tim2081

There are plenty of soldiers who have killed people and don't go down this slippery slope you speak of. Part of being a hero (or any type of leader) is being able to make the tough decisions and having people trust you to do it. If you're afraid you're on the verge of going crazy, you probably shouldn't be pretending to be a hero. The slippery slope argument is a weak excuse for characters who can't control themselves. Captain America is a perfect example, kill during a war, and still be a great leader after.

Actually, yeah, Superman needed to be rebooted for a modern audience, so the recent 2 years would be more relevant.

A lot of superheroes don't have powers. Batman has just been around for a long time.

Black Nick Fury is more popular than white Nick Fury, sometimes it's an improvement to switch races.

Not true. Disney owns a lot of properties, and they don't micromanage all of them. They will sometimes use the characters for their kid-friendly shows, but characters like the Punisher will not be branded with the Disney logo. Keep in mind Disney owns ESPN also, and you never see Mickey Mouse popping up during Sportscenter.

Nobody knows Flash's origin, that's completely wide open if someone wants to create a brand new one for a movie. Same with Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Green Lantern. People know the names and costumes, not the personalities or origins. Marvel started at the same place. Everyone knew the Captain America name and costume, but everything else could be restructured.

Outside of Superman and Batman, DC's heroes aren't very well known, especially not to younger people. Any of DC's characters can be rebooted and redefined, and not many people would care.

@Z3RO180: I would consider him to be better.

@Z3RO180 said:

If he killed the man who killed his parents or if he killed the joker for killing jason todd how would he be any diffenrt from them.

Because he would be killing somebody guilty instead of someone innocent.

@Lvenger said:

@tim2081: The end never justifies the means. Kant's categorical imperative states that committing an evil act for the right reasons is never justified. Inflicting suffering on one person just to save more is just as bad as the murder of those other people. It's not a perfect world but that doesn't stop us from adhering to the moral codes we have created to live better lives. It's hypocritical to change these rules for one person as how can these codes be worth adhering to if we're willing to ditch them to inflict suffering/death on another human being, no matter how evil they are. Evidently the term 'life sentence' needs to be evaluated in the justice system to ensure that people who can't change stay away for good and don't act as a danger to society.

I disagree with Kant, I think utilitarianism is a better idea, although I don't completely agree with it. Also, the justice system puts people to death a lot, especially in Texas. Even innocent people will be put to death in the current justice system.

How old are your friends? I'm pretty sure everyone over 40 doesn't hate on Superman.