Should Superman kill?

[Jon Clark]

You realize that "hey they are stealing stuff too defense" doesn't stop you from going to prison. Pointing Gotham people are wrong doesn't change that Batman is wrong. And since we don't read the adventures of Gotham P.D. we don't get to see as much what the people do BUT we do get see when Batman stop Red Hood and beat the crap out of him for nearly killing Penguin.

So are you saying that if a police officer knows that his jurisdiction doesn't have the death penalty he is obligated to kill any murderer rather than bring them in? By your logic if that officer doesn't kill a potential Ted Bundy, then he is responsible for any death when the guy escapes or gets set free.

Of Course Superman is partially responsible for deaths by leaving Zod around with a proven pattern of he will kill someone again. If you see crime and don't report it because you afraid they might come after you, And person kills someone else aren't you somewhat responsible for your inaction? In the situations where Superman facing down someone equal to his strength and he can justifiable have reason for lethal force and picks another way,He is picking his moral high ground but a moral high ground that comes with a possible cost. A sniper can choose not shoot a target but if the target kills another soldier it is the sniper fault. Sorry you can't have Moral fantasy with result of the action. Superman and other heroes are not responsible for actions of evil people of course, but they are responsible every action or nonaction that they do as a hero.

As I stated above I don't hold anyone but the murderer responsible for the murder. You are never required to act. It might be cowardly to save your own skin by not reporting a crime, but it isn't immoral. A sniper is charged with a duty and agrees to it, so he is guilty of not doing the job he signed on for. But a marksman who is not a law enforcement officer isn't in the same position. If an ex-sniper is in his office across from a building where a hostage situation is, that guy isn't required to take aim at anyone. And he sure as hell isn't responsible for anyone's death when he doesn't act. It's ridiculously entitled to think other people are required to act just because you them to or to assume your beliefs trump theirs.

[Killerbee911]

It is respectable to have code but we can call it when it stupid, If Pacifist get themselves wipe instead of protecting themselves we can respect their beliefs but point that their beliefs got them killed when there is another option. If We can call out silliness of Wolverine murdering those Hydra or Aim guards we he has another option, We call out Superman for lack of a practical action when situation calls for it. But Both forms of Escapism(No kill and kill every bad guy) tend to be more interesting than the middle ground and there is a reason they end up getting used in stories.

So are you saying that if a police officer knows that his jurisdiction doesn't have the death penalty he is obligated to kill any murderer rather than bring them in? By your logic if that officer doesn't kill a potential Ted Bundy, then he is responsible for any death when the guy escapes or gets set free.
.

So why does every sentence with so what are saying never is what the person is saying. No where I am saying officer is obligated to kill every murder but if an officer is a situation were a murder has a gun point at him,It might be right idea to use lethal force.

As I stated above I don't hold anyone but the murderer responsible for the murder. You are never required to act. It might be cowardly to save your own skin by not reporting a crime, but it isn't immoral. A sniper is charged with a duty and agrees to it, so he is guilty of not doing the job he signed on for. But a marksman who is not a law enforcement officer isn't in the same position. If an ex-sniper is in his office across from a building where a hostage situation is, that guy isn't required to take aim at anyone. And he sure as hell isn't responsible for anyone's death when he doesn't act. It's ridiculously entitled to think other people are required to act just because you them to or to assume your beliefs trump theirs.

Once again nobody is forcing anything we always have choice but your action or lack of action have consequences, If Superman goal is save the most lives sometimes taking a life more effective. The result of Superman "always finding a way" is that dangerous people are "always" left alive. And people always being alive means that more people die in the long run

[Jon Clark]

It is respectable to have code but we can call it when it stupid, If Pacifist get themselves wipe instead of protecting themselves we can respect their beliefs but point that their beliefs got them killed when there is another option. If We can call out silliness of Wolverine murdering those Hydra or Aim guards we he has another option, We call out Superman for lack of a practical action when situation calls for it. But Both forms of Escapism(No kill and kill every bad guy) tend to be more interesting than the middle ground and there is a reason they end up getting used in stories.

A code which is only enforced when it is convenient isn't a code. And it is as silly to hold that saving a life is the ultimate obligation as it is to hold that someone should never kill. They are both just beliefs and not objective points that can be proven right or wrong.

[Jon Clark]

So why does every sentence with so what are saying never is what the person is saying. No where I am saying officer is obligated to kill every murder but if an officer is a situation were a murder has a gun point at him,It might be right idea to use lethal force.

Because your argument was that Batman actually arresting the Joker and turning him over to the police rather than killing him makes Batman responsible for the Joker's later murders. That is different from saying that Batman might use lethal force in a very specific circumstance. And I have seen people who argue that Batman just simply snapping the Joker's neck after he is subdued is as justified as killing him in the heat of battle.

Once again nobody is forcing anything we always have choice but your action or lack of action have consequences, If Superman goal is save the most lives sometimes taking a life more effective. The result of Superman "always finding a way" is that dangerous people are "always" left alive. And people always being alive means that more people die in the long run

But what if Superman's actual goal is to prevent anyone from dying. That it isn't a numbers game where saving 40 people is better than saving 30 people, which is why Superman will save the first people he can in a fire even if that means that a larger number of people remain in danger during that part of the rescue. So to Superman killing the gunman is just as much a "loss" as letting the gunman pull the trigger. And that letting that person be shot is as much a loss as killing the gunman- except in one version Superman has taken an action that causes a death.

[Agent Z]

Part of the problem I see is that people insist on Superman (or Batman) being dedicated to saving lives at all costs and to being the one deciding when lethal force is needed. Since the Joker has been raised a few times I must ask just why Batman and not the people of Gotham are not the ones responsible?

Batman arrests the Joker and turns him over to the Gotham cops. He could be executed by the state. He could be killed by any prison guard "accidentally" or "in self defense". But somehow the overwhelming opinion is that Batman has to be the one to pull the trigger or else Batman might as well just murder all the Joker's future victims himself.

And as far as Superman goes, I just don't accept that his moral absolute is the saving of lives. Like I said he doesn't impose his will on drug addicts and force them to get clean to prevent potential overdoses. He doesn't prevent the people of Metropolis from going out for drinks just to prevent the possibility of drunk drivers. He doesn't kidnap people and take one of their kidneys to preserve the lives of others who need those kidneys. So in those cases he holds self determination as a higher moral value than preserving life. While not popular there is such a thing as a moral position that says lethal force is not justified for ANY reason even self defense or the defense of others. Superman can actually hold an opinion that says Superman's acting to take a life is morally worse than Zod doing so- that killing Zod is not a morally acceptable answer to stopping Zod from killing some third party. He can believe that, gasp, Zod is actually the only one responsible for a death caused by Zod. That Superman's inaction to prevent a death is not equivalent to Superman's acting to take that same life.

There is a huge difference between infringing upon people's personal freedoms and killing a genocidal mad man to stop him from accomplishing his stated goal of committing genocide.

Every time this argument comes up, the fans in support of the no kill rule have to come up with the most ludicrous of worst case scenarios to justify their stance. How the hell does Superman killing a murderous super villain mean he'll graduate to telling people not to drink or committing organ theft? Hell, even a Superman who doesn't kill is just as capable of this type of extreme authoritarianism. See Kingdom Come.

[Killerbee911]

A code which is only enforced when it is convenient isn't a code. And it is as silly to hold that saving a life is the ultimate obligation as it is to hold that someone should never kill. They are both just beliefs and not objective points that can be proven right or wrong.

How is saving innocent life silly in this convo,You know this convo happening because people are point out the flaw in Superman code/belief everything he does is in service to saving lives. But when he doesn't distinguish between evil and innocent or 1 and 1,000 they are consequences. To quote a poster "One of my favorite things about Superman is that he held himself to a higher standard". Superman can be "The I don't kill guy"but sometimes "killing one person is the moral higher standard".Lets take Punisher,Green Lanterns and Superman versus Joker

a. Punisher always kills Joker and thus never gets to kill another innocent,but sometimes he is wrong and Joker just needs to be jailed

b. Superman always saves Joker and Joker goes to jail, but Joker always stay alive so there always a chance for him to escape and kill people

c. Green Lanterns don't always kill but can kill necessary situations. Giving them flexible to kill when necessary or put people jail. They can measure the situation if 1 million people lives are on the line they can value the 1 million over the Joker. They can also go nah this Joker henchman does not need to die he is a threat to me he can be jailed.

If goal is to save most lives they are two flawed positions and one position gives you flexibility to make a choices based on what save more lives.

[Agent Z]

A code which is only enforced when it is convenient isn't a code. And it is as silly to hold that saving a life is the ultimate obligation as it is to hold that someone should never kill. They are both just beliefs and not objective points that can be proven right or wrong.

And yet that is exactly how you and everyone else who defends Superman's rule to not kill treat it.

Is it really time for this debate... again?

One of my favorite things about Superman is that he held himself to a higher standard. He wasn't defined by what he could or couldn't do as much as by what he felt he should or shouldn't do. He wasn't Joe Blow with superhuman powers who was no more heroic than the next guy. He set an example for what we should do. He wasn't a guy who put his personal desires ahead of the greater good or set aside his values when they were inconvenient. He was someone who was nicer than me, smarter than me, more moral than me. In short he was someone to aspire to be, not someone who had a real world counterpart.

To me having Supeman kill or worse yet put in a situation where he is forced to make a choice to kill (because every other option is worse) is a disservice to the character. Superman shouldn't be a stand-in for the reader and how the reader would act with similar powers. He shouldn't be shown to be the lowest common denominator of how to act. He isn't a SWAT officer or a battlefield soldier and Superman's actions shouldn't reflect those roles. As he often stated on his "no kill" rule in the Silver-Age- anyone as powerful as himself who could not find a solution to a problem other than killing, was too dangerous to have such powers. His power levels simply require you to be better ethically than the next guy to avoid abusing them.

[superduperman]

I think to some degree it's a matter of HOW they handle it. My issue with MOS is that he kills on his first outing as Superman. This is something he's supposed to wrestle with. And they do it his first day on the job. In New 52 Justice League he's throwing trucks at parademons who, most likely, were people who were turned into them. Doomsday wasn't a sentient creature who probably wasn't that aware of it's surroundings anymore than an animal is. It was created for killing. With the Phantom Zone villains who destroyed the pocket Earth, it was a difficult decision he made and wrestled with for years after. And even then he did it out of a sense of justice.

[Jon Clark]

And yet that is exactly how you and everyone else who defends Superman's rule to not kill treat it.

Yes.

And my point is that neither point of view can be called silly without both sides being silly. All of those who hold that Superman is wrong not to kill under certain circumstances are no more or less silly than those who hold that Superman should never take a life. Both sides are putting a value at the top of the list, it's just that somehow the people arguing for the MOS scenario seem to think their value (Saving potential future lives) has some real world objective weight while the other side's value (you don't have any right to take a life) is less objectively sound. Both are opinions based on what one believes is more important. Having Superman adopt a moral code that says "I kill as a last resort" is nothing more than a preference, no more valid than "I prefer Wally over Barry as the Flash" or "Superman belongs with Diana/Lois".

[Jon Clark]

There is a huge difference between infringing upon people's personal freedoms and killing a genocidal mad man to stop him from accomplishing his stated goal of committing genocide.

Every time this argument comes up, the fans in support of the no kill rule have to come up with the most ludicrous of worst case scenarios to justify their stance. How the hell does Superman killing a murderous super villain mean he'll graduate to telling people not to drink or committing organ theft? Hell, even a Superman who doesn't kill is just as capable of this type of extreme authoritarianism. See Kingdom Come.

I wasn't giving a worse case scenario. I was illustrating that "saving the most lives" isn't Superman's guiding philosophy even though he believes "saving lives" is something to strive for. If there are points where Superman sees an action that would save lives (getting kidneys for people who need a transplant to live) doesn't justify the means (taking kidneys by force/coercion from people who can survive with just one kidney) then it is just as valid for him to see that "saving lives" doesn't necessarily justify the means "taking a life" to do it.

[Jon Clark]

How is saving innocent life silly in this convo,You know this convo happening because people are point out the flaw in Superman code/belief everything he does is in service to saving lives. But when he doesn't distinguish between evil and innocent or 1 and 1,000 they are consequences. To quote a poster "One of my favorite things about Superman is that he held himself to a higher standard". Superman can be "The I don't kill guy"but sometimes "killing one person is the moral higher standard".Lets take Punisher,Green Lanterns and Superman versus Joker

a. Punisher always kills Joker and thus never gets to kill another innocent,but sometimes he is wrong and Joker just needs to be jailed

b. Superman always saves Joker and Joker goes to jail, but Joker always stay alive so there always a chance for him to escape and kill people

c. Green Lanterns don't always kill but can kill necessary situations. Giving them flexible to kill when necessary or put people jail. They can measure the situation if 1 million people lives are on the line they can value the 1 million over the Joker. They can also go nah this Joker henchman does not need to die he is a threat to me he can be jailed.

If goal is to save most lives they are two flawed positions and one position gives you flexibility to make a choices based on what save more lives.

But if the goal isn't "to save the most lives" but rather "to prevent deaths" then your argument becomes "I must kill in order to prevent killing".

1)The Punisher is motivated by the death of his own family. Is his killing of Hitman Joe any less of a loss to Joe's family than the death of Joe's victims?

2)If we are going with the Joker's future killings as a negative when Superman saves the Joker, does Joe Chill get credit because his killing of the Waynes resulted in the birth of Batman who saved more lives than Chill ever took?

[scribbleMind]

I think Superman should kill when there is no other option, BUT, he should never kill humans.

[Agent Z]

Yes.

And my point is that neither point of view can be called silly without both sides being silly. All of those who hold that Superman is wrong not to kill under certain circumstances are no more or less silly than those who hold that Superman should never take a life. Both sides are putting a value at the top of the list, it's just that somehow the people arguing for the MOS scenario seem to think their value (Saving potential future lives) has some real world objective weight while the other side's value (you don't have any right to take a life) is less objectively sound. Both are opinions based on what one believes is more important. Having Superman adopt a moral code that says "I kill as a last resort" is nothing more than a preference, no more valid than "I prefer Wally over Barry as the Flash" or "Superman belongs with Diana/Lois".

I'd say one side is being silly when they compare justified use of lethal force to organ theft.

[Jon Clark]

I'd say one side is being silly when they compare justified use of lethal force to organ theft.

Don't agree. Both are using the idea that potentially saving a life justifies violating one's moral code. The idea that you call one "justified" doesn't make it justified to a person who feels all killing is wrong. Killing in war is justified to me or you, but not to a conscientious objector. He is as entitled to act on his belief as anyone else a long as nothing he ACTIVELY does results in a death (so no arguing that someone dies when he doesn't act isn't a valid resonse to his belief).

[Agent Z]

Don't agree. Both are using the idea that potentially saving a life justifies violating one's moral code. The idea that you call one "justified" doesn't make it justified to a person who feels all killing is wrong.

Not all opinions are equal.

Just because a person can use some mental gymnastics to convince themselves that killing is wrong in every context does not make their opinion reasonable. You can claim that Superman killing Zod or Mongul or Bizarro or whoever in self defense or defense of others is no different than him committing organ theft in the name of saving a life. It doesn't mean it isn't a ridiculous opinion to hold no matter how you try to justify it to yourself.