Herald wrote:Again, are you going to quibble about what right the superheroes have to take action when that humongous purple guy is sucking on the planet like it was a jawbreaker??
No, I already said that I don't necessarily disagree with that. Either you don't understand me or you're deliberately misrepresenting me.
I'm not saying anything more controversial than that it's worth exploring where the line should be drawn.
That's not a bold claim. It shouldn't invite this much ire.
Let me repeat: I am not saying that superheroes shouldn't take the law into their own hands to stop Galactus attacks. Did you not hear me endorse Ozymandias' much more controversial actions in Watchmen? If I don't have a problem with someone killing over a million New Yorkers to stop a nuclear war, then I'm obviously not going to have a problem with Reed Richards killing nobody to stop equivalent consequences, am I?
A true superhero makes a "citizen's arrest" and hands the bad guy off to the police for the court system to sort out. Making yourself "judge, jury, and executioner" is not in keeping with Good Samaritanism.
On many moral theories that would indeed be the case but not on the moral theories of people like Rorshach.
That's why some people might argue for a general rule against taking the law into your own hands: because it's difficult to come up with a different general rule that couldn't be exploited by the likes of Rorshach. Do I personally agree with them? I don't know, I think it's worth thinking about is all.
There are no stories like that because that's what Knights Templar are made of. Once you decide that "the ends justify the means", you'll go to ANY means -- including villainous ones -- to achieve those ends. That's what makes you the villain!
All superheroes are doing precisely that by virtue of being vigilantes. They have all stepped outside of the ordinary boundaries of legal conduct on the grounds that not doing so would lead to terrible ends. Vigilantism is NOT currently recognised as acceptable means in most countries and the Marvel Universe, for one, has explicitly legislated against it more than once.
Half the time you argue that superheroes should break the law to prevent terrible consequences like Galactus eating the world (which is a case of 'the ends justify the means'), then the other half the time you say that people shouldn't
do that because that makes them supervillains. Which is it?