@DATNIGGA He's done stuff before. He locked someone up named KGBeast and left him to starve. Once he set a bunch of criminals on fire. The thing about Batman is that he doesn't want to kill, but if he absolutely needs to he will. Also he doesn't care if he's not the cause of death. Batman has encouraged Superman to kill Luthor before.
Then why isn't Joker dead? thats someone who should be locked up & left to starve
Some of these comments are irking me... so it's okay for Spidey to not kill but someone like Superman should? That doesn't make any sense. Didn't' Superman start the whole let's not kill anyone thing? That's a double standard and it's stupid.
Also you can't really count him killing Doomsday since Doomsday didn't really die and he's just an undead killing machine. The only other time I recall him killing was under Byrne and he did virtually everything wrong with the character.
If Superman kills, he's not Superman anymore... that applies to Superman even more than Spider-Man... Peter is great but he has a lot of problems and proven that anger can get the best of him at times. I'm not saying he should kill, but it's not more important for him to not kill than Superman
well in new 52..
Superman was trying to kill green & bats if not stopped by the flash...
if he did murder them I would still look at him as superman though cause he killed batman... you know how awesome you have to be to pull that off?
Batman has no qualms with killing if he knows the situation calls for it.
No qualms with killing? Batman? your gonna have to show me an example of that... cause Ive never known batman to kill
READ "ELEMENTALS" VOLUME 2 ISSUE 15
If your goal is outward, to do good in the world, to save lives, to affect other people, then it becomes nessesary to kill sometimes. Every police officer who ever suits up is taught this; sometimes there is not an option where nobody dies, you are choosing if the person who dies is the Bad Guy or the Victim. Indecision is the same thing as choosing to kill the victim, because in both cases you had the ability to save them and instead they died as a result of the choice you made.
Pose to yourself this question. An alien warlord has a huge mega-battleship flying above Earth. He is about to destroy the planet and kill every single human being in existance (roughly 7 billion lives). He is alone on his Mega-battleship and you have in your possession the only weapon capable of shooting down that Mega-battleship. Do you blow up his ship and kill him? Or do you spare his life, and sentence the entire planet to destruction?
There is not a right or wrong answer to this question. Some people honestly are not capable of killing Alien Warlord, even in this circumstance. Perhaps their religious beliefs have them under the understanding that all the dead victims will go to a better place. Perhaps they hold to the faith that somebody somewhere will be able to come up with a plan that doesn't involve killing, so they simply postpone the decision until it is too late. Perhaps they refuse to accept the weight of the decision, feeling that they will not shoulder the burden of of deciding who lives and dies. Or perhaps they will point their blaster at that ship and blow it to peices. There is no right or wrong decision, it's a moral point for the individual.
If you find yourself in the camp with the people who would be willing to take 1 life in order to save the entire world, then it becomes a matter of mathematics. You have the ability to take a life; how many lives have to be at stake before the total number of victims is worth more than the value of the Bad Guy's life? What if that one bad guy was only going to destroy the Western Hemisphere? Would you still kill him if only 3 billion lives were on the line instead of 7 billion? What if he's just going to set off a nuclear bomb and wipe out New York City? Is his single life worth more than the combined 8.2 million people there? What if we zoom in even further, and a suicide bomber is threatening to blow up a school of only 500 small children. Could is his life worth more than all of theirs? What if it's one on one, where some sadistic killer is about to murder an innocent person? Where do we draw the line? Exactly how many lives with the life of a killer worth? How many people should be sacrificed so we don't have to kill the Bad Guy?
There are really only two avenues of thought. Either a life is priceless; we cannot restore one so we have not the right to take one. Or else it's math. X = X. A life is worth a life. At the point somebody is going to kill someone else, you have a choice to make: which one of them deserves to live most?
If Batman would have killed Joker, he would have prevented hundreds of murders, including many murders of children. Batman does not spare the Joker because he believes the Joker could be redeemed. There is no value in the man. Rather, Batman spares the Joker because Batman does not wish to accept the responsability of choosing between life and death. The next time Joker breaks out and murders more people, Bruce can blame the Arkham guards for not keeping him locked up, and his own conscience remains clean even though those victims are no less dead.
Heroes killing villains is about how much responsability you're willing to take for others. Do you accept a position where you have to be responsable for making the decisions of who lives and dies, or is that too much pressure? Doctors have to make these decisions when it comes to transplants. Judges make these decisions in Capital Punishment states. Not everyone wants, or is well suited for that responsability. It's a matter of choice.
But with great power comes great responsability. So sometimes the world needs someone like Cyclops, to make the hard decisions and hate themself for what they've done, but still know deep in their heart that they had to do it because it needed done and no one else would.
Yeah this is on point I agree with what your saying man taking responsibility is the main reason why they don't kill