|
Post by zaku on Aug 22, 2022 13:47:52 GMT -5
A lot of interesting points Slam_Bradley , thank you, let's begin! Let's use the Kantian method to determine if something is ethical: What if everyone did it? Everyone decides that the rules don't apply to them: at that point it's anarchy. Yes, we know we can trust Batman, because, well, he's Batman. But the rules exist for a reason. And virtually all super heroes have decided that they are above the rules. Let's say it's not a fascist concept, but you'll admit it's Nietzschean at least. Let's also keep in mind that police, as we know them, is a very new concept. Up to roughly 250 years ago police didn't exist and the only recourse was to take the law in to your own hands. But it exists NOW. I wouldn't like a world where everyone decides that the police can't do their job and takes the law into their own hands. If I were a morally and ethically right person like they claim to be superheroes and I lived in a democracy and I didn't like some of the rules, then I would try to change them using the tools given by democracy itself. If I did it with undemocratic methods, I would be doing a coup. If I lived in an authoritarian regime, then I would fight, even violently, to change the rules and the regime (hey, that's the plot of V for Vendetta!). What I would not do is decide that the law is an à la carte menu, choose which rules to follow and which not because I am better than the society that created them, and then put on a flamboyant costume to go beating the shit out of people who don't follow. the rules that I have decided are important. That's a really depend on which country, culture, legislation we are talking about. But even in the states where citizens arrests are allowed, I'm quite sure there aren't a lot of people who are doing actively it. Because it would be like telling the police they can't do their job. So after a while there would be a change, for worse or for better. Either the police "deal" with this person who is making them look bad, or politics does something about the problem of inefficient police. In both cases it certainly could not be a permanent situation. Also because after a while the taxpayers would wonder what they are paying their taxes for. But about the broken rules. Let's talk about a situation that often happens in comics. A supervillain, after robbing a bank, is running away (without endangering anyone). Our hero decides that the best way to stop him is to throw a car at them, after which he decides to hit him repeatedly with street lamps. In the end, the overall damage is higher than the loot from the heist. I am quite sure that in this particular case some rules would have been broken. But let's talk about a situation closer to me. In some European countries, after the recent attacks, it has been decided that one cannot completely cover one's face in public places (such as with a sky mask). Your average superhero in this case would decide that this particular rule does not apply to him, and after that he would put on his flamboyant costume to enforce the rules that HE has decided others must abide by. So, what if two people with superpowers, each with a particular set of rules, meet and decide that the other is not following the rules that he considers really important? They would fight, because each would be convinced that they are right. But neither would be, because both have decided they know better than the society they live in.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 22, 2022 13:52:10 GMT -5
]So get training. Maybe join a law enforcement arm. If you think they are too corrupt, read up on the laws yourself and work within them. This is just doing a citizen's arrest with more bargaining power. But in the comics superheroes never do that! Except in this excellent mini! I highly recommend it!
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Aug 22, 2022 14:05:07 GMT -5
Is the superhero concept inherently unethical?
No.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 22, 2022 14:08:18 GMT -5
Is the superhero concept inherently unethical? No.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 22, 2022 16:13:41 GMT -5
Everyone is entitled to their view, but it’s sad if a default opinion - of anyone - is that superheroes are fundamentally a fascist ideology. Obviously, Zaku has stated it is his opinion, which is refreshing (I hate it when journalists and politicians state something as if it is fact), but I’d like to believe superheroes are not fundamentally fascist. Largely agree; making the world a better place is not now, nor has it ever been exclusively tied to public servants, as the very nature of their work limits their ability, access and frankly, understanding of every type of problem. As we see in the U.S., the police have a very long, troubled history with average citizens, many complaining that the police have an "invading force" / "us versus them" mentality," particularly in poor or minority neighborhoods, and there's evidence to support the complaint. To those feeling abused, the police are not making the world a better place. Then, there's a politician: they are self-serving first, followed by being beholden to their benefactors / string-pullers with duty to the citizens coming in somewhere around a million places behind last. The point being, if one if gifted with super-powers and/or above average skills, that person would waste his life being slotted into positions which--by their nature--would never allow the person to act when necessary, or for the benefit of humanity before the interests of the organizations / government who employs them.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 22, 2022 16:37:32 GMT -5
Everyone is entitled to their view, but it’s sad if a default opinion - of anyone - is that superheroes are fundamentally a fascist ideology. Obviously, Zaku has stated it is his opinion, which is refreshing (I hate it when journalists and politicians state something as if it is fact), but I’d like to believe superheroes are not fundamentally fascist. The point being, if one if gifted with super-powers and/or above average skills, that person would waste his life being slotted into positions which--by their nature--would never allow the person to act when necessary, or for the benefit of humanity before the interests of the organizations / government who employs them. I understand your point, but usually superheroes don't to anything to make the world a better place in the long term. After the Spider-Man or Batman do their patrol and capture the bad guy, the wealthy ones are still wealthy and the poor ones are still poor. The world remains exactly the same had it not been for the bad guy. Superheroes are not proactive, are just reactive. They are only there to remedy the deficiencies of the police. Yes, superheroes are great for repression, but what do they do for prevention? I remember all those humorous stories where the patrolling superhero finds no one to fight and sits on his hands bored. The message being sent is that all the problems in the world are just crime related (except for the occasionally cat on the three).
|
|
|
Post by commond on Aug 22, 2022 17:39:17 GMT -5
The point being, if one if gifted with super-powers and/or above average skills, that person would waste his life being slotted into positions which--by their nature--would never allow the person to act when necessary, or for the benefit of humanity before the interests of the organizations / government who employs them. I understand your point, but usually superheroes don't to anything to make the world a better place in the long term. After the Spider-Man or Batman do their patrol and capture the bad guy, the wealthy ones are still wealthy and the poor ones are still poor. The world remains exactly the same had it not been for the bad guy. Superheroes are not proactive, are just reactive. They are only there to remedy the deficiencies of the police. Yes, superheroes are great for repression, but what do they do for prevention? I remember all those humorous stories where the patrolling superhero finds no one to fight and sits on his hands bored. The message being sent is that all the problems in the world are just crime related (except for the occasionally cat on the three). The argument that superheroes are fascist is that they maintain the status quo, but I don't see how that's fascism. There are plenty of examples in comics of actual fascists. They're called supervillains. Just as there are plenty of examples in comics of what happens when superheroes abuse their powers or make misguided attempts to make the world a better place. It seems that a lot of critics of superheroes aren't prepared to make the argument that superheroes are intentionally fascist, or that we live in a fascist state, so instead they claim superheroes inadvertently represent fascist ideals, help maintain the status quo of a white male dominated society, and somehow convince comic book readers that they need leaders like Trump to protect their freedoms. We've seen perfectly good examples of what fascist superheroes look like -- Judge Dredd, Homelander, etc. -- and it's safe to say that the average superhero doesn't behave like that. Critics claim that superheroes are part of the system, but I don't see how they act as an arm for the authorities. Often, they find themselves up against the system. Look at most Marvel crimefighters relationship with the police and explain how they're an extension of the authorities. Most of them are on the authorities' wanted list. When superheroes do have connections to the government, there is always tension, and corrupt government officials/agencies are a dime a dozen in superhero comics. British writers like to have cracks at American politics that they observe as outsiders, but American comic book writers are not naive. It's not apple pie and truth, justice and the American way. American writers have been critiquing that style of superhero comic for decades. There is a great risk of superheroes being corrupted and using their power for evil, but that doesn't make superheroes unethical. Not when they sacrifice so much, and put their lives on the line to help others. As the Crash Dummies man said, Superman never made an money saving the world from Solomon Grundy.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Aug 22, 2022 17:45:37 GMT -5
A lot of interesting points Slam_Bradley , thank you, let's begin! Let's also keep in mind that police, as we know them, is a very new concept. Up to roughly 250 years ago police didn't exist and the only recourse was to take the law in to your own hands. But it exists NOW. I wouldn't like a world where everyone decides that the police can't do their job and takes the law into their own hands. If I were a morally and ethically right person like they claim to be superheroes and I lived in a democracy and I didn't like some of the rules, then I would try to change them using the tools given by democracy itself. If I did it with undemocratic methods, I would be doing a coup. If I lived in an authoritarian regime, then I would fight, even violently, to change the rules and the regime (hey, that's the plot of V for Vendetta!). What I would not do is decide that the law is an à la carte menu, choose which rules to follow and which not because I am better than the society that created them, and then put on a flamboyant costume to go beating the shit out of people who don't follow. the rules that I have decided are important. That's a really depend on which country, culture, legislation we are talking about. But even in the states where citizens arrests are allowed, I'm quite sure there aren't a lot of people who are doing actively it. Because it would be like telling the police they can't do their job. So after a while there would be a change, for worse or for better. Either the police "deal" with this person who is making them look bad, or politics does something about the problem of inefficient police. In both cases it certainly could not be a permanent situation. Also because after a while the taxpayers would wonder what they are paying their taxes for. But about the broken rules. Let's talk about a situation that often happens in comics. A supervillain, after robbing a bank, is running away (without endangering anyone). Our hero decides that the best way to stop him is to throw a car at them, after which he decides to hit him repeatedly with street lamps. In the end, the overall damage is higher than the loot from the heist. I am quite sure that in this particular case some rules would have been broken. But let's talk about a situation closer to me. In some European countries, after the recent attacks, it has been decided that one cannot completely cover one's face in public places (such as with a sky mask). Your average superhero in this case would decide that this particular rule does not apply to him, and after that he would put on his flamboyant costume to enforce the rules that HE has decided others must abide by. So, what if two people with superpowers, each with a particular set of rules, meet and decide that the other is not following the rules that he considers really important? They would fight, because each would be convinced that they are right. But neither would be, because both have decided they know better than the society they live in. In this example of yours, are you implying that the superhero should allow the supervillain to rob the bank because it's unethical for the superhero to impose their rules upon the villain? What is the superhero supposed to do in this situation? Surely, the ethical situation isn't to do nothing. What happens if they do nothing and an instant bystander is killed, ala Uncle Ben?
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 22, 2022 21:27:32 GMT -5
Whatever disagreements there may be, I appreciate your post. (I say this not to be sycophantic, but tone, body language and so much else just can’t translate to the written word) Why should someone with super powers immediately fight crime? That is a good point. I concur with you on that. I mean, Clark Kent could do pretty well as an on-call mountain rescue worker. Wouldn’t begrudge him that. I think of the scene in Superman the Movie (maybe not the theatrical cut), where Jor-El tells Superman that people tend to exploit their resources, and that Superman should not be available 24/7. Or words to that effect. I do have a limited amount of judo knowledge (it’s rusty!), and I have thought about picking it up again. I was pretty good with it. But that doesn’t mean I should use my skills as a doorman or bodyguard. I’m happy driving. So, no, I don’t think you are running away from your responsibilities in these hypothetical scenarios. If you woke up with the power of super-strength and flight, well I’d see nothing wrong if you decided your life path should involve a career that does not involve crime-fighting. Just for the sake of argument... we don't know Clark Kent (or Wally West, or any Superhero) DOESNT do that stuff. The comics aren't an account of every second of their lives, just the exciting bits. Superman probably saves people constantly, it's just not that exciting, so it's not in the comic . Perhaps Tony Stark has a Superpac that helps good politicians get elected in the Marvel Universe, or maybe Bruce Wayne tripled the funding of the Peace Corps.. we just don't get those bits. While I follow Zaku's line of reasoning, it's flawed a bit, in that in most cases, the hero is clearly in the right. When the bad guy threatens to kill lots of people, or robs a bank, or steals a powerful item with the intent to take over his city/state/country, the bad is breaking the rules, and the hero is trying to help enforce them. You could argue they are not the best person to do that, sure, but that's arrogance, not fascism. Of course in many of today's comics, heroes fight each other to argue about fight points of law, and often tear up the city to do it. That's probably why it makes sense for a city to make superheroes illegal.. if only a city could do so on their own without a supervillain being in charge. Finally, comics are not supposed to be realistic. Often they're just fun, silly stories, or (especially these days) nostalgic romps. Those ones that try to make you think only very rarely feature men in tights.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 23, 2022 5:44:18 GMT -5
While I follow Zaku's line of reasoning, it's flawed a bit, in that in most cases, the hero is clearly in the right. When the bad guy threatens to kill lots of people, or robs a bank, or steals a powerful item with the intent to take over his city/state/country, the bad is breaking the rules, and the hero is trying to help enforce them. You could argue they are not the best person to do that, sure, but that's arrogance, not fascism. Maybe I need to explain myself a little better. Superhero comic creators have created a world where it is a reasonable career choice to put on a flamboyant costume and go after evildoers. Within this then individual superheroes can have their own personal political beliefs. For example, in DC comics the two extremes are Green Arrow (the parody of the liberal of the 70s) and certain versions of Hawkman (the parody of the conservative of the 50s). The problem (IMHO of course) is in the concept behind these realities. For example, it's like an old propaganda movie where all black people are portrayed as inferior to whites or all women as stupid. In these films, the main character does not need to be portrayed as a racist or misogynist, in fact, he may even be sympathetic to the negatively described groups. The problem is in the ideology in which the universe on which these films are based is based. The same is true for superhero comics. They can be represented as the most anti-fascist possible, but the basic concept is always the same: democracy is unable to defend itself with democratic methods, so I have to do everything by myself, hiding my identity, because otherwise the democratic society would prevent the my efforts to defend it. Obviously in these contexts the hero is always right, just as the protagonists of the films I mentioned earlier would be right to be wary of the "perfidy" of black people or not to entrust important and / or complicated tasks to women. In their respective universes, they would certainly be right, because the authors / demurges decided so.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 23, 2022 5:58:37 GMT -5
In this example of yours, are you implying that the superhero should allow the supervillain to rob the bank because it's unethical for the superhero to impose their rules upon the villain? What is the superhero supposed to do in this situation? Surely, the ethical situation isn't to do nothing. What happens if they do nothing and an instant bystander is killed, ala Uncle Ben? Great question. As I said before, if someone runs into a situation where they are sure they can help without doing damage or making things worse, good for them. The problem is whether I actively look for these situations, convinced that I can do a better job than the police. In real life, having a gun and handcuffs puts me, in theory, from a purely operational point of view on a par with the police. But if I decide not to follow the rules that the police follow but only what I consider right or wrong, then trouble can start (as unfortunately many recent news reports have taught us).
|
|
|
Post by commond on Aug 23, 2022 8:18:57 GMT -5
In this example of yours, are you implying that the superhero should allow the supervillain to rob the bank because it's unethical for the superhero to impose their rules upon the villain? What is the superhero supposed to do in this situation? Surely, the ethical situation isn't to do nothing. What happens if they do nothing and an instant bystander is killed, ala Uncle Ben? Great question. As I said before, if someone runs into a situation where they are sure they can help without doing damage or making things worse, good for them. The problem is whether I actively look for these situations, convinced that I can do a better job than the police. In real life, having a gun and handcuffs puts me, in theory, from a purely operational point of view on a par with the police. But if I decide not to follow the rules that the police follow but only what I consider right or wrong, then trouble can start (as unfortunately many recent news reports have taught us). If Superman stops a crime in process and hands the criminals over to the proper authorities, is it really an act of vigilantism? Superman doesn't really punish the criminals he stops. He doesn't take justice into his own hands. He just saves lives. If you're talking about heroes like Batman, Green Arrow, or the Punisher, then yeah, they're nutters. However, Batman and Green Arrow weren't always like that. It wasn't until the 80s that they became Dirty Harry/Charles Bronson style vigilantes. And they took a pretty hardline stance against core superhero ethics. Yet the irony is that Superman is the fascist ideal because he maintains the status quo of the state's authority while heroes like Batman undermine the justice system. The problem with superheroes is that if they don't use their powers to save people, society questions why they didn't help. If they do use their powers, society is afraid that they're too powerful. If there were superheroes in real life, and they weren't corrupt like Homelander and the Seven, I'm almost 100% convinced they'd be treated like the X-Men.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Aug 23, 2022 9:39:29 GMT -5
You have to keep in mind that, for example, that post-80s gritty Batman undermining the justice system thing isn't proactive, it's reactive. He is doing what he does because "the system" is corrupt and ineffective, but he still believes these violent criminals need to be taken off the streets. When the system is just as corrupt as the bad guy, what's a hero to do?
Regarding the topic of whether or not a superhero is breaking rules to stop a crime and whether or not he is justified, let's look at...
A Bat-Example!
Let's take a pre-80s non-gritty Batman. He gets a call there is a bank robbery taking place and armed robbers are threatening to shoot hostages if they meet police resistence. Batman knows this bank because Wayne Enterprises funded renovations. Batman made sure a vent system was installed that he could use to get in quietly because it gets robbed every few weeks it seems. He knows he has the ability to disarm them without anyone getting killed, but he is running out of time as they set a time limit on their demands. He can't get there using the speed limit.
The Batjet is in the shop, and Robin is in bed with the flu. Batman takes that Batmobile. He speeds on his drive and is going over the speed limit to get there in time, but he drives safely, and the Batmobile's sensors give him better knowledge than a standard car, so his risk of causing an accident is very low. He doesn't want to tip off the robbers, so he parks a block away. He jaywalks in order to get to the fire escape in time. He has to bypass a lock and is technically breaking and entering. He successfully sneaks in the vents and disarms the robbers before anyone is hurt.
Is Batman justified? Why or why not? Why can he violate these rules and not others? Can he violate others? Which ones? Where is the line? Who decides?
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 23, 2022 9:55:27 GMT -5
As I said before, if someone runs into a situation where they are sure they can help without doing damage or making things worse, good for them. The problem is whether I actively look for these situations, convinced that I can do a better job than the police. Super-powered beings always have the capability to a better job than a police officer. Take a hostage situation with a gunman with no issue taking as many lives as possible for whatever his motives might be; a character such as the Flash, with his super-speed, would be able to disarm and subdue the gunman within the blink of an eye, where police officers will go through the motions of trying to bargain, negotiate, or attempt to confront a gunman, giving said gunman enough time to commit murder, which cannot be prevented by slow-moving, regular humans. Apply any other super-powered character and the results generally end the same way. Not a good example; Arbery's killers were not the norm for the vigilante example, nor were they good-willed vigilantes who "simply" made an error in judgement. They were White Supremacists--two with a known history of racist behavior--who profiled Arbery only due to his race, and chose to execute him. They are not in the same moral / psychological category as the kind of costumed heroes in question, as they have not consciously profiled, and carried out an execution for one of the most despicable beliefs systems in human history.
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Aug 23, 2022 11:31:11 GMT -5
You see, if we expected everyone to play cops and robbers based on their talents, then we could go down the road of demanding that everyone with a high IQ should become a cop and then specialise as a detective. After all, why waste that high IQ on anything other than being a detective? Naturally, we don’t feel that way, of course. You know, I would love to read a comics from the Big Two (independent publishers have already done something like that) where someone with superpowers decide he doesn't want to be a superhero (superhero as "supervigilante", because all superheroes are just that) or a supervillain. There are a few (but not many, and they're never headliners, because it's rare to see a comic based on that trope). My favorite Marvel character Stingray, for example, developed his union suit to help with underwater research. He helps out superheroes when they cross his path, but he doesn't go out looking for crime to solve, and research is his primary motivation. There have also been a couple superpowered types who have opted to be medical or tech support for superhero teams, only donning costume to assist when absolutely needed. Well, if I had powers, I’d want to fight crime, but as there are 650 MPs in parliament, that’s 650 criminals I’d hav to expose on a daily basis. (Not being political, I’m thinking of Lois’ comment to Superman, “You’ll end up fighting every elected official in this country…”)
That was actually one of the arguments made in Wylie's Gladiator, so the issue predates Superman himself.
|
|