A Thin Moral Line...?

[Balabanto]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

The real problem here is that Marvel has retarded law enforcement logic.

 

Back in the day, when Frank Castle had killed 400 or 500 people or so, that's about the point where someone like Henry Peter Gyrich would step in and say...

 

"Captain America...please tell your fellow Avengers to do something about this guy."

 

Several days later, The Punisher is on a roof with a rifle, waiting to whack some mob boss, when the sky darkens, lightning blows his rifle up, and standing around him in thunderous noise are The Mighty Avengers, as Thor stands there with his whirling hammer up and he simply says...

 

"Frank Castle...I say thee nay!"

 

End of story.

 

At least, that's where it should have ended.

[Greywind]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Except for some reason, the comic reading people decided "hey, cool!" and thus Marvel said "we can make money off this guy..."

[wylodmayer]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

You know... something just occured to me.

 

There was this guy I knew in high school. And he collected some comics, and gamed with us and so forth. But here's the thing.

 

His two favorite things were his Punisher comics collection.

 

And Star Trek.

 

I mean like Next Gen, too, not even Kirk.

 

Punisher.

 

Star Trek.

 

Punisher. Star Trek.

 

I just realized...

 

...there's like a serious moral clash between these, ain't there?

 

It's a wonder the cognitive dissonance didn't drive him mad.

[McCoy]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

The real problem here is that Marvel has retarded law enforcement logic.

 

Back in the day, when Frank Castle had killed 400 or 500 people or so, that's about the point where someone like Henry Peter Gyrich would step in and say...

 

"Captain America...please tell your fellow Avengers to do something about this guy."

 

Several days later, The Punisher is on a roof with a rifle, waiting to whack some mob boss, when the sky darkens, lightning blows his rifle up, and standing around him in thunderous noise are The Mighty Avengers, as Thor stands there with his whirling hammer up and he simply says...

 

"Frank Castle...I say thee nay!"

 

End of story.

Until next issue, when we find out that Castle has, against the advice of his lawyers, pleded nolo contendere to all charges, and is in the maximum security wing at Rikers.

 

Where he has scragged enough of his fellow inmates that he is now up above 600 confirmed kills.

[Balabanto]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

If he's killed that many people, that's nonsense. They would place him in solitary confinement. Forever!

[Springald Jack]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

 

Punisher. Star Trek.

 

I just realized...

 

...there's like a serious moral clash between these, ain't there?

 

It's a wonder the cognitive dissonance didn't drive him mad.

 

It's almost like people can enjoy fiction without totally accepting the morality of the imaginary world presented

 

Even then maybe not. Punisher is about a man who must do what the system can't or won't do. The system often isn't even interested in achieving justice. Star Trek:the Next Generation is about a crew from a society that while not quite perfect has a system that works far better than any real system could where any serious miscarrige of justice is both rare and shocking. The Federation doesn't need the Punisher but his world does...

 

I generally see Punisher as a Hero within the moral environment of his little corner of the fictional world he exists in. There what he does is True Justice. In the real world or a four-color environment he would be a dangerous lunatic.

 

And that's the thing just as a world has its own physical rules it has its own moral rules. The crew of Serenity are criminals (even Innara and Book Aid and Abet fugitives and are Accessories to countless acts of smuggling and theft) but I never question the fact that in spite of himself Malcom Reynolds can't stop being a Big Damn Hero...

[McCoy]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

If he's killed that many people' date=' that's nonsense. They would place him in solitary confinement. Forever![/quote']

Lot more difficult than you think. Courts still reguard solitary confinement as close to cruel and unusual punishment. I believe only one of the super-max prisons, Pelican Bay in California, is set up for extended solitary confinement, and it is is the subject of continual court challenges. Moot in any case, I believe that's a federal facility, and Castle would have been charged in the State of New York, unless at least one of those four to five hundred people he's killed was a federal agent. (That's how they backdoored McVeigh.)

 

You might also look up James Demouchette of Texas as a RL example. Sentenced to natural life, he killed another innmate, and was sentenced to death. IIRC after he was transferred to Death Row, the higest security level available in the Texas prison system, he managed to seriously injure a guard, and kill three more inmates before his execution.

 

For that matter, who was the genius who put Jeffrey Dalmar in the General Population? Dalmer got killed before he managed to kill any fellow inmates, but there is no doubt that given time, Dalmer would have killed again.

[Karmakaze]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

For that matter' date=' who was the genius who put Jeffrey Dalmar in the General Population? [i']Dalmer got killed[/i] before he managed to kill any fellow inmates, but there is no doubt that given time, Dalmer would have killed again.

 

I think that may have been the point. It's not right, but these things do get set up as tacitly approved assassinations.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Even then maybe not. Punisher is about a man who must do what the system can't or won't do. The system often isn't even interested in achieving justice.

 

I generally see Punisher as a Hero within the moral environment of his little corner of the fictional world he exists in. There what he does is True Justice. In the real world or a four-color environment he would be a dangerous lunatic.

 

I think this is a good definition for the Punisher's appeal as a "hero".

 

If I accept that, however, I suppose I must also accept the ending of Civil War. After all, within the moral environment of that fictional world, the general populace considers a Super Hero Registration Act to be essential, and that is the light in which it is being portrayed. That makes its supporters the heros and its opponents the villains. Switch the moral environment, of course, and we have the Evil Empire and the Noble Rebellion.

 

Mind you, I don't consider the Punisher a hero, neither do I like (or consider) the Registration Act as a morally solid concept.

[Springald Jack]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

If I accept that, however, I suppose I must also accept the ending of Civil War. After all, within the moral environment of that fictional world, the general populace considers a Super Hero Registration Act to be essential, and that is the light in which it is being portrayed.

 

I haven't read Civil War. However, just because the majority of the general populace supports something doens't mean it is necessarily right within the moral framework of the setting. It could be a moral framework in the tradition of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, "One person in the right, constitutes a majority of one."

 

I also am not saying that the moral environment of a fiction is not a grounds on which to judge it. If I feel that the morality of a fiction is too out of wack it may cause me to dislike it. I was just pointing out that the same person can accept differing fiction's moral frameworks for the context of the fiction without a neccesary reflection on their won moral framework.

[wylodmayer]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I also am not saying that the moral environment of a fiction is not a grounds on which to judge it. If I feel that the morality of a fiction is too out of wack it may cause me to dislike it. I was just pointing out that the same person can accept differing fiction's moral frameworks for the context of the fiction without a neccesary reflection on their won moral framework.

 

I think that's fair enough, but my point was (or rather, my view is) that the Punisher can only be a good guy as a fictional character. That was the whole reason I pointed out the difference between his falliability as a person within his own world, and his infalliability as a fictional character in our world.

 

People seem to keep coming back to this "doing what needs to be done" theme, which completely misses the whole point of my argument. And that is that in any world in which he really exists, it would be impossible for him to "do what needs to be done" and only that.

 

It's like drunk driving. It's perfectly possible for someone to drive drunk and not kill anyone. Heck, it's possible for someone to drive drunk and not break any traffic laws. It can happen. But the very act of driving drunk creates such a high risk situation, given human limitations, that it's still a transgression, a reckless and irresponsible act that is morally censurable because it endangers lives. The person who drives drunk cannot guarantee he won't cause a great deal of harm. Neither can the person who drives sober of course - accidents happen. But we recognize that as long as a driver does not create a situation that increases the risk of harm beyond what is normally acceptable, he's morally blameless.

 

The Punisher might be like a drunk driver who goes, say, a whole year without ever causing an accident or even breaking any traffic laws. If any drunk driver did that, it wouldn't be because he was cautious - it would be pure luck, given human limitations. He would lack sufficient control over himself to guarantee this outcome, and even if it did come about, we would still hold him blameworthy for creating the risk. The Punisher, even if he did happen to kill all and only people who 'deserve' it, is guilty of arrogantly assuming he can guarantee that outcome. I argue that no human being has both the clarity of moral vision and the simple logistical capacity to ensure such an outcome. I say that even if the Punisher kills all and only people who really needed killing, it would be an accident; as a human, it is exceedingly likely that he will make a mistake or be forced to harm innocents or near-innocents in his quest. This is also possible with the police, of course, but we accept their risk as normal because no one police officer has such unlimited carte blanche to execute justice, and the police are answerable to us, the people.

 

In other words, I argue that the Punisher's act is wrong per se, no matter what the actual outcome is. Bare-knuckles utilitarianism is a dead-end road, my friends - trust me on this one.

 

Since he was mentioned, Thoreau would have found the Punisher reprehensible. His thesis was about making individual moral decisions, not imposing one's moral judgments on others. In fact, that's the whole point. The Punisher's entire concept is based on him imposing his moral judgment on others, passing sentence by himself. That's the precise antithesis of Thoreau.

 

I do, however, agree with you about enjoying a piece of fiction without reflecting on its moral framework. I enjoy the hell out of the The Dark Knight Returns, even though I find Miller's cryptofascist subtext to be revolting on an intellectual level. That said, I enjoy stuff much more when I don't have to turn my brain off to participate. That's why I like Watchmen better than Dark Knight.

[psm]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I think that's fair enough' date=' but my point was (or rather, my view is) that the Punisher can only be a good guy [i']as a fictional character[/i]. That was the whole reason I pointed out the difference between his falliability as a person within his own world, and his infalliability as a fictional character in our world.

 

People seem to keep coming back to this "doing what needs to be done" theme, which completely misses the whole point of my argument. And that is that in any world in which he really exists, it would be impossible for him to "do what needs to be done" and only that.

 

The Punisher might be like a drunk driver who goes, say, a whole year without ever causing an accident or even breaking any traffic laws. If any drunk driver did that, it wouldn't be because he was cautious - it would be pure luck, given human limitations. He would lack sufficient control over himself to guarantee this outcome, and even if it did come about, we would still hold him blameworthy for creating the risk. The Punisher, even if he did happen to kill all and only people who 'deserve' it, is guilty of arrogantly assuming he can guarantee that outcome. I argue that no human being has both the clarity of moral vision and the simple logistical capacity to ensure such an outcome. I say that even if the Punisher kills all and only people who really needed killing, it would be an accident; as a human, it is exceedingly likely that he will make a mistake or be forced to harm innocents or near-innocents in his quest. This is also possible with the police, of course, but we accept their risk as normal because no one police officer has such unlimited carte blanche to execute justice, and the police are answerable to us, the people.

 

Yes, but couldn't that argument be used against all superpowered vigilantes? Just because a well meaning superhero plans on subduing a villain in a populated area doesn't mean he will, at least not in the real world. I mean vigilantism in its self is inherently wrong. Now put on top of that most heroes have as much power as armored assault vehicles. Sooner or later some villain or hero (and definitely innocent bystanders) will end up dead. Hell, that was the entire crux behind Civil War.

 

So, yes you are correct, the Punisher would be wrong in the real world. Unfortunately, so would ever other fictional character.

 

My own personal view of the Punisher is that he is an anti-hero. He's can only be considered heroic when he faces a villain that is more morally corrupt and dangerous than himself. So for me it's the context of the story which paints his morality. And I pray that the real world never sees somebody like Frank Castle.

[Checkmate]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

No irony at all. Our Champions team MidGuard would capture him and turn him over to the appropriate authorities; as would our Dark Champions Hudson City "non-team."

 

Justice Watch, whose members are also sworn US Marshals, would also try to take him alive if possible. But they'll be a lot less worried about their own necessary use of lethal force than the Code vs Killing types above would be. Their priority is to first protect the public and then law enforcement officers.

Justify it all you want Punnisher does

[wylodmayer]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Yes' date=' but couldn't that argument be used against all superpowered vigilantes?[/quote']

 

psm - This has been covered by me a couple of times in previous posts, but to save the time of reading back, the answer is no, no more than it can against police.

 

As noted, the police have the potential of making mistakes, too. They do, in fact. But there are procedures in place that make the police answerable for their actions to the people, and we only allow them to exercise a certain amount of authority. As long as these procedures remain in place, and the majority of police stay within their lawful limits, we accept the risk - and reality - of occasional mistakes for the benefits we receive.

 

Superheroes are a little more questionable, of course. They aren't accountable to us. But imagine a character like Spider Man. Assuming for the moment that Spider Man really does have enough agility to use his enormous strength to render people unconscious without serious, permanent injury, he acts in a very ethical fashion. Because he does not use lethal force, and because he is careful about collateral damage, he presents no where near the same risk to innocents that the Punisher does.

 

Furthermore, he not only focuses primarily on apprehending people in the process of committing crimes, but even then he does not presume to execute sentence on individuals - he subdues apparent criminals and then lets the criminal justice system (i.e.: the people) sort it out from there. And sometimes he has found this was for the best, because he was wrong about what he thought was going on!

 

Finally, Spider Man can and does oppose superpowered criminals who cannot be effectively opposed by the police. Is this a mercenary point? Well, yes - the same point holds for the police, though. We allow for their occasional mistakes and excesses (although we try to curtail it where we can) because we want what measure of safety they can provide for us. Likewise, a character like Spider Man, whose methods (a) do not involve setting himself up as an independent moral authority and ( are much less likely to cause innocent deaths than a man with an arsenal of guns and high explosive, is in fact acting more ethically and in a more socially responsible fashion than the Punisher. And if he does make some mistakes from time to time, as long as he is making a good-faith effort to act responsibly, he redeems his value to society in facing the kinds of criminals that normal humans can't.

 

The Punisher quite simply offers none of these things to society. He sets himself up as an independent source of moral authority, he acts irresponsibly merely by employing lethal force of the kind he does at all (no matter how carefully he may try and direct it), and he cannot and does not oppose superhuman criminals. In other words, he's not worth the potential negatives.

 

So, while the argument does generalize, it generalizes in a way that tends to condemn the Punisher and absolve mainstream heroes, precisely because they don't kill. Because the argument applies to ALL people, including cops. We can accept cops because they act within certain guidelines. We would accept superheroes somewhat less because they may act within certain guidelines, perhaps more stringent than those of police, even, but they are not accountable - they would only be "worth it" in a world with supervillains. The Punisher isn't worth it period; he has none of the advantages of a hero and all the downsides of a rogue cop.

 

People don't like thinking about it, but it would all be a calculated risk. Police are a calculated risk. It's not that police don't screw up, it's that we accept their screw-ups as an operating cost for what they DO provide, within reason. Heroes, largely, would be "within reason." I mean, seriously - you said you hope the world never sees a man like Frank Castle. Would you say the same about Spider Man? Probably not. Even if he's wrong, and he thinks you're a criminal, he'll try to web you to the floor or something. If you resist, you get knocked out, which isn't pleasant, but you recover shortly. He doesn't kill you. He leaves you for the police. And pretty soon CSU has it sorted out and you're free to go. It's inconvenient, but a scenario not so very different could happen with just the police - you could be incorrectly arrested for a crime, and maybe wrestled to the ground and handcuffed. So, Spider Man isn't presenting a risk to the public much greater than the cops are. We like cops. And, bonus, Spider Man occasionally saves the city from Dr. Doom. This works out. I think on the whole I'd be comfortable with a Spider Man in the real world.

 

Punisher, on the other hand, kills you if he thinks you're bad. Or, you might die if you're too close (like next door, even) to someone he thinks is bad when he bazookas the room that guy is in. Or if you have the bad luck to be hired to protect someone who is, oops, really bad. There's no reprieve from that. You don't get released a few hours later with a donut and a "Whoops, sorry." You don't even have a neat anecdote to tell at parties about being webbed to a wall. It sucks. And Big Pun doesn't even lend a freaking LAW rocket when a wuss like Beetle tries to rob a bank. Wimp.

 

The difference is in degrees, sure, but the degrees are important. They're how we live our lives. If you're looking for a clear cut difference between the good guys and the bad guys, you won't find one, but there doesn't HAVE to be one for us to make value judgments about what is, and what isn't, acceptable. It is possible that the Punisher is bad, and that what he does only differs in degree from what heroes do, without tainting their actions or redeeming his.

 

Doctors cut people open and remove their blood and do all kinds of stuff that is generally unpleasant and kinda fatal. But they do it very carefully, while respecting certain guidelines, rules, and principles. That is what separates a surgeon from a man who's gonna slice your gut open with a knife. One is good for society, and one is bad.

 

And what separates a hero from a vigilante is not that they do so very different things, but that one does what he does in a controlled fashion, with respect for certain principles and guidelines, a certain code. He sets limits for himself - like, "do not kill" - and he abides by them strictly, because he knows he is falliable like the next man. He knows that those limits are what keep him on the side of good, what keep him an asset to society instead of a liability.

[psm]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I disagree with many premises that you are making to sustain your argument.

 

First, vigilantes are not police officers. They are not sanctioned by the law, they are not held accountable and they are not trained. In the eyes of the law Punisher and the majority superheroes would be viewed in the same light.

 

Secondly, exactly how does a superheroes intent have any bearing on the consequences of their actions? Just because they 'attempt' to not use lethal force is not a guarantee that violent consequences would not happen. Especially, considering that most super powered vigilantes jump into a fray with no plan, usually causing large amounts of property damage. Yet, here you have the Punisher who is much more methodical in his execution and working on a smaller scale more prone to a mistake. How's that possible? You are not treating both scenarios with the same brush. If you are going to accept that Frank Castle is going to sooner or later make a grave mistake you must also accept that you're garden variety hero will also do the same. Just because one has good intentions doesn't make him any less of a murderer when innocents die in the eyes of the law. In both situations they are in reality working above the law in an irresponsible manner.

 

As for the whole 'super heroes fight villains that cops can't handle', that's part of the genre. Isn't kinda weird that whenever a person discovers they have powers instead of joining the police academy or military they don a colorful costume and go fight crime? If these vigilantes wanted to really help they would join the local police force where they would have access to numerous resources, training and knowledge of the law.

 

Lastly, I'm glad the world will never see costumed superhero vigilantes except in comic books.

[wylodmayer]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

First, make sure the premises you disagree with are actually my premises.

 

I never assert that vigilantes are police officers, so the fact that you disagree with that statement is, well, completely immaterial.

 

Second, a superhero's intent has bearing on the consequences of his actions in exactly the same way everyone else's intentions have bearing on their actions. I never assert that violent, potentially lethal consequences will not occur because superheroes don't intend them to - again, before you disagree with something I said, make sure I said it. However, there's a big difference between someone who goes into a situation with the intent to kill somebody, and someone who goes into a situation with the intent to subdue with as little harm as possible. Is it conceivable that the person with the latter intent might still commit grievous harm, or even kill? Of course. But it's less likely, all other things being equal. You admit this tacitly, not two sentences after denying it, when you decry superheroes who jump into a fight 'without a plan', and talk about how 'methodical' the Punisher is. So which is it? Do intentions matter or not?

 

Of course, they do matter. In fact, your example undercuts your case by being flat out wrong - a person who is trying to subdue someone with minimal force is 'less of a murderer' in the eyes of the law when someone dies. It's the difference between 1st degree murder and all other crimes. And the law happens to think it's an extremely important difference. I believe also that "common sense" morality agrees with this distinction as well.

 

I'm not entirely clear on whether you're arguing that there's no actual moral difference in what Spider Man and the Punisher do, or whether you're saying that they would be perceived as being the same. Regardless, I disagree with both. The law clearly sees the two cases as different. If a person, you or me, tried to wrestle a mugger to the ground, we might be seen as irresponsible to an extent for even trying it, being as that it is not our place to do so. And in that regard only, yes, Spider Man is in a sense similar to the Punisher. But so long as it was clearly not our intent to kill, even if we accidentally brought about the mugger's death, we would not be tried as a murderer in the fullest sense of the word, nor would we be commonly judged as such, regardless of whether the man in question was innocent or not.

 

Conversely, if we pulled out a gun, aimed for his head, and pulled the trigger, we'd be considered a murder, again regardless of whether the man was innocent or not. Indeed, we'd be considered a murderer in spirit even if we were to miss.

 

I was going to do a whole thing on substantive and procedural wrongs, safeguards and the moral status of moral rules themselves, but I have a feeling it would be too lengthy. The bottom line is, no, they aren't the same. The law doesn't think they're the same. Common morality doesn't think they're the same.

[Springald Jack]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I think that's fair enough' date=' but my point was (or rather, my view is) that the Punisher can only be a good guy [i']as a fictional character[/i]. That was the whole reason I pointed out the difference between his falliability as a person within his own world, and his infalliability as a fictional character in our world.

That said, I enjoy stuff much more when I don't have to turn my brain off to participate. That's why I like Watchmen better than Dark Knight.

 

1. disagreeing with a moral premise in a fiction doesn't mean shtting your brain off. Hero is a deep and rich film, which happens to endorse totalitarianism.

 

2. More relevantly, the fact that Punisher can only be a good guy as a fictional character is kind of a silly point to make since he is a fictional character. Conventional powered superheroes are only possible in fiction.

 

Conversely, if we pulled out a gun, aimed for his head, and pulled the trigger, we'd be considered a murder, again regardless of whether the man was innocent or not. Indeed, we'd be considered a murderer in spirit even if we were to miss.

 

I was going to do a whole thing on substantive and procedural wrongs, safeguards and the moral status of moral rules themselves, but I have a feeling it would be too lengthy. The bottom line is, no, they aren't the same. The law doesn't think they're the same. Common morality doesn't think they're the same.

 

Actually, under certain circumstances a private citizen can in fact shoot someone legally. It may even be in the defense of another person rather than the defense of a shooter in many jurisdictions.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

As for the whole 'super heroes fight villains that cops can't handle'' date=' that's part of the genre. Isn't kinda weird that whenever a person discovers they have powers instead of joining the police academy or military they don a colorful costume and go fight crime? If these vigilantes wanted to really help they would join the local police force where they would have access to numerous resources, training and knowledge of the law.[/quote']I think an essential part of the comic-hero metarules is that the police are inherently either corrupt and/or incapable of dealing with certain types of crime, and therefore superheroes had to bypass the police in order to solve the problem. Considering the predecessors Batman had (Zorro, Scarlet Pimpernel, Robin Hood) dealt with corrupt governments as the primary problem, that shouldn't come as a surprise. Even early Superman comics had him dealing with organized crime and venal government officials on a regular basis. The whole point of supers (good and bad) is they've got "powers and abilities above those of mortal men" and must deal with threats of a similar nature.

 

Lastly, I'm glad the world will never see costumed superhero vigilantes except in comic books.

I tend to agree, although I think we're a poorer world for it. Ultimately the real hook for comics is that the readers can put themselves into the place of the protagonists. What person wouldn't want to fight injustice, fly, and have a secret they must keep from even their friends and family? Kids of all ages can identify with that fantasy.

[psm]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I'm not entirely clear on whether you're arguing that there's no actual moral difference in what Spider Man and the Punisher do, or whether you're saying that they would be perceived as being the same. Regardless, I disagree with both. The law clearly sees the two cases as different. If a person, you or me, tried to wrestle a mugger to the ground, we might be seen as irresponsible to an extent for even trying it, being as that it is not our place to do so. And in that regard only, yes, Spider Man is in a sense similar to the Punisher. But so long as it was clearly not our intent to kill, even if we accidentally brought about the mugger's death, we would not be tried as a murderer in the fullest sense of the word, nor would we be commonly judged as such, regardless of whether the man in question was innocent or not.

 

Conversely, if we pulled out a gun, aimed for his head, and pulled the trigger, we'd be considered a murder, again regardless of whether the man was innocent or not. Indeed, we'd be considered a murderer in spirit even if we were to miss.

 

What, I'm arguing is that your argument against the Punisher can be used against all superheroes.

 

People seem to keep coming back to this "doing what needs to be done" theme, which completely misses the whole point of my argument. And that is that in any world in which he really exists, it would be impossible for him to "do what needs to be done" and only that.

 

See, you originally argued that the Punisher would never work in reality because sooner or later he would either hurt an innocent, make a mistake, or put innocent bystanders in jeapordy even if he was morally correct (which he isn't). You even used a drunk driving analogy to iterate your point. This I agree with.

 

However, the same can be said for all superheroes. Regardless of morality or intent, they would continually do the same thing. You use the example of us stopping a mugger. Sure, that example is clear cut and strengthens your case. However, that's not the same as disguising once self and illegally enforcing the law on a continual basis. Especially, when your powers give you the equivalent of a concealed weapon (if not worse). How many times have we seen a masked superhero run into a bank robbery with no idea how many robbers or bystanders are involved. Obviously in the context of the genre this isn't a problem. The good guys always win and no one gets hurt. In 'reality' this could be catastrophic. Even though the intent was to stop the bank robbers the results could be far for more deadly. Would the law go easy on him? Would they even know that he was trying to use non-lethal force? Even if it wasn't considered first degree murder wouldn't the death of 1-4 bystanders be as bad? I'm sorry the hero in question would be acting irresponsibly. He is placing himself above the law and willfully endangering innocents. Even if things worked out this time, how long before someone got hurt? How long before a case gets ruined because of a masked vigilantes interference. In reality (reality being the key word) they would be just as ineffective as the Punisher. It would be impossible for them to do what needs to be done and just that. That is the point I'm trying to make.

[wylodmayer]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Springald Jack -

 

Good points, and I certainly didn't mean to sound as snippy on the "turning your brain off" thing as I apparently did. I enjoyed Hero a great deal as well, but yes, you're right, it does kind of endorse totalitarianism. I guess what I should have said is that as much as I enjoy certain movies/books, I often enjoy more those that are both entertaining and have a moral stance I can get behind.

 

psm -

 

No, I think we substantially agree, and I have glossed over the fact that taking the law into one's own hands even with the best of intentions to do no permanent harm is itself wrong in a substantial way. I do still think that intent would matter to the public at least some, and that one can't say the Punisher and Spider Man are precisely the same; my whole argument was that they are only separated by degrees, but those degrees are important. But that's a pretty subjective point and I'll admit there's nothing more I really feel like saying on that count.

 

And the point about Punisher being a good guy only in fiction may be somewhat irrelevant to our discussion, but it wasn't to a previous set of posts by someone else - I was trying to make clear the distinction that someone can do something in a fictional world ostensibly identical to our own and be a good guy (to us), while still being a bad guy in any world he "actually" exists in. I think we agree on that, so that comment can fairly be said to be something that was aimed at someone else, and just got included in the post I made to you because I was still thinking about it.

 

Basically, I think we agree, but I was trying to, in my mind, "play fair" by assuming that The Punisher had enough control to kill only those people he really wanted to kill, and the superheroes enough control to not kill people they didn't want to. That seems equitable, right? Given that, which I'll admit is a big given, but on those grounds, I think the Punisher is STILL wrong, because assuming technical ability hasn't given him moral perfection. That was the point I was going for. I was saying we could allow the Punisher the luxury of never missing his target, never killing an unintended victim, etc, but moral clarity is another thing entirely. I was basically pointing out that even if we can imagine that the Punisher is a skilled-enough human to never kill anyone but his target, there's no way to endow him with infalliable moral sense without making him entirely implausible. And the contrast to superheroes was supposed to show that, given the same amount of technical error (i.e. zero), the Punisher is in the wrong still.

 

But I do think you're right - even stepping outside the law in a substantial way does create a danger to society. As you've said, these people aren't answerable to us. I disagree slightly in as much as I think intent would matter to a lot of people, that a hero who restricted himself very clearly in certain ways might be viewed a bit more sympathetically, but even then, yes, they would seem somewhat menacing, wouldn't they?

[Balabanto]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

In general, most acts of crime prevention which do not take any lives can be shoehorned in under good samaritan laws, which do exist.

 

Once people start taking lives while fighting crime, that's where true vigilantism begins. If Bernhard Goetz had SUBDUED four people with his fists instead of shooting them with a gun, there wouldn't have been nearly as big an outcry.

[wylodmayer]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Yeah! See, I just thought of a better way to state this.

 

If we zero out for accidents, since those can happen to anyone, and allow both Punisher and Spider Man technical perfection (that is, they don't kill anyone they don't want to kill, which would be no one in Spidey's case), Punisher's approach still requires something more, moral perfection. So even in a world which assumes as part of its metaphysial laws (genre conventions, in short) that superheroes can successfully not kill when they don't mean to, and that the Punisher can manage to only kill those he actually targets, Punisher would still require something further to make his acts justifiable. And since moral perfection is not a part of the universe he exists in, or any post Golden Age superhero universe, he's a bad guy even in worlds where superheroes can be good guys.

 

I think that gets my point. I'll have to think on that. Argh... I should be working on papers, not doing this... I do have the excuse that this is at least somewhat related to my field, though...

[input.jack]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Justify it all you want Punnisher does

 

 

Punisher isnt a duly authorized law enforcement official.

 

Justice Watch are.

 

HUGE difference.

 

So, its not "justification". The independant heroes would bring Frank in alive, if they could, or have to let hime scape if they couldnt manage that.

 

Justice Watch would bring him in. Period.

[TheRealVector]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

If Bernhard Goetz had SUBDUED four people with his fists instead of shooting them with a gun' date=' there wouldn't have been nearly as big an outcry.[/quote']

 

That would have been an impressive feat for a man of Goetz build and skills. LOL!

[Korvar]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I've always been amazed that the Punisher's never killed an undercover cop. Even when he's machine-gunned an entire night-club full of bad guys, not one is an undercover agent.