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.
But you DO think it's something that should be QUESTIONED. You think "it's worth thinking about is all." And so, like I said, you'll still be mulling it over while you're churning in Galactus's stomach.
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.
Which is why Rorshach is a nutcase, whose morals nobody should be taking as valid.
The fact that you are is one of the reasons why you are being considered a villain.
And you'll still be mulling it over while you're churning in Galactus's stomach.
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.
No, they're not. Most superheroes refuse to kill
; thus, they make sure that they are NOT making themselves "judge, jury, and executioner". And therefore, they do NOT go to just any means to get things done.
They have all stepped outside of the ordinary boundaries of legal conduct on the grounds that not doing so would lead to terrible ends.
There's a difference between killing the bad guys and handing them over to the law in a citizen's arrest.
Vigilantism is NOT currently recognised as acceptable means in most countries
As I keep stressing: The DCU ain't the real world. Your first clue was all the unaided-flying people with the impossible superpowers...
and the Marvel Universe, for one, has explicitly legislated against it more than once.
Which is another reason why the real DCU (as opposed to the DiDio-era crappy takes on it) is a better universe than the Crapsack 616
. They aren't scared of their superheroes, not even when they happen to be -- GASP!! -- MUTANTS! "Yes, Quicksilver, there IS a Flash Museum!"
Half the time you argue that superheroes should break the law to prevent terrible consequences like Galactus eating the world
Half the time you CLAIM to agree with me on this aspect, and half the time you think "it's worth thinking about is all", because, actually, you "don't know" if you agree with those who would clamp down on superheroes or not. And you wonder why I keep questioning you on this. "Which is it?", indeed.
(which is a case of 'the ends justify the means')
No, it isn't, because they don't go to ANY means to do it; they take pains not to kill.
then the other half the time you say that people shouldn't do that because that makes them supervillains. Which is it?
I said that they shouldn't KILL. There's a difference, a difference you keep missing.
The real problem is that you believe in a False Dichotomy
. You miss the fact that there are many options IN BETWEEN simply letting bad things happen and your favored "Take care of the problem By ANY Means Necessary". Sorry, Mr. Farrakhan, but true heroes don't stoop to your ANY Means because they leave out the option of killing.