Should comics, or any art, ever have any kind of moral responsibility?

>>82489294
no

>>82489294

No

File: hanks3.jpg (142KB, 500x356px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 500x356px

>>82489387
>>82489364
oh.

you guys wanna just have a stardust thread then?

>>82489294

Art that is meant to be formative, yes.

Arts in general, no. Never

>>82489506
sure

>>82489506

Sure, do OP

>>82489294

It all comes down to a case's specific context. Everybody wants a clear-cut "yes" or "no" answer that is universally applicable to every situation (partly because it means they don't have to exercise rational judgment and they can just rely unthinkingly on immutable rules), but moral universals only really apply in purely theoretical, idealized spaces.

The real world is a messy, messy place, so questions about a work's "moral responsibility" will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. We should have certain guiding philosophies and principles in place, of course, but these must always be weighed against more pragmatic issues and concerns.

Depends on the intended age range.

File: 1456197039402.jpg (24KB, 313x240px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 313x240px

>>82489506
How about a thread about his secret identity:
Superman?

>>82489294
Everyone agrees that the answer is "yes", and all remotely relevant facts support that answer, so yes.

A lot of people will say "no", but what they really mean is "yes, but my morals are so special and right that the term should be reserved for the bad wrong morals that other people have".

The only responsibility is made up by the creator of the art. There is no rule saying that art requires any sort of moral values or purpose, and there never should be. But some people use their art as a platform to express their world views, which is completely acceptable up until people are forced to accept its message. Because then that art has become a censorship of all other views.