He acted wrongly. And it's no surprise that you have no problem with his actions.
Hold on, Herald, your argument was that we shouldn't care about what methods superheroes use because they protect us from world-ending threats like Galactus. Well, a nuclear war is a world-ending threat, as well, and Ozymandias rescued everyone from that.
So you have to either amend your original statements or accept that Ozy was right. Which will it be?
I'm not interested in your labels. I'm just telling you what you said, Mr. Supervillain
If you're not interested in the meaning of words then it's no surprise that you don't understand what I wrote. Regardless, these are not 'my' labels. I didn't invent Objectivism. I wasn't even born when it was invented.
Believing that the ends justify the means does not make you an Objectivist. If you understood the meaning of the words being used, then you would see why this is the case.
Given that you claim not to be interested in the distinctions between radically different moral theories, I have to question whether you really care about morality at all. After all, wouldn't a person who cared about morality have made some effort to study it at some point? Wouldn't they at least care
about the meaning of the relevant terms?
Who said that Chessack's argument was completely the same as MY argument??
If you don't think that Chessack's position is sufficient then you agree with me and this entire discussion is even more of a waste of everyone's time than it appears to be.
And yet, you keep saying that allowing, say, Spider-Man to operate also allows the Punisher to operate. So, to quote you: "Which is it?"
No, I don't. I said that Chessack's principle alone would permit both Spider-Man and the Punisher. You agreed that I was right about this.
You think that gives ANYbody license to do ANYthing, including killing.
No. I don't.
No. I don't.
Yes, you do.
NO I DON'T.
You think allowing Spider-Man to operate also allows the Punisher to operate.
(And even if I did that is completely different from saying that it gives 'ANYbody license to do ANYthing.')
What I said, for the millionth time, was that Chessack's principle does not by itself distinguish between Spider-Man and the Punisher. To get that result you have to add extra stuff to e.g. prohibit killing. You have acknowledged this. You have therefore admitted that I was right.
You argument espouses an "All or Nothing" proposition: Allowing people like Spider-Man to operate also allows people like the Punisher to operate. Thus, to keep Punisher from killing people as he sees fit, we must disallow any heroes to operate at all. In comes Galactus...
No, it doesn't!
In order to make it seem like it does you have to pretend I'm saying something totally different. It is a straw-man argument. I have told you this so many times that I have lost count.
I keep telling you that we can set up rules of operation for heroes.
And I keep telling YOU that this constitutes additional principles on top of what Chessack argued for, therefore my entire argument, which is nothing more than 'Chessack's principle is insufficient' is correct by your own admission.
Irrelevant. The point was about whether Ozy would do ANYTHING. He wouldn't. You are wrong.
But while we're on this subject, the story in question stipulates
that he was right about this being the best option (and also that he was the most intelligent man in the world). There is a third option in most superhero stories because the writer decides that there is
. That's why superhero stories are an extremely bad place to get moral advice from. In real life we can't magic a perfect solution to all of our problems. In real life we have to do the best that we can with what we've got.
If you tried to take this lesson and apply it to, say, real-life police, you would have to conclude that there are never any situations where it is OK for a policeman to shoot a criminal, which is simply false.
And here you are AGAIN, STILL claiming that to let superheroes operate is to let EVERYone do ANYthing they want! Clearly, it's NOT as dead an issue as you claim, because right here, you're saying it AGAIN!
I didn't claim it in that quote. I haven't claimed it in any other quote. I have repeatedly denied it and said that it was utterly false.
My point is nothing more than 'Chessack's principle is insufficient.' That is all it has ever been.
Either the superheroes do nothing, or we "[let] people go around enforcing their own moral code without deference to the appropriate authorities".
But there's a MIDDLE ground in there. We can let superheroes save the day, but forbid them from killing (as one example).
I KNOW THERE'S A MIDDLE GROUND.
Not only have I not EVER, once
, said that there isn't I have now repeatedly said that there is and that this is precisely what I am arguing for and always have been.
STOP FUCKING STRAW-MANNING ME.
YOU KEEP SAYING THAT TO ALLOW SPIDER-MAN IS TO ALSO ALLOW THE PUNISHER. THAT IS AN "ALL OR NOTHING" PROPOSITION, WHETHER YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OR NOT.
I already gave you an example.
"You're citizens, so you just 'citizen's arrest' the bad guys. If you start killing people, we arrest YOU."
Which implies - as in logically implies - that you need a more sophisticated set of rules than 'they have the power, therefore they have the responsibility to enforce their code.'
No, people like Rorshach and the Punisher do NOT "have the responsibility to enforce their code".
I KNOW. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!
Kind of like what I'VE been saying. REPEATEDLY.
What you have been saying REPEATEDLY, is that I am NOT
saying this. But I am.
I am saying that allowing people to take the law into their own hands so long as they the power to do because they have the responsibility to enforce their moral code is not necessarily a good idea. If you agree that you need a 'middle-ground' position between Spider-Man and Rorshach, then you agree with me.
But that would mean you having to admit that you were wrong about something. So instead of that, you have been straw-manning my position. Constantly.
I mean, how many times have I had to correct your misrepresentations just in this one post? You're absolutely ridiculous.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
-H. L. Mencken