Superman and Killing

[Carabas]

Eh, Superman killing Brainiac isn't really an issue. Even Morrison's Superman--a guy who in writing, Morrison once noted "My only rule with Superman is that he does not kill. That's the essential core. He always finds a way to solve every single problem without anyone being hurt."

Regardles of his stance on A.I.s, the reason why Morriosn's Superman doesn't kill is simple: he never has to because when faced with the choice his writer will always provide him with a way to avoid killing.

[Vanguard-01]

Not to brag, but I developed my code against killing without having to kill any one...

People hold up this excuse regarding MoS all the time.

Superman didn't need to kill someone to understand that killing is wrong. He was raised by good, moral parents who taught him that killing was wrong. When people say "Superman needed to kill someone in order to develop his code against killing" they aren't saying that he needed to kill someone to understand that killing is wrong.

Intellectually understanding that killing is wrong is still not the same thing as actually experiencing the horror of taking a life. It makes what you've been taught more real. It DEEPENS your understanding of why life is precious and worth preserving.

You may believe that killing is wrong now. If you were actually forced to take a life? That would likely further your desire to never kill again.

[Gaelforce]

Here's the thing - the vast majority of people, including most of the folks on this forum, will never have to face a situation where it's kill or be killed (or kill or watch someone die), so it's an abstract concept.

Sure, we all know that killing is wrong, but legally we've also been taught that killing in self-defense is legal and, in many cases, the moral thing to do. If you have a gun and someone is about to stab your child, you have every right to shoot, and I sure as heck wouldn't take the chance of shooting him in the leg.

Arm chair quarterbacking is a fine thing, but until you've been there/done that, you can't say for certain what you'd do in any situation. The reverse holds just as true; the big badasses, when put in a situation to put up or shut up, often fold under pressure.

I've been in the 'kill or risk a family member's death' situation and found that when it came down to it, I was perfectly willing to kill a man to save my husband's life. As it was, the guy survived, but at that very moment? I have no doubt in my mind what I would have done, and I know killing is, for the most part, wrong.

The idea in MOS was simple - they put him in the 'no win' situation and he had to make a choice as someone who has never been in this position before. He's always been faster/stronger/tougher than the situations he's faced, and now it came down to 'do you kill this man or do you watch him kill someone else.' You can argue the scene was poorly written and that there were outs (welcome to the Eternal Wonder Woman/Max Lord debate ), but it's the spirit of what they were trying to present to the audience that matters in the long run.

[Mr. Mastermind]

I'm not really sure how killing Zod was really that evil, Superman gave him the chance to live and he refused it, and made it very clear he wanted Superman to kill him. It was almost euthanasia. I guess having Superman scream makes him seems less cold but he really did do nothing wrong there. If Zod didn't want death he would have stopped trying to kill that innocent family.

If anything the experience should have taught Superman how killing is something he should be open to in certain situations. If he hadn't killed someone, an innocnet family would be dead.

Any version of Superman should be against the death penalty though.

[Prime]

I like it when there is no cheat plot device to end everything conveniently.

[MikeP]

That seems like a semantic difference to me.

It comes down to motivation. Like Lancerman noted earlier, if Superman retired due to old age hampering his abilities or feeling that his role as Earth's protector was over, that is different. But he is basically running away because he broke his oath. Now, an oath is a serious thing, and I agree there should be consequences. But he just finished a battle that proved his enemies were still very deadly to himself and those he loves. Krypto was just killed, for goodness sake. If anything, that should drive home the point WHY he needs his powers.

That's a later story.

And a different Superman. I liked how that was handled.

Not to him if he no longer trusts himself with that power.

This isn't a slippery slope fallacy. He isn't Batman, afraid to kill because it would lead him down a darker path. Superman doesn't kill because the thinks all life is precious. I don't think he has any reason to fear himself.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

I'm not really sure how killing Zod was really that evil, Superman gave him the chance to live and he refused it, and made it very clear he wanted Superman to kill him. It was almost euthanasia. I guess having Superman scream makes him seems less cold but he really did do nothing wrong there. If Zod didn't want death he would have stopped trying to kill that innocent family.

It wasn't evil, what Superman did wasn't wrong within the context of that movie. I just have a problem with it in the context of Superman as a symbol and what that means in the real world, and I imagine that's most people's issue.

I like it when there is no cheat plot device to end everything conveniently.

Define "cheat". Is the Phantom Zone a 'cheat', even if its appearance was set up earlier in the story? I'd say there's a world of difference between something like that, or some other clever application of his powers or something set up in his mythology or earlier in the specific story, or him just suddenly developing Super-Depowering Vision or something on that level of deus ex machina.

[Vanguard-01]

Define "cheat". Is the Phantom Zone a 'cheat', even if its appearance was set up earlier in the story?

And within that very same story, all avenues to the Phantom Zone had been cut off by the time the neck snap happened. It wasn't an option. If it had been an option? Then yeah, it would've been a convenient loophole that would've prevented Superman from having to make a hard decision. The writers saw to it that the Phantom Drives were all destroyed to prevent Superman from having that "easy out."

[BBally]

Thor's a warrior, Iron Man was an arms dealer who built himself the world's deadliest weapon, Hawkeye's got pointy arrows to work with, Black Widow and Cap were both soldiers, Batman killed a few times in the 40s, had it retracted to the approval of his creator Bill Finger, and has been thoroughly and inviolately established as never killing ever since--including in the hyper-real Dark Knight, where Nolan's desire to have one of the two most fundamentally established "never kills ever" heroes not kill anyone wasn't overridden.

To be honest, I think Batman willingly leaving Ras Al Ghoul to die in the train crash in Batman Begins is much worse than Superman reluctantly snapping Zod's neck.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

To be honest, I think Batman willingly leaving Ras Al Ghoul to die in the train crash in Batman Begins is much worse than Superman reluctantly snapping Zod's neck.

Yeah. I think it works for setting up context for DK, where we see how much Batman's evolved in being willing to save the Joker, but taken on its own its a complete screw-up. Even there it's iffy at best. I like to think that's something producers and the like insisted on, before Nolan had the clout he did by Dark Knight.

[BBally]

Yeah. I think it works for setting up context for DK, where we see how much Batman's evolved in being willing to save the Joker, but taken on its own its a complete screw-up. Even there it's iffy at best. I like to think that's something producers and the like insisted on, before Nolan had the clout he did by Dark Knight.

Me too. I'll be honest, I'm not high on Nolan's Batman trilogy as most people are, I mean don't get me wrong but I love the Dark Knight, its one of my favorite superhero films but I like Begins less every time I see it and Rises wasn't all that good in my opinion, so overall I personally don't find the entire trilogy that great as a whole.

[Carabas]

To be honest, I think Batman willingly leaving Ras Al Ghoul to die in the train crash in Batman Begins is much worse than Superman reluctantly snapping Zod's neck.

I'm not going to look bad at Batman for not being keen on risking his own life to see if he even can save the life of the maniac who repaid saving his life before by trying to kill Gotham City.

[lancerman]

I'm not going to look bad at Batman for not being keen on risking his own life to see if he even can save the life of the maniac who repaid saving his life before by trying to kill Gotham City.

Yeah the issues I've always had with that were.

1. Batman already saved Ra's once and Gotham almost was destroyed for it.
2. Ra's was as good a fighter as Batman and could have murdered Batman in the rescue attempt so it was not a risk he might have been willing to take,.
3. Ra's orchestrated the deathtrap he was in.
4. Like Zod, Ra's was pretty much daring Batman to kill him.
5. Ra's was skilled enough that he could have atleast made an attempt to survive.

[dupersuper]

a) You are not a super hero.

Nope, I'm sure not, citizen...er, I mean...fellow poster...

I don't think he has any reason to fear himself.

I think at that point he might disagree.

[Carabas]

a) You are not a super hero.

b) You have not been in a situation in which you were face-to-face with someone or a group of people who murdered 5 billion people.

Byrne's story is terrible, morally speaking.

According to the story, the main reason Superman doesn't kill is that he goes a bit crazy if he does.