Superman's morality

[lotchj]

One of the reasons SM is my favorite superhero is him values!! I agree with what Sm was saying!! He can't stand there and let someone fall to their death. No matter what might happen in the future!

[kingaliencracker]

This is akin to Batman simply not killing the Joker, who he knows will ultimately kill dozens and dozens of more people before it's all said and done.

With Batman, it's a bit different because if he kills Joker he loses a classic villain, so they throw morality out as a means as to why he won't do it.

With Superman, even if he knew saving a baby would mean that baby would grow up to become a mass murderer or something, he would still save that baby or whatever it was, and then just fight to save all those other people the baby or whatever may wind up killing. That's just who Superman is.

[manwhohaseverything]

Of course - I'm speaking in general.

Not everything needs to be a search or a journey, though - in the grander sense. I think sometimes we (myself included) can get too hung up on that. For an origin story/etc, absolutely, and in many other cases, too. But there's also the idea of growth where we learn to do something we didn't know before. Where he doesn't (and we don't see right away) the solution, but he finds it. That's growth, but doesn't necessarily need negative consequences to make it better.

I understand the concept, don't get me wrong, but I find that every lesson needing pain is too overwrought. Some lessons certainly do, and I'm not saying there shouldn't be any pain ever. But not all of them should.

Sure, i am not advocating for telling same stories over and over again. Taking same steps over and over to get the same outcome is literally telling the same story . Then again it's comics. Also, i don't view things that helps people that grow and become better as person "bad" or "negative", entirely . The events themselves might be that. but we make something good from it then it's not so bad, right? And Not every lesson needs pain. But, essential ones do.

[manwhohaseverything]

I always thought this question was kind of answered under the death of the Kents or at least one of the Kents. Guy spends his whole life from early childhood saving people but eventually fails to save the people closest to him. Death is a part of life, pretty much the only certainty you can have about it. I figured Superman's overall focus was mainly on injustice and using what skills and abilities he had he tried to make life fairer than it actually is in reality but at the end of day he's not an all powerful deity. Hercules was a demigod but he still was made to bear Hera's wrath for things that were completely out of his control. Same with Superman, good times come with the bad; is it really Superman's fault if he isn't fast enough or strong enough to save every single person?

I'd like to think even if we end up giving him a D for results he would have been putting in a A tier effort 100% of the time.

Sorry for the late reply.
it's not that simple. Death is part of life. It can even be a rule or a chain. Clark is a character that breaks the rule or chain for just causes. So, ofcourse he will have his battles with death itself.i mean, the guy literally came back from it. He might not always win. The one you provided of deaths of parents is such an occasion. But he will fight. He will find new ways for humanity to advance. That's what Superman is about. Morality of that is for everyone to decide. But, he does it.

[manwhohaseverything]

This is akin to Batman simply not killing the Joker, who he knows will ultimately kill dozens and dozens of more people before it's all said and done.

With Batman, it's a bit different because if he kills Joker he loses a classic villain, so they throw morality out as a means as to why he won't do it.

With Superman, even if he knew saving a baby would mean that baby would grow up to become a mass murderer or something, he would still save that baby or whatever it was, and then just fight to save all those other people the baby or whatever may wind up killing. That's just who Superman is.

This is a superman That values intentions more than outcome. But, that has its own baggages. Jason todd as red hood's existence literally tells you that. Everything has limits. The reverse has its own pitfalls as well.

[manwhohaseverything]

I know this is suppose to be focused on Post-Crisis Superman but IIRC there was a Pre-Crisis story that dealt with Superman being caught up saving people in one event while a school bus felt into a river and the class along with the teachers drowned to death. Superman was sort of struggling with it all and IIRC he was catching heat from the public over it as well.

That's cool! And they say precrisis supes isn't a person, but a god. If i may ask could you provide the issue number? If you know that is. If you don't that's fine too.

[manwhohaseverything]

These are the moments that brings out "the human" in characters. Its failure is worth something. It teaches the value of victory. All might ftw!! I seriously want a goldenage take on Superman to be popular again.

[stargazer01]

I wanted to discuss superman's morality. It's strengths and It's limits . I would restrict my discussion to the post crisis version,strictly. That after his arc with zod and exile is finished.The one who has clearly formed moral positions. I don't want any version conflict nonsense.

he wouldn't let a person die no matter what, even if it meant letting 20 others die. So, he will save the girl. That's his position.he saying humanity wouldn't want him too.So, my question is what would happen if clark does save a person and twenty people really does die?Do you believe clark holds any responsibility for the dead? Why do you feel the way you do? My take, i don't know. I have no answer.On one hand clark has great power. With that power and augmented senses he would be responsible for making big decisions that reduces suffering as much as his powers allows him to. Here, i wouldn't call Clark's choice would be reducing any suffering. He essentially let 20 others die . On, the other hand letting someone die when you can help them is wrong.
Either way, he did make a choice. It is respectable and brave.i don't think i could make choices like this.

I voted No, he is not responsible. He does the best he can, which isn't always easy, but he does it any way because it's the right thing to do. But Clark isn't an omnipotent God who can be everywhere all the time. Heck, not even God (if you believe in him) saves everybody. He still let's a lot of people die, good one or bad ones, for whatever reason. Some say it's part of his plan. Superman isn't God, and he still needs to have a personal life for his mental sanity. Also, Superman isn't real.

BTW, that's some interesting writing. What story is it? Love philosophical and moral stories like that.

[manwhohaseverything]

I voted No, he is not responsible. He does the best he can, which isn't always easy, but he does it any way because it's the right thing to do. But Clark isn't an omnipotent God who can be everywhere all the time. Heck, not even God (if you believe in him) saves everybody. He still let's a lot of people die, good one or bad ones, for whatever reason. Some say it's part of his plan. Superman isn't God, and he still needs to have a personal life for his mental sanity. Also, Superman isn't real.

BTW, that's some interesting writing. What story is it? Love philosophical and moral stories like that.

Ofcourse, i am talking about in a book.

[Dralokonda]

Reminds me of this scene from The Justice League of China comics.Capture.jpg

[manwhohaseverything]

Man!did this become a topic in the new tom king book. Clark either killed the alien who want to be put out of his misery for saving a girl. Or he didn't for his own morality. Darkseid and superman really does have this chemistry. It is freaking. awesome. King's superman is a treat.First the boxing match.Then the race. Now this. I wish he would do more.

[Flash Gordon]

I think Superman will do what needs to be done to save the day and help the most people, even if that means taking on the burden.

THAT SAID, I think putting the character in a narrative where he needs to kill is really unfair. Superman is not the character to explore those questions with.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think Superman will do what needs to be done to save the day and help the most people, even if that means taking on the burden.

THAT SAID, I think putting the character in a narrative where he needs to kill is really unfair. Superman is not the character to explore those questions with.

What's the point of character taking moral positions if its not challenged? Take under the redhood. Why is it great? Because bruce gets questioned. The problem isn't if he kills or not. Either will have consequences .but the Problem is whether or not they should. Moral positions have its limits. Clark should be asked complicated questions, in story. For example, what right does a vigilante have to talk about justice? What right does journalist who lies and tries to hide his vigilante activities using his position of power have of talking about truth and against corruption?
If clark goes toe to toe with doomsday. He cannot always control the outcome. There will be casualties including himself . He shouldn't always break that chain. That was my position .
Clark can be complex as bruce or peter Even more so.

[Thor-Ul]

Man!did this become a topic in the new tom king book. Clark either killed the alien who want to be put out of his misery for saving a girl. Or he didn't for his own morality. Darkseid and superman really does have this chemistry. It is freaking. awesome. King's superman is a treat.First the boxing match.Then the race. Now this. I wish he would do more.

Me too. King's run has been really interesting putting Superman on situations where he can't win just with Superpowers, but where he is being challengend in his most profund beliefs. That kind of situation must be adressed more often.

What's the point of character taking moral positions if its not challenged? Take under the redhood. Why is it great? Because bruce gets questioned. The problem isn't if he kills or not. Either will have consequences .but the Problem is whether or not they should. Moral positions have its limits. Clark should be asked complicated questions, in story. For example, what right does a vigilante have to talk about justice? What right does journalist who lies and tries to hide his vigilante activities using his position of power have of talking about truth and against corruption?
If clark goes toe to toe with doomsday. He cannot always control the outcome. There will be casualties including himself . He shouldn't always break that chain. That was my position .
Clark can be complex as bruce or peter Even more so.

I like how you think on this, manwhohaseverything. I don't agree with you in other matters, but here, we are in the same page.

[qwertyuiop1998]

The point is ALL Arion said just a possible future. It isn't a solid or irreversible facts. It basically was a classic trolley dilemma, It just avoiding any other solution by restricting the options.But in reality, There are virtually infinite possibilities which makes there will be much more than just two options
So yes, Supes did the right thing by refusing Arion's propose
And for the "If superman saves 1 person and fails 20. Does clark have any responsibility?" No He isn't responsible,Because he had failed to SAVE them" He saving people behavior is more conscience thing than responsibility