Anyone else think moralfag heroes seem like really insane people?

>>92341451
>Implying morals even exist and all perceived notions right and wrong aren't merely and illusion created by society so that we don't tear each other's heads off.

The only way to crime fight without crime fight without turning into a psycho who begins to kill people over petty shit in time would be to give yourself set boundaries that you refuse to cross under any circumstance. Otherwise it's like throwing a snowball downhill.

>>92341451
>I will allow the most evil people alive to run free,

That's kind of where you and pretty much everyone like you falls down and smacks face first into the pavement. This entire idea hinges on the thought that absolutely positively there is no way to hold a dangerous criminal. Maybe you could make the argument for some sort of superpowered being who could easily shrug of tank blows, but the go to favorite of this argument is the Joker. You know, the man who's superpower is "He's crazy and wears clown makeup". He's not even a good fighter.

So in order for it to be justified to kill Joker, it would then have to fall on the admittance that no prison anywhere could ever hold an otherwise regular guy who's just crazy. We do that now, in our world, no problem. So in the event that yes, he continues to escape, the imperative is on those who hold him to make sure that doesn't happen. Now you can argue "But the Joker always escapes!", which doesn't work for the characters in question, they have no way of knowing that someone is going to cut off his face and he'll pretend to be dead, which is still the most recent 'escape from custody' by the way. But then if you just say "Well, we all know he'll eventually get out, it's comics!" Then you come to a question.

If the only reasoning you have for assuming no prison could hold a regular human being is that 'it's comics', why do you find 'it's comics' to be insufficient for the reasoning why Batman will never kill him off?

It can't work both ways. Either you accept the characters would believe that Joker could be held in a cell, so they stop him and lock him up non-lethally because that's the way that makes their life easiest with Jim Gordon and the police, or you accept that it's a staple of the genre dedicated by sales far greater than your contribution.

Pick a side.

>>92341451
It's easy to sit in a comfy chair and talk about how easily you could make the choice to kill someone in a hypothetical scenario you'll never actually be in.

But there's a reason soldiers come home traumatized and cops are required to see a shrink if they discharge their firearm.

>>92341778
Yeah I understand the whole "certain characters will always live because they sell" thing that goes with capeshit, but that isn't really my point

There are many posters here who think heroes who kill aren't heroes, that killing is an ultimate evil, that people like Frank Castle are just psychos, etc...my only point is that the super heroes judged with the same harshness are just as psychotic, they operate on a sense of morality that often is based entirely on their own comfort rather than the well being of others. I'm not saying every capeshit character needs to kill anybody or that one way is better than the other, just that superheroes themselves are batshit crazy by normal people standards

>>92341909
>But there's a reason soldiers come home traumatized and cops are required to see a shrink if they discharge their firearm.
There is, but it isn't simply because they've killed bad people who deserved to die. It's because they're in a crooked business and often kill innocent people themselves. Everyone who joins the army or police forces imagines they're only going to be fighting evil people, they never realize they're becoming part of a corrupt system that is as bad as any gang.

Modern interpretations usually do treat Batman's no killing rule as half moral and half "Batman's so fucking terrified of going rogue that he couldn't even if he wanted to".

>>92341778
I like the cut of your jib.

And why is it always Batman and the Joker that get singled out? How many people did Lex kill with Project Everyman alone? In all his post-Crisis appearances put together? The Sin Eater and Carnage pushed Spidey into "IF I KILL HIM, I BECOME AS BAD AS HIM" territory too, but nobody shits on Parker about that.

Even within the Gotham mythos, everybody's so fixated on the Joker, nobody ever asks "Why doesn't Batman just kill Mr. Zsasz?"

>>92342144
>my only point is that the super heroes judged with the same harshness are just as psychotic

That's a very odd interpretation of "Doesn't want to kill anyone because they believe that the justice system will progress to a point that they will be held." For example Batman. He knows he's mortal, he knows he WILL die someday, of what cause is utterly up in the air but if it's a heart attack at age forty or a sudden sniper getting really lucky on that chin he's going to die someday. He can't kill the Joker, because that simply means that no matter how many he slays the city is no better able to defend itself and hold the dangerous than when he had arrived. He handles the dirty work, the detective searching to find them, the battling against threats that would likely lead to dozens of innocent police officers being killed by Killer Croc or the Ivy or whatever, he does the hard part, all they have to do is rally the people, get the funding, and then they figure out how to hold them once and for all, and even if he's slain that day Gotham will finally be able to survive without him, and let it finally grow to something better. That's a character interpretation of course, not a meta one. The meta is obviously more complicated.

>batshit crazy by normal people standards

Just the opposite, it's far more normal for regular people to be afraid of ever actually killing someone, including 'badguys'. Most people, if they can, will almost always go for a non-lethal option, which Batman obviously can since he catches them. It's completely normal to fear causing someone else's death, or to fear someone dying because of you directly or indirectly. He never lets the 'walk around free' as is said in the OP, he stops them every single time he's able and sometimes when he's not. He's only 'traumatized' in the sense that he's afraid of watching someone die.

If you think fearing the day you kill someone or the day you watch someone die is psychotic, I'm afraid I have bad news.

What's the value of human life to someone willing to kill to preserve order? How can order be preserved if heroes are permitted to kill every psychopath they come across?

>>92342367
>He handles the dirty work, the detective searching to find them
One would argue he has no right to do that, and it comes down to people breaking the law to do things for the greater good that they are not permitted to do, it just is a slippery slope

One mans manhunt is another mans murder, this is why morality is subjective, its a social construct and those who absolutely refuse to do it under any circumstance seem crazier to me than the ones who will when needed

>Just the opposite, it's far more normal for regular people to be afraid of ever actually killing someone, including 'badguys'. Most people, if they can, will almost always go for a non-lethal option
I don't think that's true at all, most people have absolutely no issue with the fact that people get killed, unless you're traumatized like Batman or Spider-Man, the general public loves death, not saying that's a good thing but only making a point

>>92342429
There is no order in the world of superheroes, they call take the law into their own hands and constantly fuck things up

>>92343793
>One would argue he has no right to do that,

True, but one would also argue that if the police see the asset he provides enough to look the other way on his actions, then it cannot be argued against without accidentally implying you'd rather police officers die than someone else fight the scary plant monsters.

>and it comes down to people breaking the law to do things for the greater good that they are not permitted to do, it just is a slippery slope

It's a potential slippery slope, you mean. This is the starting point, him breaking the law to serve the greater whole, but if he lets himself slide into deeper measures such as killing to ensure they can't escape, having a private trial where he is the judge, locking them up in his own private prison and so forth, then he clearly needs to be stopped, not encouraged. The good he does at that peak outweighs the bad, but if he slides further into more power he grants himself, the scales tip in the other direction.

>One mans manhunt is another mans murder,

I have no idea what you could possibly mean with this and it sounds like utter gibberish. No, someone hunting down another person is not another mans murder, that's not how that works at all, seeing as Batman hunts down hundreds and kills/is killed by none. Might want to reword that.

>this is why morality is subjective, its a social construct and those who absolutely refuse to do it under any circumstance seem crazier to me than the ones who will when needed

Okay wow I'm not touching that with a hundred foot pole.

>I don't think that's true at all,

Okay WOW.

Where in the world did you get this information? No, seriously, where on earth did you find a single statistic or even personal anecdote that says people have no issue with killing someone else? I don't know which one you picked but pick literally any of the other ones. You will find that people have an inherent fear of causing and being involved with a death directly pretty much universal.

>>92344009
>True, but one would also argue that if the police see the asset he provides enough to look the other way on his actions, then it cannot be argued against without accidentally implying you'd rather police officers die than someone else fight the scary plant monsters.
The cops let the Punisher do his thing for the most part, some out of fear because they know they're crooks, some out of respect, but they do

Same difference

>It's a potential slippery slope, you mean.
No, I mean it just is...I'm not talking about Batman exclusively, mind you, tons of superheroes other than him fall under the banner of "moralfag". But my point there was more that once you break the law, you've broken the law...is stealing worse than punching a stranger? Is hunting people down as a hobby worse then killing them? If you want to think in such black and white ways, it's hypocritical to say any kind of vigilante is superior to another, because the law is the law right

>Where in the world did you get this information? No, seriously, where on earth did you find a single statistic or even personal anecdote that says people have no issue with killing someone else? I don't know which one you picked but pick literally any of the other ones. You will find that people have an inherent fear of causing and being involved with a death directly pretty much universal.
What fantasy world do you live in? People love death, they practically worship it. Murder and torture is praised by mankind. Everyone wants someone else dead, whether its the guy who fucked your girlfriend, you boss, or an entire race of people who live in another part of the world.

>>92344388
Except the Punisher is completely subverting the very idea of Justice. He's call a murderer because he is. He kills people in cold blood, just because he decided they have to die. Frank Castle is not a judge, he doesn't get to make those choices.

>it's hypocritical to say any kind of vigilante is superior to another, because the law is the law right

They why even have prisons? Why not just execute everyone who has ever been caught speeding? They broke the law. Moral absolutism is no different from tyranny when you try to apply it to justice.

>Murder and torture is praised by mankind
I wasn't aware that some of the only crimes that carry life (or death) sentences are beloved in the hearts of man. Most people don't want to kill others. Healthy people don't like hearing about genocide. Normal people are disgusted and outraged by the things we usually refer to as atrocities.

>>92341451
>Anyone else think that people who start arguments about "moralfag heroes" seem like really insane people?
>Can't tell that comic books aren't real, that the drama between characters takes precedence over other consequences, quite unlike how law enforcement works in real life
>Doesn't know how the criminal justice system works, even if it's a completely irrelevant idea in a fictional comic book world- it is the responsibility of law enforcement, the criminal justice system, or the military to securely imprison or choose to kill a dramatically dangerous criminal.

Again, it is not Batman's responsibility for the Joker still being alive and active. It's the responsibility of the Gotham City/State law enforcement for not killing a dangerous terrorist when they have the legal authority to do so, and have had him in custody on many occasions.

Also, it's the responsibility of the writers for not allowing a villain to be killed, and the responsibility of autistic fans that want characters to be perpetually recycled thus creating a scenario where super heroes aren't allowed to kill their villains.

>>92346474
And then complain about it enough for things like Kingdom Come and Superboy Prime to happen.

>>92341451
It totally depends. Batman is the extreme, but I understand (when not written like a retard) Spider-Man, where it's less "never kill" and more "why do I have the right to decide that, and when does it stop?"

I loved Miller's look at it in Daredevil. As much as Matt hated it, he killed a helicopter pilot who was mowing down countless people in the street, but if the villain survives, as much as he wants to sometimes, he thinks that killing a beaten villain is far more about revenge than actually doing justice.

File: Frank.jpg (605KB, 664x1001px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 664x1001px

>>92341451

>>92346474
Gotta agree there. Batman isn't the idiot continuously not sentencing the Joker to a death penalty, and instead sending him back to a place he always escapes from.