenge. You may not kill him because you are angry. However, if he goes to the next bedroom where he could commit a second murder, if he has demonstrated both the ability to kill and the intention to kill, then you are justified to take his life in order to preserve the life of your spouse/child/sibling/parent/roommate/etc. Anyone is allowed to kill in order to defend human life.

I have been employed by the Wapello County Sheriff's Department for the past eleven years as a Deputy. I am a sworn peace officer, and I've been doing it for a long time now. There is absolutely no situation where an officer is permitted to kill that any other normal citizen would not be. The badge does not grant us some sort of special License To Kill, where we can commit street corner executions on criminals. We do not take lives, we save lives. And sometimes, the only way to save a life is by taking one. It's not about killing the bad guy, it's about protecting the victim by whatever means is required.

The only differences between the Police Officer and the normal citizen is, when the life or death emergency happens, the citizen gets to run out while the Police Officer is running in. We place ourselves in those situations, so we are in a position to have to make that decision. We are also equipped to make those decisions; even if you were in a place where you realized you could save a hundred lives with one bullet, only the person who is actually carrying the firearm has the ability to act on that. As a police officer, we are there and we are prepared to act. I feel fortunate that I've never had to take a life, but if some guy was walking through our local elementary school gunning down children, you'd better believe that I would drop him where he stands in order to preserve as many of the victim's lives as possible.

It's the bad guy who makes the decision if someone has to die. But when the bad guy decides that somebody dies today, the good guy's responsability is to make sure that it's the right person. I respect human life a great deal, but there is no human alive that I respect so much that I will permit them to murder someone else in cold blood.

#50 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18710 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Yeah,I suppose that is what he is like,whilst Batman is more of a loner and he doesn't really trust easily,I think he is genuinely more darker (?) for a lack of a better word.And he feels he has to take that kind of an approach to super powered beings because he doesn't know what they might use that power for.

Well yes, he is less outgoing, less trusting, he has to spend more time weighing up the options. Hence why its probably safer to assume most would probably assert Superman is more naive than Batman.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I mean a lot of the villains Batman faces seem beyond rehabilitated.

Really because they are fictional characters and as such they exist to provide entertainment for stories, so Batman may be able to do the impossible in stories, but only as far as for providing for the story (as opposed to reflecting his unique character attributes)

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I don't agree that all characters can be,well at least maybe not for good.I mean Joker is a good example of that,in multiple stories he has been "cured" of his apparent ways only to later go back to how he was.

Ooh I am not talking about the in narrative though. Batman's greatest victory would probably be identifying what is wrong with Joker and fixing/addressing that but he won't ever get to do that - in the main reality.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Also alot of villains are not from our planet and I presume you are talking about rehabilitating them not in the sense we do with criminals,but doing something to make them "good" Is that correct? I think the problem with that though is there are many characters that come from so many different planets with so many different views that to them what they are doing is perfectly fine and acceptable and to alot of villains the heroes are the ones in the wrong and are the ones who must change not them. I also think most villains don't perceive themselves to be "evil" that what they are doing is fine.

I mean in the sense if they have a brain and capacity for actions? They can be made aware of actions that will benefit themselves and others. The most dangerous villains are the most intelligent ones, so the ones for the most potential as far as good and bad, and true they may believe their actions are just, hence the extra step of having to point out and demonstrate how things can be better. Like I said before though, its not in the best interest of comics to do such things.

More naive maybe but the way I look at it is that they have completely different tactics for fighting crime/villains due to them been different characters.As I said previously Superman can afford to be more like that.

I think alot of it has to do with the perspective of certain characters,I mean most of Batman's villains for example have different types of mental illnesses but some don't though.I think villains perceive themselves as been right just as heroes do.As to weather they can be treated of there mental illness is obviously dependent on the story,as yeah it is all in a fictional context.

But is there anything wrong with him? Joker is a tricky and is actually a really good character to bring when talking about this kind of stuff.About morality and whatnot.

Yeah as I posted most villains perceive themselves as what they do as right,so to them (depending on the villain) their way of doing things is right and also many want things to be better for themselves hence why they are the villain.I was going to say before that a hero could always become "corrupt" just as easily as a villain can become "good"and yeah it is all dependent on the story as you say.

But it is still very interesting to talk about :)