Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Hairnet

Recommended Posts

I love comic books and super heroes. I grew up watching all of the animated super heroe cartoons.,I like a lot of the super heroe movies today as an adult. That may seem childish but I can't not think super heroes are cool. One thing I noticed about superheroes is they tend to avoid killing. Even when they are confronted with totally horrible and dangerous people, they don't kill them. Essentially they don't want to be vigilantees, they just want to make citizens arrests.

I find this to be extremely interesting

So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene. A super heroe intervenes, he isn't in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.

If you were the super heroe what would you do and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene. A super heroe intervenes, he isn't in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.

If you were the super heroe what would you do and why?

Forget the superhero part. Even as an ordinary person I would allow the murderer to be killed if I wasn't able to do it myself.

Why? Murderers do not deserve to breathe the air they stole from their victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were the super heroe what would you do and why?
If I were the non-vigilante super-hero -- the type who always brought the bad guy in to be dealt with by courts -- I would stop the third party and then bring the bad guy in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget the superhero part. Even as an ordinary person I would allow the murderer to be killed if I wasn't able to do it myself.

Why? Murderers do not deserve to breathe the air they stole from their victims.

Except whether a person is a murderer or not must be established by an objective legal process. Vigilante 'justice' does not deserve the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except whether a person is a murderer or not must be established by an objective legal process. Vigilante 'justice' does not deserve the name.

By that reasoning, the character Ragnar in Atlas Shrugged was not delivering justice since he did not establish anyone's guilt by an "objective legal process," and therefore Atlas Shugged falsely presents an immoral act as if it is heroically virtuous and should be condemned as evil, no?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that reasoning, the character Ragnar in Atlas Shrugged was not delivering justice since he did not establish anyone's guilt by an "objective legal process," and therefore Atlas Shugged falsely presents an immoral act as if it is heroically virtuous and should be condemned as evil, no?

J

Fair point given the info contained here.

Although all this falls plague to the same ills as qall other hypotheticals.

Superheros generally avoid killing because of an agreed-upon commonplace morality that most of the writers subscribe to- that is the "might does not equal right" ethic.

Generally speaking a Superhero is so strong that it would (by that mentality) be immoral for them to kill someone so much weaker than them. Like a grown man beating up a child. I am not endorsing this view- just stating that this is the logic behind it.

To address the Ragnar issue brought up by J13- the world of comic books generally presumes that the US government is a legitimate government with a legitimate (if sometimes flawed) legal system. So in theory, unless absolutely necessary to preserve the lives of innocents, criminals should be turned over to these authorities for "justice".

In the world of Atlas Shrugged the government has given up any objective claim to legitimacy- as has the court system, hence the morality of justice outside of the government that is now unjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is assuming I know that one is a murderer and I know the motivation of the vigilante. If I just show up and see one man trying to kill the other I’d likely help the undefended person out of principle since that is all I have perceived and know at that point.

If I somehow had prior knowledge, in the context of a proper moral justice system then I would stop the vigilante. A legal system is designed to handle justice so we don't have to do that, and further it is in no one’s interest to reduce society to a state of perpetual personally enforced retribution. In the context of an improper justice system, whether institutionalized by the state or a complete lack of one, I’d likely let the man be “The fist of God” as the old saying goes (don’t remember where I read that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that reasoning, the character Ragnar in Atlas Shrugged was not delivering justice since he did not establish anyone's guilt by an "objective legal process," and therefore Atlas Shugged falsely presents an immoral act as if it is heroically virtuous and should be condemned as evil, no?

J

I’m not sure that is a good analog since the novel makes it very clear that justice is no longer a role of the government. I get your point but it is easy to brush it off as Ragnar is a product of an unjust system that Rand paints vividly. A more interesting example might be Charles Bronson from the “Death Wish” films as New York in the mid 70’s was a mixed case of crime run amok and a justice system trying to keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To address the Ragnar issue brought up by J13- the world of comic books generally presumes that the US government is a legitimate government with a legitimate (if sometimes flawed) legal system. So in theory, unless absolutely necessary to preserve the lives of innocents, criminals should be turned over to these authorities for "justice".

By "legitimate," do you mean that you think that most comic books contain a government that is legitimate by Objectivist standards? I don't think that most comic book writers are that philosophically deep. I think they probably have more of a pragmatist, semi-statist, mixed mindset, and the imaginary worlds that they create contain some rather common or popular political beliefs by default.

In the world of Atlas Shrugged the government has given up any objective claim to legitimacy- as has the court system, hence the morality of justice outside of the government that is now unjust.

As soon as a government violates any right, hasn't it lost its legitimacy according to Objectivism? As soon as it confiscates wealth against the will of any one of its citizens, isn't it illegitimate?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure that is a good analog since the novel makes it very clear that justice is no longer a role of the government. I get your point but it is easy to brush it off as Ragnar is a product of an unjust system that Rand paints vividly. A more interesting example might be Charles Bronson from the “Death Wish” films as New York in the mid 70’s was a mixed case of crime run amok and a justice system trying to keep up.

I don't think that's true. The government in Atlas Shrugged definitely thought that justice was one of its roles -- it just had a very messed up concept of what justice was. Besides, Ragnar wasn't rebelling against a corrupt judicial system, but against the income tax. If vigilantism is unacceptable according to Objectivism, then I'd think that before becoming a "pirate" and using force to seize property in order to restore it to its rightful owners, one would first have to exhaust all legal options within the existing system. One could not just assert that he was very certain that he wouldn't get a fair hearing because he had the opinion that the government had given up any objective claim to legitimacy. I mean, any and every vigilante could say the same thing about any system of government that has ever existed.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love comic books and super heroes. I grew up watching all of the animated super heroe cartoons.,I like a lot of the super heroe movies today as an adult. That may seem childish but I can't not think super heroes are cool. One thing I noticed about superheroes is they tend to avoid killing. Even when they are confronted with totally horrible and dangerous people, they don't kill them. Essentially they don't want to be vigilantees, they just want to make citizens arrests.

I find this to be extremely interesting

So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene. A super heroe intervenes, he isn't in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.

If you were the super heroe what would you do and why?

If I were the super hero, I'd consider the context of the society in which I lived, and what consequences there might be to my turning the murderer over to the police. Will he be put away for life, or will he be right back on the streets in a matter of hours? Will the justice system stop him from killing, or might more people die as a result of my handing him over to incompetents versus allowing the vigilante to kill him? The answers to those questions would determine my actions.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were the super hero, I'd consider the context of the society in which I lived, and what consequences there might be to my turning the murderer over to the police. Will he be put away for life, or will he be right back on the streets in a matter of hours? Will the justice system stop him from killing, or might more people die as a result of my handing him over to incompetents versus allowing the vigilante to kill him? The answers to those questions would determine my actions.

J

That is a good answer I think. In the real world you would probably turn him into the police safely, and if you were in (Alane Moore) Gotham City, you would let the vigilante blow his brains out.

So is the decision to let the vigilante kill the serial killer the same as killing the serial killer? (I understand it wouldn't be exactly identitcal)

Edited by Hairnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good answer I think. In the real world you would probably turn him into the police safely, and if you were in (Alane Moore) Gotham City, you would let the vigilante blow his brains out.

So is the decision to let the vigilante kill the serial killer the same as killing the serial killer? (I understand it wouldn't be exactly identitcal)

Yeah, it's kind of the same thing. If you knowingly allow a fellow vigilante crime fighter to kill someone, you're basically a partner in his actions.

It's interesting that comic book super heroes are usually not officially connected with the legal system but yet they feel a need to arbitrarily follow some of its rules but not others -- they'll make citizen's arrests or otherwise not go quite all the way with their vigilantism. It kind makes you wish they'd make up their minds. Do you want to follow the rules and show respect for society and its legal system? If so, then earn a badge, punch a time card and make it official. If not, then recognize that you're a vigilante, and that following some of the rules some of the time is stupid. Take matters into your own hands or don't.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's kind of the same thing. If you knowingly allow a fellow vigilante crime fighter to kill someone, you're basically a partner in his actions.

It's interesting that comic book super heroes are usually not officially connected with the legal system but yet they feel a need to arbitrarily follow some of its rules but not others -- they'll make citizen's arrests or otherwise not go quite all the way with their vigilantism. It kind makes you wish they'd make up their minds. Do you want to follow the rules and show respect for society and its legal system? If so, then earn a badge, punch a time card and make it official. If not, then recognize that you're a vigilante, and that following some of the rules some of the time is stupid. Take matters into your own hands or don't.

J

Well okay, but if the reason why the legal system has certain rules and procedures in place is because of external moral constraints on the use of defensive force, then the reason why those procedures exist is because there exist certain procedural rights. Therefore, one does not need to "earn a badge and punch a card" to be obligated to follow them, nor does participating in any one specific organization make one any less part of the legal system that follows them. Superheroes that do follow those rules, then, are not going "outside" the legal system, but rather competing with the (usually) corrupted or incompetent monopoly legal organization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except whether a person is a murderer or not must be established by an objective legal process. Vigilante 'justice' does not deserve the name.

Implied in this hypothetical situation is the given that the person is a serial murderer who has just murdered again, and the person making the choice is physically present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Implied in this hypothetical situation is the given that the person is a serial murderer who has just murdered again, and the person making the choice is physically present.

The person has witnessed one killing, which may or may not be murder, or self-defense. However it looks in the moment, it must be objectively proven in a court of law.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person has witnessed one killing, which may or may not be murder, or self-defense. However it looks in the moment, it must be objectively proven in a court of law.

Then that's definitely a condemnation of the character Ragnar. He didn't objectively prove in a court of law that all of the wealth that he was seizing had been taken without permission from all of its owners. Therefore Atlas Shrugged is promoting, what, vigilantism or a form of anarchism? According to the Objectivist Ethics and Esthetics, what judgment should we now have of Atlas Shrugged and its author?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as a government violates any right, hasn't it lost its legitimacy according to Objectivism? As soon as it confiscates wealth against the will of any one of its citizens, isn't it illegitimate?

J

No, Rand answers this question specifically... I did a quick search and couldn't find it. I have some work to do. If no one else answers or if you can't find it yourself I will try to post later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person has witnessed one killing, which may or may not be murder, or self-defense. However it looks in the moment, it must be objectively proven in a court of law.

Returning to the original premise:

So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene. A super heroe intervenes, he isn't in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.

Notice the wording... it is already known that the person fleeing the murder scene is a serial killer. That fact does not need to be determined in a court of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's kind of the same thing. If you knowingly allow a fellow vigilante crime fighter to kill someone, you're basically a partner in his actions.

It's interesting that comic book super heroes are usually not officially connected with the legal system but yet they feel a need to arbitrarily follow some of its rules but not others -- they'll make citizen's arrests or otherwise not go quite all the way with their vigilantism. It kind makes you wish they'd make up their minds. Do you want to follow the rules and show respect for society and its legal system? If so, then earn a badge, punch a time card and make it official. If not, then recognize that you're a vigilante, and that following some of the rules some of the time is stupid. Take matters into your own hands or don't.

J

A lot the weird morals in comic books come from the way the industry worked after WWII and during the Cold War. The comic book industry was accused of causing social unrest and corrupting children. The leaders of the industry opted for self censorship instead of government censorship. This meant no killing for super heroes. Another reason is that serialized art often needs the plot to move forward no matter what. This means that antagonists need to live and escape from capture just as much as heroes do.

I think there are good reasons not to kill people. The Avengers and the X-Men don't want to antagonize the populace or the government, so they don't kill people. Batman doesn't think he is anyone's judge, jury, or executioner. Also, he is afraid that if he kills people he will go crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice the wording... it is already known that the person fleeing the murder scene is a serial killer. That fact does not need to be determined in a court of law.

That's precisely the problem. "It is known..." is specified in the OP, but life doesn't work like that. In real life, these things have to be proven with evidence, in an objective forum, and if this guy were proven to be a serial killer in a court of law then he'd be in jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's precisely the problem. "It is known..." is specified in the OP, but life doesn't work like that. In real life, these things have to be proven with evidence, in an objective forum, and if this guy were proven to be a serial killer in a court of law then he'd be in jail.

Indeed, even if a guy walks out in broad daylight and commits a crime, of course it is permissible to use immediate self-defense, but once the guy surrenders or is arrested, then it is impermissible to retaliate until such procedures had been performed. So, according to moralist, in the case of the Gabriel Giffords shooting in Phoenix, Arizona, it would have been perfectly acceptable for the police to say, well, we all saw the guy open fire on that crowd of people, so he's guilty, and let's just shoot him right here on the spot then. But if, as we have been claiming, people have procedural rights on top of their natural rights, then this wouldn't be acceptable, and the government was right to give the shooter a trial instead of summary execution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's precisely the problem. "It is known..." is specified in the OP, but life doesn't work like that.

Fair enough... I understand that you're responding to a very different situation than the one which was described.

In real life, these things have to be proven with evidence, in an objective forum, and if this guy were proven to be a serial killer in a court of law then he'd be in jail.

He wouldn't need to be proven to be a serial killer in a court of law if he was witnessed fleeing the scene by both the super hero and the vigilante as described in the original situation.

Just to take the point closer to home...

So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene where he murdered the vigilante's wife. A super heroe intervenes, he isn't in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer of his wife. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.

If you were the super hero... what would you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So suppose there are three people. One of them is serial killer fleeing from a scene where he murdered the vigilante's wife. A super heroe intervenes, he isn't in any danger. He wants to make a citizens arrest of the fleeing murderer. However a third man, a vigilantee wants to kill the murderer of his wife. The vigilantee is about to kill the serial killer, and the super heroe can intervene to stop it or allow it to happen.

If you were the super hero... what would you do?

If the super hero wants to make a citizen's arrest of the fleeing guy, he will do so. The third man is irrelevant, because this guy is a super hero. He'll just deal with it. The details will be something like this: he will breathe out sharply at just the right moment, diverting the third-party's fire safely into a pile of sand at the construction site visible at the corner of the panel. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the super hero wants to make a citizen's arrest of the fleeing guy, he will do so. The third man is irrelevant, because this guy is a super hero. He'll just deal with it. The details will be something like this: he will breathe out sharply at just the right moment, diverting the third-party's fire safely into a pile of sand at the construction site visible at the corner of the panel.

But what if the third guy is also a super hero, but he belongs to a different Super Hero League?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...