Justice League of America >> View Thread

Author
AskaniGrey




I was thinkin earlier about Clark's whole aversion to killing for any reason and it just seemed wrong. He and Bruce both feel it's taking the easy way out to kill an enemy and there are other ways to solve problems, which obviously holds some weight and is understandable, but in light of the whole Max Lord Sacrifice arc, you would think they would side with Diana for doing what she did. It's not like disagreeing with the death penalty, which takes into account jury error, appeals and corruption. The stuff the characters deal with is pretty cut and dry. Is there any reason why the World's Finest should never kill? The Phantom Zone obviously ain't doin the job. Ask Zod, Non and Ursa. If they really wanna be heroes, the greater good may call for a suspension of their personal moral fibers.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
BlakGard




> I was thinkin earlier about Clark's whole aversion to killing for any
> reason and it just seemed wrong. He and Bruce both feel it's taking
> the easy way out to kill an enemy and there are other ways to solve
> problems, which obviously holds some weight and is understandable, but
> in light of the whole Max Lord Sacrifice arc, you would think they
> would side with Diana for doing what she did. It's not like
> disagreeing with the death penalty, which takes into account jury
> error, appeals and corruption. The stuff the characters deal with is
> pretty cut and dry. Is there any reason why the World's Finest should
> never kill? The Phantom Zone obviously ain't doin the job. Ask Zod,
> Non and Ursa. If they really wanna be heroes, the greater good may
> call for a suspension of their personal moral fibers.

My opinion will always be that a moral code that includes never killing is not a moral code worth having. Simply put, quite often there are not other ways to solve problems. This is especially true when dealing with supervillains.
____________________



Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.2 on Windows XP
little kon-el




> > I was thinkin earlier about Clark's whole aversion to killing for any
> > reason and it just seemed wrong. He and Bruce both feel it's taking
> > the easy way out to kill an enemy and there are other ways to solve
> > problems, which obviously holds some weight and is understandable, but
> > in light of the whole Max Lord Sacrifice arc, you would think they
> > would side with Diana for doing what she did. It's not like
> > disagreeing with the death penalty, which takes into account jury
> > error, appeals and corruption. The stuff the characters deal with is
> > pretty cut and dry. Is there any reason why the World's Finest should
> > never kill? The Phantom Zone obviously ain't doin the job. Ask Zod,
> > Non and Ursa. If they really wanna be heroes, the greater good may
> > call for a suspension of their personal moral fibers.
>
> My opinion will always be that a moral code that includes never killing is not a moral code worth having. Simply put, quite often there are not other ways to solve problems. This is especially true when dealing with supervillains.
> ____________________
>


Superman's morality is derived from the fact that he can easily kill...en masse. If anyone's read Miracleman, you can confirm that a person with Superman-like powers that has no moral code against killing is a frightening prospect. If you read the latest All Star Superman, it pretty much encapsulates his moral code....even if you're stronger than most, that means you have to hold yourself up to a higher code of honor. Just because it's easy to harm another, doesn't mean you should. And other stuff like that. Superman is superhuman, so he believes that his powers are a responsibility he must accept and hold himself higher than others who may kill.

Batman, on the other hand, had his life drastically changed by the death of his parents. He won't kill because their deaths affected him so much. If you saw someone die violently, you may think twice about killing another person.

- little kon-el


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows XP
AskaniGrey




> Superman's morality is derived from the fact that he can easily kill...en masse. If anyone's read Miracleman, you can confirm that a person with Superman-like powers that has no moral code against killing is a frightening prospect. If you read the latest All Star Superman, it pretty much encapsulates his moral code....even if you're stronger than most, that means you have to hold yourself up to a higher code of honor. Just because it's easy to harm another, doesn't mean you should. And other stuff like that. Superman is superhuman, so he believes that his powers are a responsibility he must accept and hold himself higher than others who may kill.
>
> Batman, on the other hand, had his life drastically changed by the death of his parents. He won't kill because their deaths affected him so much. If you saw someone die violently, you may think twice about killing another person.


That's cool, but when Superman is so vulnerable against magic and mind control and things that cause far worse destruction than he does, why does he let a threat come back over and over to harm the innocent because he won't kill? Lex Luthor is one thing. He's more a nuisance than a terrorist. Mxyptlk too. But think of Kyber, or Max Lord, or Doomsday and the havoc they can wreak because they get to hang around.

>
> - little kon-el


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
BlakGard




> > > I was thinkin earlier about Clark's whole aversion to killing for
> > > any reason and it just seemed wrong. He and Bruce both feel it's
> > > taking the easy way out to kill an enemy and there are other ways
> > > to solve problems, which obviously holds some weight and is
> > > understandable, but in light of the whole Max Lord Sacrifice arc,
> > > you would think they would side with Diana for doing what she did.
> > > It's not like disagreeing with the death penalty, which takes into
> > > account jury error, appeals and corruption. The stuff the
> > > characters deal with is pretty cut and dry. Is there any reason
> > > why the World's Finest should never kill? The Phantom Zone
> > > obviously ain't doin the job. Ask Zod, Non and Ursa. If they
> > > really wanna be heroes, the greater good may call for a suspension
> > > of their personal moral fibers.
> >
> > My opinion will always be that a moral code that includes never
> > killing is not a moral code worth having. Simply put, quite often
> > there are not other ways to solve problems. This is especially true
> > when dealing with supervillains.
>
> Superman's morality is derived from the fact that he can easily
> kill...en masse. If anyone's read Miracleman, you can confirm that a
> person with Superman-like powers that has no moral code against
> killing is a frightening prospect. If you read the latest All Star
> Superman, it pretty much encapsulates his moral code....even if you're
> stronger than most, that means you have to hold yourself up to a
> higher code of honor. Just because it's easy to harm another, doesn't
> mean you should. And other stuff like that. Superman is superhuman,
> so he believes that his powers are a responsibility he must accept and
> hold himself higher than others who may kill.

Yes, well, in my opinion, to have such a moral code makes you morally unsound. There are many, many people that deserve nothing less than death, because even the fact that they exist is harmful to others. In such cases, the only responsible thing to do is destroy them. I'm not asking for en masse killing, but the #1 reason I cannot stomach Superman as a character is because he doesn't kill enough.

> Batman, on the other hand, had his life drastically changed by the
> death of his parents. He won't kill because their deaths affected him
> so much. If you saw someone die violently, you may think twice about
> killing another person.

Real-life proves to me that this is seldom, if ever, true. As someone who lost a parent through violence, I can tell you that given the chance, I'd kill the people that killed my father with my bare hands, then use their bodies to study anatomy. And it's been shown in studies that witnessing violence usually has the opposite affect, making them not think twice about harming/killing another person. The one thing I give to Bats is that he has such a strong willpower to resist this. Still, he should, on occasion, kill, because it's the right thing to do.
____________________



Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.2 on Windows XP
Zeorun




> Yes, well, in my opinion, to have such a moral code makes you morally unsound. There are many, many people that deserve nothing less than death, because even the fact that they exist is harmful to others.

And now for a paraprhased quote!

"There are many that live that deserve death, and there are many that die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too quick to deal in death and judgement, for even the very wise cannot see all ends."

My opinion? No one person should ever be allowed to pass judgement on someone. Whether or not someone lives or dies in not your call. Especially in Superman's case. He's the most powerful being on that earth and is looked up to and idolized. If he starts to kill because *he* feels it's warranted, then that makes him no better than Luthor. The ends do not justify the means.

As for Batman I have another quote!

"Valuing life is not weakness. And disregarding it is not strenght."

Batman may not be the big role model, but he isn't narrow minded enough to think there's only one way to solve a problem.

And Wonder Woman? While I don't agree with her decesion, I have to admit, there probably was no other solution. Sure they could have erased Lord's memory, but then there's Identity Crisis which addresses that. Well then, they could have a telepath put psychic blocks or some such nonsense on Lord, preventing him from ever controlling Superman. But I'm sure she's realized over the years that villains are nothing if not creative.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
BlakGard




> > Yes, well, in my opinion, to have such a moral code makes you morally unsound. There are many, many people that deserve nothing less than death, because even the fact that they exist is harmful to others.
>
> And now for a paraprhased quote!
>
> "There are many that live that deserve death, and there are many that die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too quick to deal in death and judgement, for even the very wise cannot see all ends."
>
> My opinion? No one person should ever be allowed to pass judgement on someone. Whether or not someone lives or dies in not your call. Especially in Superman's case. He's the most powerful being on that earth and is looked up to and idolized. If he starts to kill because *he* feels it's warranted, then that makes him no better than Luthor. The ends do not justify the means.

Seriously, that's bleeding-heart claptrap. Each of us, as a part of society, has the duty to take lives to protect lives. Killing is not bad, in and of itself, it's the reason why that determines that. Killing a villain to prevent countless future deaths is immensely better than Luthor... or Joker... or whomever.
____________________



Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.2 on Windows XP
AskaniGrey




> And Wonder Woman? While I don't agree with her decesion, I have to admit, there probably was no other solution. Sure they could have erased Lord's memory, but then there's Identity Crisis which addresses that. Well then, they could have a telepath put psychic blocks or some such nonsense on Lord, preventing him from ever controlling Superman. But I'm sure she's realized over the years that villains are nothing if not creative.
>
>

So you admit there are instances when it can't be avoided if you want to keep the people safe.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Zeroun




> So you admit there are instances when it can't be avoided if you want to keep the people safe.

Yes. But I views those situations as beyond dire.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows Server 2003
Zeroun




> Seriously, that's bleeding-heart claptrap. Each of us, as a part of society, has the duty to take lives to protect lives.

Quotes are fun!
"Fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity."

Sorry, had to be said. However, had you read what I wrote thoroughly, you'll note that I said that the choice should be no one persons choice, at least in the sense of passing judgement. If it's in self defense that's a different case alltogether...If there is no other option. If some guy has you pinned down and is going to kill you you could A) Kill him first or B) disable him in some way. Knee him in the balls punch him into unconciousness, whatever.

>Killing is not bad, in and of itself,

lol that's priceless

>it's the reason why that determines that.

I'm not tottally disagreeing with that. As I said, it should never be in no one persons hands to do so. I apologize for any confusion or misconceptions.

>Killing a villain to prevent countless future deaths is immensely better than Luthor... or Joker... or whomever.

Once again it would seem I wasn't clear. I was speaking in context to a character who stands for something and a hero who had sworn an oath to never fight by the rules that created him.

In the real world Luthor and the Joker should be tried and convicted by jury. Now if some yahoo vigilante goes and offs either one of them it would probably slide, but then other vigilantes would say "Hey! They can do it, why can't I?" and over time you have people handing out what they feel is an appropriate death warrant.

Death as a punishment is not one persons choice. Death as a matter of defense can be.

As for Wonder Woman and Maxwell Lord's predicament, that was such a grandoise and unbelievably dangerous situation that there probably was no other choice.




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows Server 2003
AskaniGrey




> > So you admit there are instances when it can't be avoided if you want to keep the people safe.
>
> Yes. But I views those situations as beyond dire.


How often would you say the League deals in beyond dire situations? It's just about everytime there's a signal on the moon, otherwise people might just call the cops. Obviously, they are the last line of defense in the DC Universe and should be trying to eradicate threats rather than doin the paliative care for the planet they're used to.

That's why Manchester Black's Elite was on the right path for a second, they just went about it too callously. They had no concern for collateral damage. Superman went after them with his usual kid glove efforts and could've very easily lost Lois and had his identity revealed to Luthor as a result.

Bottom line, real-life human law enforcers use lethal force everyday to protect the innocent from the bloodthirsty and maniacal. When it happens, they have to prove there was no other choice and the action was committed in the best interest of the greater good. I would expect no less from Superman.

Now, if you wanna admit his no killing policy makes it easy on writers, I can understand and yield to that.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Zeroun




> How often would you say the League deals in beyond dire situations? It's just about everytime there's a signal on the moon, otherwise people might just call the cops. Obviously, they are the last line of defense in the DC Universe and should be trying to eradicate threats rather than doin the paliative care for the planet they're used to.

Realistically their the first line of defense. If Amazo starts tearing through New York you can bet your boots that the League is on the top of the "Cry for help" list, not the cops. ;\-\)

> That's why Manchester Black's Elite was on the right path for a second, they just went about it too callously. They had no concern for collateral damage. Superman went after them with his usual kid glove efforts and could've very easily lost Lois and had his identity revealed to Luthor as a result.

Kid glove tactics? If I recall correctly Superman trumped them all single handedly, without getting all "wish washy". But perhaps my memory is addeled, though I doubt it.

> Bottom line, real-life human law enforcers use lethal force everyday to protect the innocent from the bloodthirsty and maniacal. When it happens, they have to prove there was no other choice and the action was committed in the best interest of the greater good. I would expect no less from Superman.

Whereas I would expect more. See, to me, what makes these superheroes so super and heroic is that they get thrown into situations far worse than a cop is, yet they can still save the day without having to 86 every guy who is trying to make a name for himself. Besides, a heroes job isn't judge, jury and executioner. They protect people by besting and apprehending criminals and handing them over to the authorties. When the criminals are not tried and convicted accordingly by the courts (i.e. the Joker) then it's not the heroes fault, but the systems. This issue is tackled in Batman Begins, rather well I might add.

> Now, if you wanna admit his no killing policy makes it easy on writers, I can understand and yield to that.

No, I do not want to admit to that as it makes no sense. If anything the no kill policy makes it harder on writers. It takes hard work to point out that our heroes don't need to be killers to be effective.

Besides, I don't think there is such a policy. This is a character thing. Superman doesn't kill and neither does Batman and a host of of others. If you want to read that brand of justice I'd suggest picking up the Punisher. I'm not a find of that kinda story but I thought to last issue was pretty neat.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
Zieglarf




> Seriously, that's bleeding-heart claptrap. Each of us, as a part of society, has the duty to take lives to protect lives. Killing is not bad, in and of itself, it's the reason why that determines that. Killing a villain to prevent countless future deaths is immensely better than Luthor... or Joker... or whomever.
> ____________________

The problem with Superman, Batman, or anybody killings 'bad' guys is...
1) No one person should have that responsibilty. It belongs to the government to determine which crimnals should be killed.

2) What would be the guidelines to decide who dies and who doesn't.

I may be wrong, but I doubt it.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
askanigrey




> Realistically their the first line of defense. If Amazo starts tearing through New York you can bet your boots that the League is on the top of the "Cry for help" list, not the cops. ;\-\)
>

Exactly. The problems are too big for the police to handle. So why trust the police to apprehend and detain them? Why do they get outta jail so easy? Why do the same villains get to tear earth apart over and over?

> > That's why Manchester Black's Elite was on the right path for a second, they just went about it too callously. They had no concern for collateral damage. Superman went after them with his usual kid glove efforts and could've very easily lost Lois and had his identity revealed to Luthor as a result.
>
> Kid glove tactics? If I recall correctly Superman trumped them all single handedly, without getting all "wish washy". But perhaps my memory is addeled, though I doubt it.

He gave out asthma attacks and concussions. Manny felt like he couldn't possibly be serious and thus did what he did to Lois and Clark's brains. Terrible.
>
>
>


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Zeroun




> Exactly. The problems are too big for the police to handle. So why trust the police to apprehend and detain them? Why do they get outta jail so easy? Why do the same villains get to tear earth apart over and over?

Inadequately funded facilities and because the story calls for it. ;\-\)


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
BlakGard




> > Seriously, that's bleeding-heart claptrap. Each of us, as a part of
> > society, has the duty to take lives to protect lives.
>
> Quotes are fun!
> "Fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity."

I agree, but no one is talking about peace. Anyone searching for peace is a fool.

> Sorry, had to be said. However, had you read what I wrote thoroughly,
> you'll note that I said that the choice should be no one persons
> choice, at least in the sense of passing judgement. If it's in self
> defense that's a different case alltogether...If there is no other
> option. If some guy has you pinned down and is going to kill you you
> could A) Kill him first or B) disable him in some way. Knee him in the
> balls punch him into unconciousness, whatever.

I did read what you wrote thoroughly. I'd extend it to the defense of others, as well as, self. And for all superheroes, there usually is no other viable option. This is especially true when villains routinely escape prison and/or are beyond being held by any prison.

> > Killing is not bad, in and of itself,
>
> lol that's priceless

It's also 100% objective truth.

> > it's the reason why that determines that.
>
> I'm not tottally disagreeing with that. As I said, it should never be in no one persons hands to do so. I apologize for any confusion or misconceptions.

No confusion at all. I disagree. I think it should always be in one persons hands. That is our duty.

> > Killing a villain to prevent countless future deaths is immensely
> > better than Luthor... or Joker... or whomever.
>
> Once again it would seem I wasn't clear. I was speaking in context to
> a character who stands for something and a hero who had sworn an oath
> to never fight by the rules that created him.

You were clear. And I vehemently disagree that standing for such a thing is inherently good. Standing for such a thing is irresponsible at best.

> In the real world Luthor and the Joker should be tried and convicted
> by jury. Now if some yahoo vigilante goes and offs either one of them
> it would probably slide, but then other vigilantes would say "Hey!
> They can do it, why can't I?" and over time you have people handing
> out what they feel is an appropriate death warrant.

When law enforcement cannot be counted on, that is their right.

> As for Wonder Woman and Maxwell Lord's predicament, that was such a
> grandoise and unbelievably dangerous situation that there probably was
> no other choice.

Indeed.
____________________
WHOOOOOOO DAT!
SAINTS! SUPERBOWL XLI!
It's our year, y'all!


Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.2 on Windows XP

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software