A Thin Moral Line...?

[TheRealVector]

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' date=' not one is an undercover agent.[/quote']

 

And I'm always amazed when the Hulk picks up a massive structure by one relatively tiny point and the whole thing doesnt crumble in his grasp.

 

Maybe in a weird way the same principle is at work in both cases? Hmmm?

[Korvar]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Hm... Superman does that more than the Hulk, generally

 

So basically, the Punisher never kills undercover cops because the writer and/or artist doesn't understand physics?

[TheRealVector]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Hm... Superman does that more than the Hulk, generally

 

So basically, the Punisher never kills undercover cops because the writer and/or artist doesn't understand physics?

 

Or because they don't understand analogies? One or the other.

[Yansuf]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I feel compelled to point out that stopping a crime in progress is NOT being a vigilante. It is fully legal anywhere in the US.

In the above, killing the criminal is also legal, if (and only if!) the court (or the grand jury) agrees that it was neccessary to stop the crime, AND the crime involved potential death or serious injury to any innocent person.

 

Being a vigilante involves going after someone who you believe (rightly or wrongly) to have committed a crime, and punishing them for it.

Dictonary definitions do not agree on whether someone who, without law enforcement authority, hunts down someone accused of a crime, captures them and turns them over to the police, is a vigilante. Since if the person above does it for a reward, they are called a bounty hunter rather than a vigilante, I do not consider anyone a vigilante unless they take it on themselves to punish the criminal (or alleged criminal) rather than turn them over to the legal police.

 

With the above in mind, I cannot think of many classic comic book heroes/superheroes who are vigilantes. I am sure a number of examples of "heroes" who are will be posted in reply to this, but I expect the number will still constitute a small minority.

 

In fact, if I remember my old western comics (it's been many years) The "Vigilante" was not really a vigilante; he did not punish his foes. But I admitt my recollection may be colored by JLU.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I think we've also missed another important distinction: In a world where supers exist, the law would have developed in a very different way than it has in the real world. If there were villains with superhuman powers, then the heroes who try to stop them wouldn't be considered quasilegal or extralegal; their existence would be assumed and duly incorporated into the law.

 

Vigilantism grows where the authorities cannot or will not stop what is perceived as crimes by the general population. If the authorities didn't stop supervillains (for whatever reason) then superheroes would by necessity step into the gap.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I think we've also missed another important distinction: In a world where supers exist' date=' the law would have developed in a very different way than it has in the real world.[/i'] If there were villains with superhuman powers, then the heroes who try to stop them wouldn't be considered quasilegal or extralegal; their existence would be assumed and duly incorporated into the law.

 

Vigilantism grows where the authorities cannot or will not stop what is perceived as crimes by the general population. If the authorities didn't stop supervillains (for whatever reason) then superheroes would by necessity step into the gap.

 

We would certainly have superhero laws. Possibly, they would recognize certain registered Supers as law enforcement officers. One of the more interesting V & V modules once included a villain whose secret ID was a senator. While the module didn't focus on this, his background noted he was championing a bill for Supers that would prevent law enforcement arresting a Super with a proven track record of being a Hero. Too often , they are framed and we hamper their ability to deal with the super-powered threat who framed them to get them out of the way so they couldn't stop the villain's nefarious plan.

 

His real goal, however, was to get this passed into law so his operatives could act as heroes long enough to be recognized under this law, after which they could more or less act with impunity.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

We would certainly have superhero laws. Possibly, they would recognize certain registered Supers as law enforcement officers. One of the more interesting V & V modules once included a villain whose secret ID was a senator. While the module didn't focus on this, his background noted he was championing a bill for Supers that would prevent law enforcement arresting a Super with a proven track record of being a Hero. Too often , they are framed and we hamper their ability to deal with the super-powered threat who framed them to get them out of the way so they couldn't stop the villain's nefarious plan.

 

His real goal, however, was to get this passed into law so his operatives could act as heroes long enough to be recognized under this law, after which they could more or less act with impunity.

Yes, we'd have superhero laws if we had superheroes. My point was it was essentially pointless to use real-world statutes as case law for a superhero universe. The entire legal and criminal justice systems would have evolved in a different way which is impossible to ascertain. Even the case between "supers have always been part of human history" would be markedly different from "supers first evolved in the 1930's."

 

The use of trained professional police officers to deter and solve crime is a fairly recent evolution in the Western world. Perhaps if supers had been around for centuries, for example, that tradition would never have developed. Perhaps cities would simply hire supers to make their streets safer, much as the earliest fire departments only fought fires on property they'd been paid to protect.

[TheRealVector]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I think we've also missed another important distinction: In a world where supers exist' date=' the law would have developed in a very different way than it has in the real world.[/i'] If there were villains with superhuman powers, then the heroes who try to stop them wouldn't be considered quasilegal or extralegal; their existence would be assumed and duly incorporated into the law.

 

Interesting. Perhaps there would have been some sort of "Civil War" amongst the early hereos as the society, and the law, attempted to incorporate them?

[pinecone]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Exactly...in a world of supers we'd think and behave differantly, because we'd have worked this out. I have to wonder about the whole aproved/sanctioned by society argument (despite the irony concerning myself) does that mean the sanctioned torture/rape specialists working for dicator#777 are "Heros"?

 

They certainly work "within the law"....

[TheRealVector]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Exactly...in a world of supers we'd think and behave differantly, because we'd have worked this out. I have to wonder about the whole aproved/sanctioned by society argument (despite the irony concerning myself) does that mean the sanctioned torture/rape specialists working for dicator#777 are "Heros"?

 

They certainly work "within the law"....

 

And so do ambulance chasing lawyers. There not heroes either. LOL

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Interesting. Perhaps there would have been some sort of "Civil War" amongst the early heroes as the society' date=' and the law, attempted to incorporate them?[/quote']Considering that ordinary humans still required centuries of debate and armed conflict to establish rule of law and the limits of the state, I can't see any reason to think that a world with supers would have been any neater. While there might have been "superhero wars" between super to establish ground rules, it's just as likely that wars were fought between super and normals with the same result. A lot would depend on the exact era when supers first became common.

 

Keep in mind the mere existence of people with powers wouldn't necessarily change things either way. The existence of persons with malevolent paranormal powers (witches) was an assumption in the real world from the days of the Roman Republic through the 18th century; and was a capital crime in every nation from China to England.

[TheRealVector]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Considering that ordinary humans still required centuries of debate and armed conflict to establish rule of law and the limits of the state, I can't see any reason to think that a world with supers would have been any neater. While there might have been "superhero wars" between super to establish ground rules, it's just as likely that wars were fought between super and normals with the same result. A lot would depend on the exact era when supers first became common.

 

Keep in mind the mere existence of people with powers wouldn't necessarily change things either way. The existence of persons with malevolent paranormal powers (witches) was an assumption in the real world from the days of the Roman Republic through the 18th century; and was a capital crime in every nation from China to England.

 

Witches don't have real super powers though. LOL

 

Or do they?

[psm]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Considering that ordinary humans still required centuries of debate and armed conflict to establish rule of law and the limits of the state, I can't see any reason to think that a world with supers would have been any neater. While there might have been "superhero wars" between super to establish ground rules, it's just as likely that wars were fought between super and normals with the same result. A lot would depend on the exact era when supers first became common.

 

Keep in mind the mere existence of people with powers wouldn't necessarily change things either way. The existence of persons with malevolent paranormal powers (witches) was an assumption in the real world from the days of the Roman Republic through the 18th century; and was a capital crime in every nation from China to England.

 

And thats not even taking into consideration power level. Having people like Superman with power levels comparable to greek gods would be considerably different than having a person with above human strength and speed like Captain America. The latter wouldn't nearly affect the world as much as the existence of flying demi-gods.

[dustytomes]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

The problem with the thin moral line is that it is never where you think it is.

Everybody thinks I'm way over here on the GOOD side of the line and Hitler(Stalin, Jack the Ripper, you name it) is on the BAD side. But no matter what your moral code is you don't live up to it. Take for example lying. Most people are against lying and yet we all do. Or stealing: ever work 7.5 hours but put down 8? Ever take take home any office supplies? Cheat on your taxes? Shop lift? But the moral line is not an external line it's internal. It's in the Hart and the mind. So you don't just cross the line with your actions you cross it with your thoughts. Ever have a bad thought? Then You've crossed the Line. And that's the problem with seeing the line. We are looking in the wrong direction. It's not in front of us between us and and Hitler. It's behind us. We are on the same side as all the people we despise. We try so hard to come up with reasons and excuses for being on the wrong side. We deceive our selves because the truth is to hard to bare.

 

Dusty

[Clonus]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

The problem with the thin moral line is that it is never where you think it is.

Everybody thinks I'm way over here on the GOOD side of the line and Hitler(Stalin, Jack the Ripper, you name it) is on the BAD side. But no matter what your moral code is you don't live up to it. Take for example lying. Most people are against lying and yet we all do.

 

I'm pretty sure most people aren't against lying. They're against some lies, but consider others to be downright laudable. Find me a person who thinks it's wrong, for example to downplay as much as possible to the next of kin the suffering that a dying person experienced, and I'll show you a jerk.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

The problem with the thin moral line is that it is never where you think it is.

Everybody thinks I'm way over here on the GOOD side of the line and Hitler(Stalin, Jack the Ripper, you name it) is on the BAD side. But no matter what your moral code is you don't live up to it. Take for example lying. Most people are against lying and yet we all do. Or stealing: ever work 7.5 hours but put down 8? Ever take take home any office supplies? Cheat on your taxes? Shop lift? But the moral line is not an external line it's internal. It's in the Hart and the mind. So you don't just cross the line with your actions you cross it with your thoughts. Ever have a bad thought? Then You've crossed the Line. And that's the problem with seeing the line. We are looking in the wrong direction. It's not in front of us between us and and Hitler. It's behind us. We are on the same side as all the people we despise. We try so hard to come up with reasons and excuses for being on the wrong side. We deceive our selves because the truth is to hard to bare.

I'm gonna disagree with this for the most part. Morality isn't a position, it's a goal. We set our morality at a level we think we can reasonably achieve based on our own ethics, conscience, and support structure from friends and society at large, and then try to attain that goal. Many, probably most of us, fail on occasion but doesn't make the goal worthless.

 

When you think about it, setting basic ethical rules can make thing much simpler in the long run. Don't fool around and you don't have to worry about STD's, unwanted pregnancies, or enraged fathers/boyfriends/spouses. Don't steal, and you don't have to worry about getting caught. Don't lie, and you don't have to remember what untruths you've told. Don't commit murder and you won't have to worry about prison or execution. Think of all the nasty things being ethical saves you from.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I'm gonna disagree with this for the most part. Morality isn't a position, it's a goal. We set our morality at a level we think we can reasonably achieve based on our own ethics, conscience, and support structure from friends and society at large, and then try to attain that goal. Many, probably most of us, fail on occasion but doesn't make the goal worthless.

 

When you think about it, setting basic ethical rules can make thing much simpler in the long run. Don't fool around and you don't have to worry about STD's, unwanted pregnancies, or enraged fathers/boyfriends/spouses. Don't steal, and you don't have to worry about getting caught. Don't lie, and you don't have to remember what untruths you've told. Don't commit murder and you won't have to worry about prison or execution. Think of all the nasty things being ethical saves you from.

 

Getting close to NGD territory here, but fear of the consequences isn't ethics, in my opinion. Ethics is doing the right thing despite the fact that doing the worng thing would be to your benefit.

[Balabanto]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I'll agree with Hugh on that one.

 

However, to get back to the subject of the Punisher for a minute, truth be told, someone said the character was "Iron Age."

 

Beg to differ, boyos. He was created as an adversary for Spider Man in the early 1970's. He first appears in issue 129. I know. I own it. It's worth a stupidly absurd amount of money for a character who I think is worth two cents.

 

Now the problem is that the question of ethics is really this.

 

The Punisher doesn't have any in a superhero world as far as I'm concerned. Someone said that he's a hero in the world that he lives in.

 

THE WORLD THAT HE LIVES IN IS THE SAME WORLD THAT CAPTAIN AMERICA LIVES IN (And will live again, !@#$%!@ you, Joe Quesada!), and IRON MAN LIVES IN, and DOZENS OF OTHER REAL HEROES WHO HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR!

 

Quite frankly, I'm amazed some hero hasn't killed Frank Castle by accident.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Getting close to NGD territory here' date=' but fear of the consequences isn't ethics, in my opinion. Ethics is doing the right thing despite the fact that doing the wrong thing would be to your benefit.[/quote']That wasn't my point at all; and I obviously expressed myself poorly. I was merely pointing out that being ethical does offer concrete advantages, and so those are simply additional reasons to be ethical. It's a side benefit, not the reason in and of itself. Being moral is its own reward.

[TheRealVector]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Getting close to NGD territory here' date=' but fear of the consequences isn't ethics, in my opinion. Ethics is doing the right thing despite the fact that doing the worng thing would be to your benefit.[/quote']

 

 

I think he was just pointing out some of the fringe benefits of morality, not saying that fear of consequences should be the only motivating factor.

[wylodmayer]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Actually, evaluating actions solely on their consequences is an ethical theory known as consequentialism, unsurprisngly enough. Consequentialists are often constrasted with those who hold a deontological ethical view, which is - very roughly - the idea that there are certain ethical duties that hold regardless of consequences.

 

Many people would just say, "well, why not both?" The problem is in the tension between the two. The classic example is killing one person to save five. Suppose there's someone who is about to kill five people, but you can safely and reliably kill him first.

 

On the deontological view, killing is a moral wrong, and - by definition - you must not do anything morally wrong if you can help it. Killing the man would be wrong, so you shouldn't do it. You can't worry about the other five; after all, you didn't kill them, he did. The moral stain is on him, not you.

 

The consequentialist could say "life is valuable," and taking action A (killing him) results in a net loss of -1 life, while taking action B (not killing him) results in a net loss of -5 lives. Obviously, I should kill him. Indeed, I am morally required to.

 

Clearly, the whole things gets a lot more complex than this, and we wind up in different "flavors" of consequentialism, in the distinction between killing and letting die, etc etc etc. But that's the basic tension. Morality as its own reward assumes certain things about the universe and about morality which are (a) not necessarily true and ( heavily contested in any case.

 

Just throwing my two cents in.

[nexus]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I'll agree with Hugh on that one.

 

However, to get back to the subject of the Punisher for a minute, truth be told, someone said the character was "Iron Age."

 

Beg to differ, boyos. He was created as an adversary for Spider Man in the early 1970's. He first appears in issue 129. I know. I own it. It's worth a stupidly absurd amount of money for a character who I think is worth two cents.

 

Now the problem is that the question of ethics is really this.

 

The Punisher doesn't have any in a superhero world as far as I'm concerned. Someone said that he's a hero in the world that he lives in.

 

THE WORLD THAT HE LIVES IN IS THE SAME WORLD THAT CAPTAIN AMERICA LIVES IN (And will live again, !@#$%!@ you, Joe Quesada!), and IRON MAN LIVES IN, and DOZENS OF OTHER REAL HEROES WHO HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR!

 

Quite frankly, I'm amazed some hero hasn't killed Frank Castle by accident.

 

If you're talking about my post, I said he doesn't work in the mainstream Marvel Universe rubbing shoulders with Captain America and others of his ilk and would be considered a villian. I am well aware of the origin of the character but he's grown beyond his origins and I've liked some of the things done with him. The reference to the character as "Iron Age", at least for me was about his feel and the mood that is best suited for him not about the era in which he was created.

 

He works when set off narratively in his own little corner of it or a "different" world like the Marvel Max books. The debate came from the idea if he could be considered a hero at all, regardless of setting not if he would be in the largely light Bronze Age (well until recently) 616 Marvel Universe. I dropped it because it felt like the topic was getting heated.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Justify it all you want Punnisher does

 

Read what he said again ( the US Marshals part) and then really THINK about what you're saying. Us marshal's possibly using lethal force equals the punisher? The punisher is no less or more a hero than any other mad killing hollywood action hero just compared to pre iron/rust Superheroes he becomes a villain in comparison.he falls below my standards but within his own little world he is more accepted.

As well thought out as they may be the intricate rationalizations about the moral implications of superheroes and public safety , registration, vigilantism on a real world scale are poison to the genre. It similar to making the violence in classic 30s pulp into the gritty demeaning gory supernaturalistic violence of many of todays films Where any violence is brutal and nasty and nobody wins and injuries are always horrible. it robs the hero of his heroic identity and destroys the flavor and strength of the genre.Apparently many writers have forgotten this simple fact or simply hate the genres they write in.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

Read what he said again ( the US Marshals part) and then really THINK about what you're saying. Us marshal's possibly using lethal force equals the punisher?

Yes' date=' my whole point was that conventional superheroes are [i']more[/i] constrained in the use of deadly force than law enforcement officers (super or not); at least in most typical Golden or Silver Age settings.

 

In Iron Age settings I figure villains are only read their rights after they've been disemboweled.

[Kristopher]

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

 

I'll agree with Hugh on that one.

 

However, to get back to the subject of the Punisher for a minute, truth be told, someone said the character was "Iron Age."

 

Beg to differ, boyos. He was created as an adversary for Spider Man in the early 1970's. He first appears in issue 129. I know. I own it. It's worth a stupidly absurd amount of money for a character who I think is worth two cents.

 

Now the problem is that the question of ethics is really this.

 

The Punisher doesn't have any in a superhero world as far as I'm concerned. Someone said that he's a hero in the world that he lives in.

 

THE WORLD THAT HE LIVES IN IS THE SAME WORLD THAT CAPTAIN AMERICA LIVES IN (And will live again, !@#$%!@ you, Joe Quesada!), and IRON MAN LIVES IN, and DOZENS OF OTHER REAL HEROES WHO HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR THIS BEHAVIOR!

 

Quite frankly, I'm amazed some hero hasn't killed Frank Castle by accident.

 

Did you just use Iron Man as an example of a hero, or of someone with ethics? :nonp: :nonp: