Should Superman kill?

[stargazer01]

Should Superman ever kill? Yes? No? It depends?

I think he should avoid it at all costs and try to find another way, but sometimes there is no choice. I'm ok with him killing on rare occasions, but we should see how that impacts him emotionally.

I love the Death of Superman animated movie and also Man of Steel live action film, and Supes kills in those. I don't think less of him because he killed. He was still willing to sacrifice his life for the world if necessary. I think that counts.

Some people think he should never kill because he's Superman, but I feel that kind of limits his stories. Life is not always easy. Sometimes we have to makes really hard decisions. Thoughts?

[HeroVladimir93]

Should Superman ever kill? Yes? No? It depends?

I think he should avoid it at all costs and try to find another way, but sometimes there is no choice. I'm ok with him killing on rare occasions, but we should see how that impacts him emotionally.

I love the Death of Superman animated movie and also Man of Steel live action film, and Supes kills in those. I don't think less of him because he killed. He was still willing to sacrifice his life for the world if necessary. I think that counts.

Some people think he should never kill because he's Superman, but I feel that kind of limits his stories. Life is not always easy. Sometimes we have to makes really hard decisions. Thoughts?

Yes, I agree with this. Superman doesn't exist in a void where everything stays the same. He lives in a constantly changing world where people, himself included, are forced to reexamine and challenge their beliefs every day. No, I don't think Superman should go around killing small-time thugs or purse snatchers, that would be an abuse of power. He does, however, should consider lethal options when coming across entities that are a dangers to Earth, the universe and all sapient life, like Darkseid, Doomsday or Brainiac. Superman is not a lesser person if he is forced to kill. In fact, I don't think Superman should be dogmatic about his no-killing rule, enforcing it on his fellow superheroes because they face situations and circumstances different from his own. The act of killing is not inherently good or evil. Context matters. A soldier isn't evil for killing in the battlefield, a policeman isn't evil for killing a criminal, a random person on the street isn't evil for killing someone who wants to steal from him.

[Sacred Knight]

When there's no other option. He's dealt with way too many supremely powerful evil beings in his day to have any No Kill Code that doesn't reek of naiveite. Its more than enough for his personal code of conduct to be stop threats without lethal means whenever humanly possible. Because since he's boss, more often than not he indeed finds another way. But there's bound to be exceptions.

[Jon Clark]

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.

[Celgress]

Only when there is no other viable option and he should only do so very rarely.

[Vordan]

Well he killed Doomsday, so it’s not like the current iteration has never killed. I wonder if he still killed that elseworld Zod? Just finished Exile and I really like that story. I hope that part is still canon.

[Killerbee911]

There is a problem with Superman and Batman when they are made an ideal and not a character. Superman no kill rule shouldn't ever get in the way of common sense and the character. If a murderous villain who is known to Superman as legit murderous bastard and he is threatening to destroy the world . I don't ever want see Superman go "Killing this guy is the wrong thing to do" when it is the legit no brainer thing to do. I am fine with Superman(Batman) having a no kill rule and knowing they are being wrong somewhat because in a way that sort thinking endangers people. In most case no kill is most heroic action that be taken but it should be point out for being wrong especially when because enough of troupe that Super villains are taunting them with it . It should be point out when that isn't the case and it is stupid as long as someone like Wonder Woman calls it out I am fine with the no kill rule. Wonder Woman "You know that leaving Lex Luthor or Joker alive will one day endanger your family and friends right?".

[Lightning Rider]

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.

I really like the way you characterize Superman's position as above that of an ordinary person with powers. These abilities raise his moral standard. But in my view it's equally true that the dangers he contends with are far beyond what us mere mortals do, and so it becomes likely that he encounters a living being he must put down. In saying that, I feel the debate changes significantly when talking about killing a human or non-human.

[GreatKungLao]

Something controversial, finally. Because I have way too many thoughts regarding the topic.

First of all I would like to start by saying that a No Kill Rule exists solely for the reason to make superheroes fight same villains over and over again for eternity. Without villains there are no stories = no comic books to sell. No Kill is a business rule. The reason why I think is because when writers try to explain the rule it makes no sense to me. For example Batman doesn't kill The Joker why? "Because it would make me just like you". Excuse me, but how is killing a criminal maniac who kills hundreds of innocents for fun would make you into him? That doesn't make any sense. A hero would make world a favor by killing someone like The Joker who constantly keeps escaping and killing even more innocents and for some reason heroes try to keep trust the "system", even if it keeps failing over and over.

I do agree that in order to present a better example by their deeds, superheroes should avoid killing if it’s not the only one solution to prevent innocents lives to be taken. Heroes shouldn’t aim for a kill as a beforehand intent, but during intense action it can be justified as self protection or means to preserve innocent lives that were about to be taken. The first is a murder, the other one is a kill. There is a difference in my opinion.

What Superman did to Zod in Man of Steel is completely fine. No Kill is a fairy tail, realistically killing even for heroes could be practical given certain circumstances.

Just imagine a situation where the villain is about to kill innocents and superhero doesn't kill him just because. The villain kills innocents and then superhero catches him and "arrests" him. Killing the villain was the only option to prevent innocents from dying. Does it mean that he should have killed the villain? Absolutely. The stakes and circumstances justify the means.

Having Superman never kill and always find a way is an escapist fantasy that will never work realistically and its fine if people enjoy that more. I myself prefer a more practical Superman who can do what must be done in order to save the world. But he shouldn't always kill, only when it is necesarry and the last possible option.

I absolutely wouldn't mind if he killed Rogol Zaar if it came to it, especially after what that creature did to Kondor. I don't know why I should've felt sorry for a villain or care about a No Kill rule if Superman had to kill that mass murderer. Not every villain is capable of atonement and redemption.

People just have to keep in mind that leaving alive certain villains will cause more deaths of innocents in the future that could've been prevented if a hero killed a villain. But if he did that, there would be no story to tell later. Another story where hero feels sorry about the dead, but keeps convincing himself that he shouldn't kill a villain who caused all those deaths because a hero decided not to kill him previously on the story.

If only Phantom Zone was truly inescapable place. But some might argue that Phantom Zone is a fate worse than death.

[theoneandonly]

the debate also gets more convoluted when you bring identity crisis into it where the heroes were subverting the minds of villains and brainwashing them to try avoid having to kill them. that was the modus operandi of doc savage who instead of killing the villains rehabilitated them unlike the shadow who usually just guns everyone down.

[Jon Clark]

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.

[GreatKungLao]

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.

That's just some crazy mental gymnastics just to justify keeping your hands clean. Not killing a villain to save innocents to keep No Kill rule in tact is jacked up if it's seriously considered a worse case scenario than killing a villain to save those lives. If you have an opportunity to save by killing and don't do it just because you consider yourself a saint, you are just as to blame for those deaths as the villain. Inaction is also a decision that causes innocents to die.

[JackDaw]

For me, the most convincing answer to this perennial question was given by Alan Moore in “Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow”: in some circumstance Superman can kill, it might be the right moral choice...but afterwards he’s no longer Superman.

[Killerbee911]

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.
.

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.


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.

[Jon Clark]

That's just some crazy mental gymnastics just to justify keeping your hands clean. Not killing a villain to save innocents to keep No Kill rule in tact is jacked up if it's seriously considered a worse case scenario than killing a villain to save those lives. If you have an opportunity to save by killing and don't do it just because you consider yourself a saint, you are just as to blame for those deaths as the villain. Inaction is also a decision that causes innocents to die.

Never said the innocents don't die, just that ACTIVELY causing a death can be viewed as morally worse than PASSIVELY allowing a death to occur. I can choose not to donate a kidney to save a life and not be as evil as someone who commits murder- even though in both cases someone dies. And my not risking my life to save you when you fall off a roof is not equivalent to my pushing you off the roof even if you die from the fall either way.


I find the argument that someone is compelled to save a life under ALL circumstances to be screwy. Not the idea that saving a life isn't a good thing, but to me it isn't an ultimate good that justifies ANY action taken. There are pacifists ho believe that any violence even that done to protect themselves or others is unjustified. I don't agree with them, but I can't condemn them for believing it. And I can't obligate a man to break his own belief that killing is wrong, just because it benefits someone else for him to kill.