Should Super Heroes kill?

Depends on the writing

If the super-hero doesn't kill but still finds permanent solutions to the villains that threaten him and those he protects, good for him

If the villains break out time and time again, racking up massive kill-counts over and over again... the reader will have a hard time sympathizing with the hero and his struggles. The hero who abstains from killing his main foe will seem self-righteous or even foolish, as opposed to morally superior. It's easier to write a hero who kills than one who doesn't, to be honest.

Depends

depends on what they're killing them for.

If you're killing bank robbers and smaller issues you like that, then yes, I see you as an anti-hero. If you're killing characters who have killed, raped, or done anything of that level, then you're simply a hero in my eyes.

Anybody with freaking power that are repeat offender or have done mass murder and keep escaping should be kill in reality. Story wise it depends.

Good point, but it's not up to a police officer to make that call. Also, who elected Superman to any position? Much less to a head of state? Not necessarily wrong again, but something to think about.

The assassin or bomber pilot sent by the government doesn't make the decision, the official elected by the people does.

Unless it is a very evil person who will fixes he/she actions, then I'll say no.

So are you arguing that all morality stems from Authority? Or Political Consensus? I'm saying that the hero killing the villain is illegal, as is Vigilantism; however, in either case, Joker or Darkseid, there is a good moral argument for killing such individuals. It's morally right, but legally wrong! As is everything Superheroes do in the world. In the case of Darkseid and Joker, no one else has the ability to track down, intervene, subdue, apprehend or kill the characters in question except Superman and Batman. They're the ones, on scene, who need to make the call, especially since it's not the first, second, or third times these Villains have wreaked havoc upon the world. Is their enough moral justification, without a call to elected officials, to enforce a permanent solution to the problem?

When it's necessary of course they should the no killing rule doesn't work when the villain is too powerful/evil to be contained they need to be killed sometimes

No, I'm saying there is a big difference in what you said and what we're talking about. Like I said, it might not necessarily be wrong it's just not comparable. Although, looking closer at what you said, we basically agree. you were talking about level of authority, same as I was sssoooo, i wasted both our time. :)

Yes they should imagine how much suffering would have been avoided if Batman just killed the joker.

Wolverine

@heroup2112: Yeah, we're pretty close to agreement. I think we're just stressing different aspects of the same argument. Real World events aren't comparable to fictional Superhero exploits, though I think they press on the same philosophical terrain: What is or isn't a good justification for Murder/Violence? And is it morally right or wrong to kill if the stakes are high enough? I often find DC superheroes, and Marvel to a lesser degree, act and respond to threats in not only an unrealistic, unbelievable way, but a morally irresponsible fashion given the threat at hand, the future threat posed, and their inability to permanently restrain their enemies! Sometimes, I think it represents an unhealthy moral world-view for children, because of how it refuses to acknowledge real-world danger, collateral damage, and morally salient responses to difficult scenarios. It leaves children unprepared for real bullies, real threats, real moral decision-making/choices. Personally, I wouldn't trust Batman to make the right moral choice in a warzone. I would trust Wolverine.

As far as "real world" lessons, children should be looking to comic books for those lol. They should be looking to parents, guardians, peers, some (hopefully) decently minded older figure, or even clergy. I found (growing up) that comics helped me find out where I stood on more philosophical issues. Yes, what I thought about right or wrong, good or evil, but I never sought to emulate anything I found in a comic. They sort of helped guide me more on general principals. I suppose I gravitated toward heroes and books that were along my same moral and philosophical lines than heroes and books shaped my outlook. If that makes any sense.

lol This sort of reminds me when an old friend though I behaved like I do because she thought I got some of my philosophies from comics when really I liked comics because the ones I liked lined up with (some of) my philosophies...more or less.

depends

Many children, myself included, don't have sufficient moral guidance from parents, peers, teachers or religious institutions and are forced to learn the hard way through experience or through learning from fictional and non-fictional sources. In any case, I definitely think fiction is instructional but I'm not saying comics are the totality of moral instruction for children, many children don't even read comics. Comics or stories, generally speaking, are many children's first step into the larger world of understanding complex social and philosophical issues. They should challenge simplistic notions of good and evil, right and wrong, which comics often don't, but the best ones definitely do! As you say, they helped guide you to more general principals, which can be very important if you're only other guidance is drunk, abusive, violent or otherwise absent. Also, I think it's difficult to determine whether children gravitate towards books/ideas or if books/ideas shape a child's interest. Like many things, it's a bit of both. It's nature and nurture. It's education and predilection. For instance, if you had never heard of the notion of god, let alone the specifics, it's almost impossible for you to believe in him/it. Conversely, there are also plenty of people who practice a religion because they have been raised in it and don't actually believe in it. Of course, at a certain age, you become more aware and responsible for what you are consuming and believing. For me, I don't believe and science doesn't support the notion of conventional Free will. In a sense, all we are is the result of causality: a combination of genes, memes, and timing. The worst humans are born with an unhealthy combination of bad genes, bad memes and bad timing. The best are born with good combinations. In short, I think the stories you tell your children, the memes they consume and continue to consume, are extremely important, in fact the most important, because it's the only thing we have any real control over!

Very good points. What do you mean by memes though? Do you mean memes you see on the internet? If so this is a new realm for me (as far as garnering life lessons). My younger son has used terms like "that's very memeable". I'm seriously wondering. I thought memes were just funny or cute little internet jokes or sayings. Are you telling me they're learning tools now? Or at least considered influential to kids?

Meme is a term coined by Biologist Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene in 1976 and generally means an idea. More specifically it's "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture".A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Meme theory regards memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures. Religion is a meme like Capitalism is a meme and so on....

The term meme has been appropriated/mutated itself by culture to represent funny/cute/short internet jokes/videos/sayings, but it's academic foundation and utility extends to any thought or idea. All you are is a collection of genes and memes that shift based on selective, environmental pressures/timing. In a deep sense, Causality is King and we're just pawns, passengers along for the ride.

Psychopaths are a good example of how causality shapes human beings. Based on scientific research, psychopaths are forged 60-70% by their "bad" genes, meaning their lack of empathy, guilt, and conscience is mostly biologically pre-programmed. However, the other 30-40% is a result of "bad" memes/ideas and bad timing/circumstance. Upper-class and Middle-class psychopaths are less likely to engage in violent crimes or impulsive physical acts and are more likely to engage in cruel social behavior pathological lying/manipulation(boss from hell) or white-collar financial crimes. They stand a better chance of being taught healthier ideas like restraint, morality based on authority, and thus prefer manipulation/coercion to violence. They also have different opportunities to apply their skills in a more civilized setting and so they can get what they want without killing. Of course, this doesn't mean that all serial killers come from lower class/broken families, or that middle-class psychopaths are never violent. They are perfectly capable of resorting to violence if the situation/timing/circumstance is right or sufficiently benefits them.

@cramandman:

Pretty freaking cool. I love learning new information. Thanks!

Anytime! I mostly live to learn new information! It's pretty much my favorite thing!

Likewise, though I admit I'm mostly into history these days, still new information is always a good thing.

If necessary. But nothings wrong with them delivering the criminal to the courts for the death penalty.

These days, I'm mostly interested in looking at History through the scientific lens of environment, rather than a cultural or sociological one. Have you read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years. It's extremely instructive and argues that gaps in power and technology between human societies originate primarily in environmental differences, rather than cultural or genetic differences. Advantages in technology, written language, resistance to disease occur because of the influence of geography/resources that allow certain cultures to become founts for science, economics, trade at different periods of time. It's one hell of a read and explains all of the hidden causal factors that influence War, Politics, and Economics. It sheds light on the many Invisible causal hands that guide, shape, and mold how we interact with one another.

I haven't read THAT book, but I've read books and articles along those lines yes, and I find them very interesting. There are a lot of factors that effect how history progresses and forces that shape the world, the people, and events that have shaped it.

Definitely. Some are too dangerous too kept alive. Try containing someone like the Joker and see how that turns out.

Depends, you aren't a hero to me if you go around killing people who have just stolen some lady's purse.But if you're killing someone who is destroying civilizations/races/ or planets then to me yeah.

Killing within reason.

The joker should be dead.

I think a good superhero should know when to kill and when to show mercy.

Depends, they shouldn't kill someone for stealing a purse or something of that effect. But someone like Zod, Darkseid, Red Hulk, etc. that kills ppl and is WAY to powerful for humans to deal with such as (Make a prison strong enough to hold them or stop them if they go on a murder rampage again), then yes they should be killed. Honestly, what the heck are humans gonna do if Supes is on another planet and Zod/Darkseid break out of a human prison??

Yes , depending on the situation tho

It depends on the characters. Generally I would say they should use it as a last resort.

My favorite hero is Kratos and he never kills he just puts people to sleep

@hypnos0929:

@nicksmi56: lol I watched that already

@hypnos0929: Lol great vid XD

Yes within reason

idc who you're when you pose such a huge threat to society don't be surprised when i put a bullet through your head

Really depends on the hero and their ideals.

Ideally, only when it is absolutely necessary and when all diplomacy has failed. But every superhero is different.

Why not? well if they kill the villians , there won't be any comics to read

Yes.

Just look at how real life law enforcement look at reasonable force. If the safest solution is to kill the bad guy, then kill the bad guy.

If we talking about in a logical way (like if DC and Marvel were real or something like that)

Then depends on the crime.

Like Catwoman or somebody like that who is a theif (If they don't kill anybody in the proccess) Then no.

If its somebody like the Joker (Kills countless people) Then Yes Kill the twisted bastard.