There needs to be some sort of equaliser. But then how would we make sure that this equaliser does not become corrupt?
Poll: If you were a superhero would you kill criminals?
- Thread starter rossatdi
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It depends heavily on the offender. I doubt I'd let a serial killer live if I knew I could stop him from taking anymore lives and I certainly wouldn't have any qualms about killing someone if I knew they were trying and had the ability to do the same to me. I wouldn't kill anyone executioner style or anything of that nature though, even I wouldn't have the stomach for it.
Just for the record, the Punisher and Batman are probably my favorite heroes, from each of the comic universes (excluding independent), Marvel and DC respectively.
Just for the record, the Punisher and Batman are probably my favorite heroes, from each of the comic universes (excluding independent), Marvel and DC respectively.
I'd use superpowers to augment my Chaotic Neutral mentality. Inevitably this would cause me to be viewed as a supervillain because radical individualism combined with using my powers of whatever strictly for personal gain no matter the moral consequences would mean I wasn't evil per se (I wouldn't "kick the dog" just for the hell of it, I'd just steal, extort, and coerce because it's easier than earning an honest living, and if I were bulletproof or otherwise able to outgun or outwit the police the consequences would no longer figure into it.)
People seem very quick to brand anyone who would dare even suggest killing as "beasts" and "monsters", as if their "divine" self was some how above an instinctual rage in the face of a deadly threat. I find it a rather pompous attitude, as we are just animals... and what do animals do best?
I...I just couldn't be a hero. I would end up being some sort of supervillain. But for the purposes of the poll, I would pretty much kill all criminals.
I think a lot of people including philosophers would disagree with you on that one. The final responsibility for an action rests on the person committing the offence and no one else. Plus you're not doing nothing, you're just not killing them.Anonymouse said:
Given that the survey doesn't say anything about supervillainy, and you don't know how many people in the thread are just acting all badass on the internet, it doesn't actually say anything.rossatdi said:
Your morals aren't everything. You don't have to kill to be a villain, and killing doesn't necessarily villains make. Judging from how you sound you'd be pretty likely to become a villain yourself. You have the holier-than-thou attitude going, you'd impose your morals on others and if someone disagrees they're a villain. Fiction, and real life, is full of this kind of villain, they are often the most interesting, but also often the worst.
I change my answer I would not kill them, as a christian I know that its just wrong to kill even if it seems like a good idea to me I have chosen to follow Jesus' example and live like him I would do my best to capture the killers and the rapists and the drug dealers but I wouldn't kill them.
P.S. Thanks to the person who made this thread it helped me remember something important.
P.S. Thanks to the person who made this thread it helped me remember something important.
Ah, and become a [a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar?from=Main.KnightsTemplar"]Knights Templar[/a]? There are plenty of superheroes that maintain righteousness without falling foul of it (Batman, Superman, The Flash). Sure it's hard and it causes them pain but that's part of the package deal.Silver said:
I wouldn't enforce my morals on others, I would do my best to uphold the law. If there was a masked vigilante running around tearing off muggers' heads then that's going to be a top priority; after all murder trumps mugging.
Where would you draw the line between obeying the law and being above it, since vigilanteism is in itself against the law. A criminal commits a crime, is sent to prison, serves their time, is released and commits another crime; how many times will you let the commit crimes before growing tired of it? Even superheroes use the excuse where the villain manages to off themselves.rossatdi said:
Most of the 'good' superheroes turn villains over the to police. By not being overly violent they might technically be acting in an illegal manner but the police like having them around for when some serious shit kicks off.hypothetical fact said:
Also, yes. It's the justice system responsbility to try and convict, and rehabilitate people. But since there's a strong curve into non-criminality in later life not the biggest of deals.
Well we're animals in a biological sense but I wouldn't say we're just animals. Most animals have little free will about whether they kill something; if they are full or tired they won't, if they are hungry they will. Humans beings have both free will and a discourse on morality going back for several millenia.So if we kill we better have a bloody good reason for it rather than just saying, "It's in our natures".Booze Zombie said:
I don't believe the job of any superhero or law enforcer is to be morally fair. I think it to be an impossible task, so I wouldn't impose it on anyone. I would expect them to use their best judgment as they decide whether or not an action they take is in the best interest of the people or not.
People like the Joker in the Dark Knight, for example, Batman should kill, because he'd be saving the people of Gotham a lot of trouble. If his job is to be morally correct, then he should already take back the punches he'd thrown Joker's way, because he'd been harming him all that time. Killing is merely another level of harm. If you think someone's doing something wrong, then it is already too late to be objective and act like you're in the right. We all bring something to the table. We all judge.
If a rich person was robbed, would you hunt down the robber? Would you use violence to subdue him? What if someone else forced him to do it? ? What if he was starving and needed the money to feed himself? What if he had a starving child to feed? Where do you draw he line between mercy and righteousness? We either live by the rules or we don't. Rules aren't upheld because they're the rules. They are upheld because they have a purpose. Is it better to return money to the rich person and let a poor man and child starve, if our interest was the good of the people? Is it better to feed and clothe the needy and forgo the lawful rights of do-good'ers?
I say we all give up being pretentious pricks, admit that we are all ignorant of what's absolutely right and wrong, and rid our consideration of morality from formal business. There is no such thing as redemption. It is not our business to be right. It is similarly not the law enforcement's business to be right. It is their business to act in the interest of the people. There is much room to be left in the realm of discretion, and a wise decision will reveal itself to be one in the future. Don't be a judge; be a hero. Don't be God; be Jesus.
People like the Joker in the Dark Knight, for example, Batman should kill, because he'd be saving the people of Gotham a lot of trouble. If his job is to be morally correct, then he should already take back the punches he'd thrown Joker's way, because he'd been harming him all that time. Killing is merely another level of harm. If you think someone's doing something wrong, then it is already too late to be objective and act like you're in the right. We all bring something to the table. We all judge.
If a rich person was robbed, would you hunt down the robber? Would you use violence to subdue him? What if someone else forced him to do it? ? What if he was starving and needed the money to feed himself? What if he had a starving child to feed? Where do you draw he line between mercy and righteousness? We either live by the rules or we don't. Rules aren't upheld because they're the rules. They are upheld because they have a purpose. Is it better to return money to the rich person and let a poor man and child starve, if our interest was the good of the people? Is it better to feed and clothe the needy and forgo the lawful rights of do-good'ers?
I say we all give up being pretentious pricks, admit that we are all ignorant of what's absolutely right and wrong, and rid our consideration of morality from formal business. There is no such thing as redemption. It is not our business to be right. It is similarly not the law enforcement's business to be right. It is their business to act in the interest of the people. There is much room to be left in the realm of discretion, and a wise decision will reveal itself to be one in the future. Don't be a judge; be a hero. Don't be God; be Jesus.
Personally I think it proves that if you ask a fantasy question on a gaming forum you get a lot of fantasy answers.rossatdi said: