Amazing Spider-Man 2 Thread Drift: Should Heroes Kill?

[Keeper of the Crows]

Except that that's a completely BS argument. First of all, Punisher shooting jaywalkers was a ridiculous OOC move on the writers part. Second, there's nothing "moral" about doing something that has failed over and over and over again and expect that it will this time. GG has proven time after time that he'll never stop. Every time that he escapes, more innocent people die. The same is true for Joker, Lex Luthor, Professor Zoom, Red Skull, etc. The heroes know damn well that a. these people will inevitably escape and b. when they do, many more innocent people will die. They know this because it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME. I'm sorry, but there is nothing "moral" or "ethical" about not acting in that situation. Let's see Batman go to the families/loved ones/friends of people that the Joker has butchered and try and justify not killing him because of his "moral code." I rather doubt that those people would be all that understanding, they'd call Batman what he is. A selfish, self-righteous, hypocritical, a-hole who places his own personal code above the lives of innocent people. The same is true for Spider-Man, Superman, etc. "Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

You seem to be suggesting that not only is it morally acceptable for a superhero to take a life, but it is actually immoral not to do so.

Personally, I’d rather not see Spider-Man--or other superheroes--killing their villains if it goes against their established character and values. But I do not think that it would always be wrong or immoral for some heroes to kill. The scenario presented at the end of Man of Steel comes to mind, though I think the writers intentionally wrote themselves a situation where Superman would have no choice but to kill.

But I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that it is immoral for the hero to choose not to take a life. I think the suggestion that people have some kind of obligation to put the needs of society above the dictates of their own conscience is particularly troublesome. To repeat an earlier example, I would find it hard to find fault in someone who was asked by the government to drop a nuclear bomb during war and decided against it. I think it is important in a healthy society to respect one another’s belief systems, even if they are different from our own.

As I said earlier in the thread, heroes don’t leave their consciences at the door when they decide to fight crime. They’re risking their lives to protect people because they choose to, not because they are under any obligation to do so, aside from their own sense of responsibility.

Also, instead of blaming Spider-Man or Batman for what happens when villains escape, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to blame the government for not enforcing the death penalty?

[Vegeta]

Also, instead of blaming Spider-Man or Batman for what happens when villains escape, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to blame the government for not enforcing the death penalty?

QFT. It is the STATE'S job to prosecute and doll out the appropriate punishment for these villains. They should be the ones giving guys like Carnage the death penalty, not Spidey.

Besides, even when these villains are killed, they are usually resurrected a few months down the road (like it was nothing more than a mini-vacation) or inspire a hoard of copycats (Norman led to Harry and then Bart in the wake of his "death" not to mention several Hobgoblins; all gained access to Green Goblins weaponry) Killing a super villain is just as "pointless" as arresting them!

[normanosborn]

Besides, even when these villains are killed, they are usually resurrected a few months down the road (like it was nothing more than a mini-vacation) or inspire a hoard of copycats (Norman led to Harry and then Bart in the wake of his "death" not to mention several Hobgoblins; all gained access to Green Goblins weaponry) Killing a super villain is just as "pointless" as arresting them!

Excellent point

I find this discussion interesting to follow even though it can hardly be ever applied to reality.

[ShadowDemon]

Except that that's a completely BS argument.

No, just one you can't counter, which is why you're attempting to dismiss it.

First of all, Punisher shooting jaywalkers was a ridiculous OOC move on the writers part.

No, it's the original portrayal of the character. "Anti-hero" Frank is a retcon. Either way, the point still stands. That is what you get when you cede to one flawed, imperfect and non-omniscient man the ability to permanently impose his moral judgement not only on individuals, but on society.

Second, there's nothing "moral" about doing something that has failed over and over and over again and expect that it will this time. GG has proven time after time that he'll never stop. Every time that he escapes, more innocent people die. The same is true for Joker, Lex Luthor, Professor Zoom, Red Skull, etc. The heroes know damn well that a. these people will inevitably escape and b. when they do, many more innocent people will die. They know this because it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Two words: Abe Jenkins. Murderer ONE time. Numerous escapes, never killed again. Actually went on to become a true hero in his own right and helped save the world several times. By your moral theory, he should be dead. Where would the world be then?

I'm sorry, but there is nothing "moral" or "ethical" about not acting in that situation. Let's see Batman go to the families/loved ones/friends of people that the Joker has butchered and try and justify not killing him because of his "moral code." I rather doubt that those people would be all that understanding, they'd call Batman what he is. A selfish, self-righteous, hypocritical, a-hole who places his own personal code above the lives of innocent people. The same is true for Spider-Man, Superman, etc. "Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

Spider-Man and Batman have to look no further in the mirror to find those "victim families" you speak of. And both decided not to become the very evil they wanted to fight. By your moral reasoning, they should be ammo-ing up and heading out to shoot up every bad guy in sight...but they don't, because they're heroes, not out of control vengeance freaks.

Heroes understand that there are limits to the moral "flexibility" that MUST be observed if they are to retain any moral legitimacy when they act outside the law.

It's one thing to stop a crook in the "here and now". It's quite another to set oneself up as judge, jury, and executioner. You don't want heroes. You want Judge Dredd. You want a world where society has given up its rightful place as the arbiter of what constitutes law and justice in favor of the judgement of single individuals who may or may not share the common values of everyone else.

You and I clearly have VERY different definitions of what constitutes a "superhero."

As I said above, you don't want superheroes. You want Judge Dredd. Most of us don't want Superman/Spider-Man/Batman/et al to be Judge Dredd.

And thank God for that.

[Auguste Dupin]

He punched the guy a lot. He allowed himself to get dragged into an unwinnable (by either side) fight. He leveled a good portion of Smallville and Metropolis. He had a couple of lines saying "Please stop doing this."

In other words, he did nothing that was likely to be very effective and did little that was terribly heroic. Yeah, he saved billions. In the worst way possible. I'm very glad I don't share your view of heroism, and hope most of the world never does.

All in a situation where none of that could have been avoided (except maybe the fight in Smallville, in the sense that the fight could have happened elsewhere).
I notice you failed to mention the part where he did stop all but one of the bad guys without killing them and how Zod only managed to escape through that out of sheer luck, though. Sounds relatively effective to me.
Wether you like it or not, the point of the story was that there was no other solution. That's the whole point of the sadistic choice. The world is not a perfect place where everything can be solved with free candy. Even the world of superheroes (hell, especially the world of superheroes these days).

[Batmankoff]

I share Max Landis' view on the whole Man of Steel controversy. He brings up a lot of stuff that you guys have mentioned.

[Auguste Dupin]

QFT. It is the STATE'S job to prosecute and doll out the appropriate punishment for these villains. They should be the ones giving guys like Carnage the death penalty, not Spidey.

Besides, even when these villains are killed, they are usually resurrected a few months down the road (like it was nothing more than a mini-vacation) or inspire a hoard of copycats (Norman led to Harry and then Bart in the wake of his "death" not to mention several Hobgoblins; all gained access to Green Goblins weaponry) Killing a super villain is just as "pointless" as arresting them!

True. then again, arresting criminals is the police's job, not Spidey's. That's kind of the whole thing with superheroes: they are outlaws. Their very narrative is about people who take the law into their own hand. That's the irony of the discussion. We are using the law as a parameter for people who, by definition, act outside of it.
Look, in real life, I am against summary executions, or even the death penalty. But I would also be against superheroes if they actually existed, because they would be vigilantes who would break about a dozen laws (because Batman killing, everybody screams, but Batman breaking bones, crippling people, and violating basic human rights, nobody cares). However, when I'm reading superhero comics, I understand that I'm reading the adventures of an outlaw whose very existence pretty states they are things that-in universe- the proper authorities can not deal with (otherwise they would, and there would be no need for superheroes in the first place).
I can accept Superman killing people under extreme circumstances for the same reason I can accept him trapping villains in another dimension of emptyness where their very physical existence is denied without so much as a due process (another thing nobody complains about): because the narrative justifies it as being the only way.
Jut because I like cop movies where John McClane shoots down bad guys by the dozen doesn't I would support that in universe. because the narrative supports McClane shooting people as justified to save the innocents, which is not the case in real life.
Which is probably just another way of saying that maybe we're taking the question of the moral implications of superpeople in tights killing bad guys in the funny papers a bit too seriously.

[The4orTy67]

*desperatelytriestofindnecksnapgif*

[Guy1]

One, I see no evidence in the film that Electro was destroyed. Two, by the end of the movie I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he was alive. He's basically an electrical current that has sentience. Sort of.
.

Well, Einstein said that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. Granted, Electro throws logic right out the window, but they could easily use that justification to bring him back in another film.

[Guy1]

Anyway, as far as Superheroes killing goes, I like how Invincible deals with it.

[Beacon]

Should heroes kill? Sometimes.

Should Spider-Man kill? No.

[MASTER-OF-SUPRISE]

I'm still not convinced Electro's dead. I'm willing to bet We'll see him back in time for the Sinister Six movie. As for the OP I think a lot of it depends on the circumstances and characters.

[The Red Monk]

Wait a minute, Electro died in this movie? I honestly didn't notice, probably because they jumped straight to Spider-Man vs. Green Goblin immediately afterwards.

Besides, Electro is a key part of the Sinister Six. Does anyone actually think that they killed him? After all the effort they went to in order to set the stage for the SS?

[normanosborn]

Wait a minute, Electro died in this movie? I honestly didn't notice, probably because they jumped straight to Spider-Man vs. Green Goblin immediately afterwards.

Besides, Electro is a key part of the Sinister Six. Does anyone actually think that they killed him? After all the effort they went to in order to set the stage for the SS?

Certainly not (I am quite sure Norman is alive too) but if you just go by what you see on screen, there is no reason to assume Electro is alive.

[Naked Bat]

He exploded, like the battery. He was completely destroyed leaving no trace. In fact, the shot lingers on the 'charge-o-meter' showing it counting down to zero charge.

Electro's body was really inconsistant throughout the film, but as he de-powered he seemed to become more corporeal. Regardless, you say he wasn't 'alive' be he was clearly a sentient being and Spider-man ended him without regret, remorse or afterthought.

Also, killing is anathema to Spider-man. It isn't even a last resort to him. He just does not work that way, so to craft a situation in which he is forced to kill the stakes have to be infinitely higher than 'the city is dark'. And it should emotinally destroy him ot do it.

I have in no way said I am okay with Superman killing in Superman II. I am not okay with it, Superman and Lois casually tossing the de-powered Kryptonians to their doom is lazy writing.

I AM okay with him killing Zod in man of Steel because he is a legitimate threat and is trying to murder every living thing on Earth! Superman had just stopped him terraforming the planet and had no way of containing Zod if he had captured him. He also lets out a soul-crushing scream of anguish on doing it and breaks down in Lois' arms.

this is exactly how I feel about those movies.