BvS Is Batman justified when he refuses to kill? Do you wish he was more like Superman?

[Lencho01]

It confuses the issue because Morrison clearly states that you can kill people if you are a cop or in the army. That means, if the gov't says it's ok than it's ok.

This means that the only issue Morrison really has with killing is that it's against the law if you aren't a cop. So it's a legal issue not a moral one. He's fine with killing just as long as it's legal.

He's seemingly basing his morals on a matter of gov't laws and not virtue ethics. Which confuses the issue because both superman and batman break bunch of laws in the simple fact that they are both vigilantes.
How does he feel about that?

My question is, what is his issue with killing exactly? That it's wrong or that it's against the law?

I still don't see how it confuses it. From a legal standpoint, it's ok for cops and co. to kill. If we hear on the news of some standoff where the cops or feds killed someone, we wouldn't bat an eye since that comes with the job at times. But, if it involved regular people who took the law into their hands, then people would take issue with it.

Then, if you're looking at it from a moral standpoint, I believe he's talking about how some people make it sound like it's easy to simply kill someone and everyone would do it. And it would of course be even easier for people with the power/skills of Superman and Batman. But, they choose not to kill. Those are the morals and values they chose to live by. Thus, there are other characters that have been created who have no problem with killing if put in the position to do so.

 

[Marvin]

I still don't see how it confuses it. From a legal standpoint, it's ok for cops and co. to kill. If we hear on the news of some standoff where the cops or feds killed someone, we wouldn't bat an eye since that comes with the job at times. But, if it involved regular people who took the law into their hands, then people would take issue with it.

Then, if you're looking at it from a moral standpoint, I believe he's talking about how some people make it sound like it's easy to simply kill someone and everyone would do it. And it would of course be even easier for people with the power/skills of Superman and Batman. But, they choose not to kill. Those are the morals and values they chose to live by. Thus, there are other characters that have been created who have no problem with killing if put in the position to do so.

The question is why is it ok for them to do it but heroes defending the world/galaxy not to?

I'm not talking about why we "bat an eye" or not. I'm talking about why it's ok. What's the difference morally.

 

[Lencho01]

The question is why is it ok for them to do it but heroes defending the world/galaxy not to?

I'm not talking about why we "bat an eye" or not. I'm talking about why it's ok. What's the difference morally.

That's just who they are. That's the code they chose to live by. Some people are cool with it and others are not. That's why when they do kill, it creates controversy because people have a general idea of where their stances are.

Or we could just leave it at basic idea that these characters were once used to teach young kids how to act, lessons, morals, etc. when comics were popular amongst them. Thus, a stance against killing was one of the things taught and stuck (for the most part).

 

[Loki882]

I'm sorry, but if it comes down to Superman snapping Zod's neck, or an innocent family gets incinerated and seven BILLION people could potentially die, by all means kill him, its not even a question. If it comes down to shooting the Joker to save hundreds of lives, blow his brains out.

 

[Blake II]

I'm sorry, but if it comes down to Superman snapping Zod's neck, or an innocent family gets incinerated and seven BILLION people could potentially die, by all means kill him, its not even a question. If it comes down to shooting the Joker to save hundreds of lives, blow his brains out.

Exactly.

 

[Tempest]

I don't want Batman to kill simply because he needs to work with the police. If he starts killing people he crosses a line even Gordan couldn't look past.

Who ever said Batman should just go around killing people? That's not what the conversation has been about.

I still don't see how it confuses it. From a legal standpoint, it's ok for cops and co. to kill. If we hear on the news of some standoff where the cops or feds killed someone, we wouldn't bat an eye since that comes with the job at times. But, if it involved regular people who took the law into their hands, then people would take issue with it.

But regular people have had to defend themselves in the past. So if Batman, Superman, or any of the heroes kill someone, of course tough questions have to be asked (just like we push for answers in cases of police shootings), but in the end, if they were defending themselves, or another person, it is generally not frowned upon.

Then, if you're looking at it from a moral standpoint, I believe he's talking about how some people make it sound like it's easy to simply kill someone and everyone would do it. And it would of course be even easier for people with the power/skills of Superman and Batman. But, they choose not to kill. Those are the morals and values they chose to live by. Thus, there are other characters that have been created who have no problem with killing if put in the position to do so.

But we aren't talking about vigilante killings. We are specifically discussing whether Superman's actions, with a family in immediate peril, were justified, and whether Batman's moral code can and would apply to the situation.

This is not about Superman casually walking up to Zod and snapping his neck. Nor is it about Batman just offing his enemies.

I'm sorry, but if it comes down to Superman snapping Zod's neck, or an innocent family gets incinerated and seven BILLION people could potentially die, by all means kill him, its not even a question. If it comes down to shooting the Joker to save hundreds of lives, blow his brains out.

This. Which causes the least amount of harm to society? That is the moral measure that we apply to these situations.

 

[Lencho01]

But regular people have had to defend themselves in the past. So if Batman, Superman, or any of the heroes kill someone, of course tough questions have to be asked (just like we push for answers in cases of police shootings), but in the end, if they were defending themselves, or another person, it is generally not frowned upon.

I wasn't referring to people defending themselves. It was about Morrison's comments in saying how some say Superman and Batman should just kill their villains and be done with it. From a narrative standpoint, I'm not sure why anyone would want this otherwise there wouldn't be any villains to fight. Unless of course that's the point of the story...

In terms of police, I was referring to something like a hostage situation. You expect police to deal with it and there are time where they have to kill to solve the issue. But, you wouldn't expect regular people take the law into their hands and deal with it before the police get there or something like that.

 

[Glassjaw]

I hope Batman continues refusing to kill. My biggest issue with the Zod resolution wasn't that Superman had just killed someone. Max Landis' video on the subject kind've made me feel alot better about it as he raised some good points. And the Marvel films do a good job of disposing/killing of the bad guys without it being like 'HOLY **** Captain America just killed a dude.' It's never done in a shocking or visceral manner. Which is my where problem with the Zod scene comes from. It was so freaking depressing. Superman saves the day but he's left crying his eyes out. Umm so about that hope we kept hearing so much about?

And I know MoS was mostly a great film so many people don't mind this, like it's earnt it in their eyes. But I think if we went back in time a few years, and people saw the very name of this thread which basically reads 'Is Batman justified when he refuses to kill or should he be more like Superman, who does?' we'd be pretty bummed out.

 

[dario2739]

In MOS Superman killed Zod, believing he had no other option - he couldn't send him back to Phantom Zone, and if left alive he would destroy the planet!
I think this act could be a great plot device for the movie - Batman has his code of no killing, so would straight away be at odds with Superman - Superman now considering himself the planet's protector would be opposed to Batman's vigilante actions - plenty of animosity in their first meetings I think.

 

[Marvin]

I hope Batman continues refusing to kill.

He's killed in every single one of his live action features since the 60's.
seriously, I don't get why the fans are doing this to me lol.

My biggest issue with the Zod resolution wasn't that Superman had just killed someone. Max Landis' video on the subject kind've made me feel alot better about it as he raised some good points. And the Marvel films do a good job of disposing/killing of the bad guys without it being like 'HOLY **** Captain America just killed a dude.' It's never done in a shocking or visceral manner. Which is my where problem with the Zod scene comes from. It was so freaking depressing. Superman saves the day but he's left crying his eyes out.

So essentially just have big issues like taking another's life just swept under the rug, to the point of desensitizing an entire audience. There are literally hundreds of lifeless bodies littered all over new york right now but now a word(talking about the evil aliens here).
Funny enough mos supposedly swept all the property damage under the run and fanboy/critics cheered endlessly.
Pretty sure they would do the same thing if WB handled zods death the same way

Umm so about that hope we kept hearing so much about?

Well for starters, 7 billion people were on the brink of imminent death on multiple occasions if not but for one man. There's your starting point. There's more but I'm pretty sure it's obvious.
There would probably be more hope though if snyder added that epilogue trope of civilians civilian opinion I see in tons of stories.
Mind you I've read a few superman stories where this trope is in the sequels prologue

And I know MoS was mostly a great film so many people don't mind this, like it's earnt it in their eyes. But I think if we went back in time a few years, and people saw the very name of this thread which basically reads 'Is Batman justified when he refuses to kill or should he be more like Superman, who does?' we'd be pretty bummed out.

Probably not. Most people would probably assume it would be justified by a "better" movie.

It would get a more objective response at that point imo.

 

[Marvin]

I wasn't referring to people defending themselves. It was about Morrison's comments in saying how some say Superman and Batman should just kill their villains and be done with it. From a narrative standpoint, I'm not sure why anyone would want this otherwise there wouldn't be any villains to fight. Unless of course that's the point of the story...

In terms of police, I was referring to something like a hostage situation. You expect police to deal with it and there are time where they have to kill to solve the issue. But, you wouldn't expect regular people take the law into their hands and deal with it before the police get there or something like that.

You misunderstand the point of my question.
If someone like me believes that killing is immoral. Than why would I morally be ok with it simply because a cop does it? That would be hypocritical wouldn't it.

It's the same logic that has a moral argument against the death penalty. Just cause it's legal doesn't make it moral.

 

[Tempest]

I wasn't referring to people defending themselves. It was about Morrison's comments in saying how some say Superman and Batman should just kill their villains and be done with it. From a narrative standpoint, I'm not sure why anyone would want this otherwise there wouldn't be any villains to fight. Unless of course that's the point of the story...

Ok. But that really has nothing to do with this particular conversation, so I don't know why it was brought up, since it muddies the waters even more. I think with the exception of one person, no one here has suggested that Batman or Superman should just go around killing their enemies.

In terms of police, I was referring to something like a hostage situation. You expect police to deal with it and there are time where they have to kill to solve the issue. But, you wouldn't expect regular people take the law into their hands and deal with it before the police get there or something like that.

I don't think I understand your point. Batman and Superman are not regular citizens. Their stories are based on the premise of them doling out vigilante justice; there's no reason to suggest that they can't or shouldn't step into a situation where an ordinary citizen should not.

 

[Lencho01]

You misunderstand the point of my question.
If someone like me believes that killing is immoral. Than why would I morally be ok with it simply because a cop does it? That would be hypocritical wouldn't it.

It's the same logic that has a more argument against the death penalty. Just cause it's legal doesn't make it moral.

Then, perhaps his choice in words were a mistake.

Ok. But that really has nothing to do with this particular conversation, so I don't know why it was brought up, since it muddies the waters even more. I think with the exception of one person, no one here has suggested that Batman or Superman should just go around killing their enemies.

I don't think I understand your point. Batman and Superman are not regular citizens. Their stories are based on the premise of them doling out vigilante justice; there's no reason to suggest that they can't or shouldn't step into a situation where an ordinary citizen should not.

But, that's pretty much where it's based on. The idea of superheroes killing their enemies, especially the ones that pretty much have it coming due to the types of crimes they do. So, instead of accepting how some of these characters are, some people want to see certain changes made here or there. Which is likely part of the reason why we have a variety of superheroes out there. Some fine with killing and others not so much. It just so happens that Superman and Batman are usually depicted as people who find life as a precious thing for all and are not willing/wanting to go that far. Why do some people want them to, I really have no idea.

The point I was making in reference to police was that it seems Morrison is pretty much saying people who aren't cops, superpowered or not, shouldn't go around taking the law into their hands and killing people. Helping out and stopping a crime's fine.

 

[Tempest]

But, that's pretty much where it's based on. The idea of superheroes killing their enemies, especially the ones that pretty much have it coming due to the types of crimes they do.

But nobody is talking about vengeance killing, or whatever you are suggesting.

We're talking about the situation Clark was in during MOS, and whether or not his use of force was justified. I'm not talking about Clark or Bruce just killing criminals "just because".

So, instead of accepting how some of these characters are, some people want to see certain changes made here or there. Which is likely part of the reason why we have a variety of superheroes out there. Some fine with killing and others not so much. It just so happens that Superman and Batman are usually depicted as people who find life as a precious thing for all and are not willing/wanting to go that far. Why do some people want them to, I really have no idea.

They are generally written that way, yes, BUT they have both killed in past versions of their stories. I don't care if it's not in the current continuum, because this Superman, and the new Batman, are not continuations of ANY comics. They are based on the general ideas of their characters, but like any reboot, they are separate from their pasts.

Which means that the idea that Batman does not kill, or Superman does not kill, does not hold up. They have. They did in the past, and Superman just killed again.

The point I was making in reference to police was that it seems Morrison is pretty much saying people who aren't cops, superpowered or not, shouldn't go around taking the law into their hands and killing people. Helping out and stopping a crime's fine.

But people have killed in instances of stopping a crime. That's the thing. People have shot robbers in their own homes, have stabbed their attackers... Are you suggesting that those people have done something immoral by defending themselves?

Perhaps my view is skewed from having friends and a family member murdered, and from having been the victim of a violent crime myself....but honestly. Who in their right mind would act like defending yourself or others in that kind of situation is somehow wrong?

 

[Krumm]

I hope Batman continues refusing to kill. My biggest issue with the Zod resolution wasn't that Superman had just killed someone. Max Landis' video on the subject kind've made me feel alot better about it as he raised some good points. And the Marvel films do a good job of disposing/killing of the bad guys without it being like 'HOLY **** Captain America just killed a dude.' It's never done in a shocking or visceral manner. Which is my where problem with the Zod scene comes from. It was so freaking depressing. Superman saves the day but he's left crying his eyes out. Umm so about that hope we kept hearing so much about?

And I know MoS was mostly a great film so many people don't mind this, like it's earnt it in their eyes. But I think if we went back in time a few years, and people saw the very name of this thread which basically reads 'Is Batman justified when he refuses to kill or should he be more like Superman, who does?' we'd be pretty bummed out.

I actually thought his killing of Zod made it better. The Marvel films are a much lighter fair and enjoyed and commend MOS for challenging the audience emotionally and intellectually.

 

[Lencho01]

But nobody is talking about vengeance killing, or whatever you are suggesting.

We're talking about the situation Clark was in during MOS, and whether or not his use of force was justified. I'm not talking about Clark or Bruce just killing criminals "just because".

I thought this whole thread and the countless that have been made in the past were about Superman and Batman killing in general. Including what happened in MOS.

They are generally written that way, yes, BUT they have both killed in past versions of their stories. I don't care if it's not in the current continuum, because this Superman, and the new Batman, are not continuations of ANY comics. They are based on the general ideas of their characters, but like any reboot, they are separate from their pasts.

Which means that the idea that Batman does not kill, or Superman does not kill, does not hold up. They have. They did in the past, and Superman just killed again.

Sure these characters are different from other versions, comic or not. But, there are certain characteristics that are expected. Thus, why there are people who complain when they do kill. But, not so much when someone like Wolverine does it.

But people have killed in instances of stopping a crime. That's the thing. People have shot robbers in their own homes, have stabbed their attackers... Are you suggesting that those people have done something immoral by defending themselves?

Perhaps my view is skewed from having friends and a family member murdered, and from having been the victim of a violent crime myself....but honestly. Who in their right mind would act like defending yourself or others in that kind of situation is somehow wrong?

Not sure why you're trying to put words in my mouth. Never brought up anything about people defending their lives and feeling they have to kill in order to do so.

At the end of the day, these are characters who have created a code for themselves and chose to live by them. That is what people expect and when they deviate from that, people take issue with it. It's as simple as that.