X-Force: Counter Terrorism Unit or Murders?

Originally posted by HueyFreeman
I agree its not absurd but he is pretty stupid though for the worlds greatest detective. Maybe its me but shouldn't a real hero sacrifice their own morality for whats best for the people? His own personal morality seems to outweigh the lives of those that he knows will be put in danger once Joker escapes( its happened enough so he knows how their little game of tag will go). Kinda selfish when you think about it.

But once he sacrifices his morality, how is he any different from Ras Al Ghul or the Joker himself? After all it was his morality that drove him to be Batman in the first place. He didn't think it right that any kids should have their parents gunned down ever again.

If he sacrifices his morality, why even bother to catch/stop the Joker in the first place? Might as well let him continue his killing spree.

The problem with Batman is that he isn't the Punisher. Once he loses his morality he loses any reason for being a hero. Or being Batman for that matter.

Originally posted by willRules
But once he sacrifices his morality, how is he any different from Ras Al Ghul or the Joker himself? After all it was his morality that drove him to be Batman in the first place. He didn't think it right that any kids should have their parents gunned down ever again.

If he sacrifices his morality, why even bother to catch/stop the Joker in the first place? Might as well let him continue his killing spree.

The problem with Batman is that he isn't the Punisher. Once he loses his morality he loses any reason for being a hero. Or being Batman for that matter.

Except morality is relative, it doesn't adhere to one single guideline that is the same for any action regardless of circumstance. Morality isn't that rigid, it adapts to the situation at hand and changing and evolving your sense of morality isn't the same as "losing it". The reality is that Batman's sense of moral absolutism is incredibly naive and a determent to everyone around him. People die because of it.

Batman's out look is really rather selfish, he just doesn't want to admit that the Joker is right and that it is sometimes necessary to take a life. Batman says "Killing is wrong no matter what," Joker says "If you want to stop me... you are going to have to kill me," and so people die - innocent people - because Batman doesn't want to prove that the Joker is right. Now the problem is that Joker is right, regardless of how Batman feels on the subject (there is more than 60 years of evidence to back it up) Batman just isn't going to admit it, he is so stubborn he is completely fine replaying the same scenario over and over, ad nauseum for an eternity instead of doing what needs to be done. He'd rather innocent people die than admit that the Joker is right. He is essentially putting his own peace of mind above the lives his enemies take as a result of his stance. Sacrificing his own ideals for the benefit of others is much nobler than what he is doing now.

A big part of why Batman doesn't kill the Joker is that he's been told straight up that the biggest reason the Gotham PD looks the other way with his vigilantism is that he doesn't kill. If he were like the Punisher then Gordon would be hunting him down.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Except morality is relative, it doesn't adhere to one single guideline that is the same for any action regardless of circumstance. Morality isn't that rigid, it adapts to the situation at hand and changing and evolving your sense of morality isn't the same as "losing it". The reality is that Batman's sense of moral absolutism is incredibly naive and a determent to everyone around him. People die because of it.

Batman's out look is really rather selfish, he just doesn't want to admit that the Joker is right and that it is sometimes necessary to take a life. Batman says "Killing is wrong no matter what," Joker says "If you want to stop me... you are going to have to kill me," and so people die - innocent people - because Batman doesn't want to prove that the Joker is right. Now the problem is that Joker is right, regardless of how Batman feels on the subject (there is more than 60 years of evidence to back it up) Batman just isn't going to admit it, he is so stubborn he is completely fine replaying the same scenario over and over, ad nauseum for an eternity instead of doing what needs to be done. He'd rather innocent people die than admit that the Joker is right. He is essentially putting his own peace of mind above the lives his enemies take as a result of his stance. Sacrificing his own ideals for the benefit of others is much nobler than what he is doing now.

Well if you adopt the position of moral relativism, Batman's outlook is and isn't naive at the same time. In fact it's only as naive as the next person. After all you said it yourself, it's all relative! Therefore it can't be selfish. Selfishness is considered as something wrong, whereas relativism is just your opinion.

But I'm not here to debate the merits and demerits of moral absolutism vs moral relativism.

If Batman does adopt such a rigid stance then it doesn't adapt to the situation, it is rigid, it is strong, not necessarily naive at all (relatively!!!) and therefore there is nothing right or wrong with it.

In fact the argument that Batman is selfish for not killing the Joker and not doing the necessary thing of taking his life could just as easily flipped around and stated that murder is the easy way out.

Easy way out of what?

Originally posted by basilisk
I might even start buying X-Men if they did that.

I'll even start the dialogue rolling. It's a rough draft but it should give the writers some ideas:

[B]Cyclops: Excellent wine, herr Skull.
Red Skull: I see that our tastes are similar, herr Summers. Including, dare I say, a taste for... murder?
Cyclops: HA HA HA HA HAA HAHAAAA!
Red Skull: HA HA HA HAAA HAHAAAA!
Cyclops: HA HA HAA!
Red Skull: More wine, herr Summers?
Cyclops: Please. [/B]

😂

Originally posted by Bentley
Dude, if you think killing vampires because they're undead is an excuse to kill senitent life I don't want to know what you would do to a race of intelligent cows.

That just rocks.

?

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Except morality is relative, it doesn't adhere to one single guideline that is the same for any action regardless of circumstance. Morality isn't that rigid, it adapts to the situation at hand and changing and evolving your sense of morality isn't the same as "losing it". The reality is that Batman's sense of moral absolutism is incredibly naive and a determent to everyone around him. People die because of it.

Batman's out look is really rather selfish, he just doesn't want to admit that the Joker is right and that it is sometimes necessary to take a life. Batman says "Killing is wrong no matter what," Joker says "If you want to stop me... you are going to have to kill me," and so people die - innocent people - because Batman doesn't want to prove that the Joker is right. Now the problem is that Joker is right, regardless of how Batman feels on the subject (there is more than 60 years of evidence to back it up) Batman just isn't going to admit it, he is so stubborn he is completely fine replaying the same scenario over and over, ad nauseum for an eternity instead of doing what needs to be done. He'd rather innocent people die than admit that the Joker is right. He is essentially putting his own peace of mind above the lives his enemies take as a result of his stance. Sacrificing his own ideals for the benefit of others is much nobler than what he is doing now.

you say morality is relative, and yet then you're applying YOUR morality to him. Who says what you said is right? I'm not saying you're wrong. Just different.

How moral is it to force someone to kill another person? Even if a person needs to die(and sometimes some people just need to die) IS it right or wrong to force another person to do it?

There is more to the philosophy of Moral Relativism then just the word "relative," guys. It isn't a blanket term that covers every various moral position on life. Yes, while part of the theory is that morality varies from person to person / place to place / culture to culture, Moral Relativity also means you can't judge the morality of an action without first considering the context it was carried out in. That good and evil don't exist in abstract. Batman says murder is evil regardless of the context, and that isn't moral relativity, its moral absolutism. The concept that morality is subjective doesn't mean Batman's outlook falls under the blanket of Moral Relativity, because there is more too it than that. Moral Absolutism is a completely different philosophy and it is one that runs in direct opposition of Moral Relativity...

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
There is more to the philosophy of Moral Relativism then just the word "relative," guys. It isn't a blanket term that covers every various moral position on life. Yes, while part of the theory is that morality varies from person to person / place to place / culture to culture, Moral Relativity also means you can't judge the morality of an action without first considering the context it was carried out in. That good and evil don't exist in abstract. Batman says murder is evil regardless of the context, and that isn't moral relativity, its moral absolutism. The concept that morality is subjective doesn't mean Batman's outlook falls under the blanket of Moral Relativity, because there is more too it than that. Moral Absolutism is a completely different philosophy and it is one that runs in direct opposition of Moral Relativity...

But how does that make him "wrong" though?

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
There is more to the philosophy of Moral Relativism then just the word "relative," guys. It isn't a blanket term that covers every various moral position on life. Yes, while part of the theory is that morality varies from person to person / place to place / culture to culture, Moral Relativity also means you can't judge the morality of an action without first considering the context it was carried out in. That good and evil don't exist in abstract. Batman says murder is evil regardless of the context, and that isn't moral relativity, its moral absolutism. The concept that morality is subjective doesn't mean Batman's outlook falls under the blanket of Moral Relativity, because there is more too it than that. Moral Absolutism is a completely different philosophy and it is one that runs in direct opposition of Moral Relativity...

Originally posted by -Pr-
But how does that make him "wrong" though?

Originally posted by Bentley
Dude, if you think killing vampires because they're undead is an excuse to kill senitent life I don't want to know what you would do to a race of intelligent cows.

Thank you Bentley he missed the point entirely.

Originally posted by Deadline
Thank you Bentley he missed the point entirely.

which was?

I'll post in a while but even before I posted I knew you were going to say that.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'll post in a while but even before I posted I knew you were going to say that.

umm, ok.

What Bentley said, if i'm reading it right atm, actually supports my view anyway. He said that i was trying to justify killing sentient life by likening it to killing vampires.

I wasn't.

They're very different things, at least to me. Particularly the "life" part. Vampires aren't alive.

I can't be bothered reading the whole thread... Someone give me the gist of it...

Had a skim. Killing can be justified. Meh.

Originally posted by -Pr-
read what you wrote again. that last sentence.

vampires aren't alive. at best, they're undead. that's not alive.

I don't need to read it again you're missing the point. Vampires are considered to be dead because they lack something which keeps human beings alive, a soul. If a soul leaves a normal human being he dies, thats not the case with vampires but that doesn't mean they're dead. Vampires are alive they are just different. Robots and androids don't have souls either, are they dead?

You could have a lifeform that is a mass of gelatin. If its intelligent, has emotions and feels pain killing it is still murder.

Originally posted by -Pr-

the last time joker threatened the multiverse, they beat him without having to kill him.

Im not talking about that im talking about Gotham City and the whole world. Joker has still killed alot of people.

Originally posted by -Pr-

i never said nightwing wasnt a part of the bat-family. my point was that killing dick is not the same as killing tim or cassie or stephanie. dick is probably the person bruce loves most in the world, and even when he thought he was dead, he was able to stop himself from killing alex luthor.

That doesn't change the fact that Batman would be even more pissed off if Nightwing + Robin + Cassie were killed. That was my point.

Originally posted by -Pr-

based on what?

Logic. If he nearly Killed Alexander then something worse would need to happen in order for him to kill him and that worse thing is murder.

Originally posted by -Pr-

he was fine when the crucifying happened. he was fine when jean died. he was fine on the breakworld.

cyclops has gone through MUCH worse trauma than he has in recent years and been fine. losing jean more than once, losing maddie, what happened at genosha, house of m and decimation, and he still kept his head in the game. messiah complex just doesn't compare.

No he wasn't fine. Im not going to go through all those examples but some of those examples may have less of an effect due to the context of the situation. At any rate things can have a cumulative effect, somebody can be fine but constant tragedy can eventually make them brutal. Cyclops has always been calculated but not in a brutal fashion, hes just adapting to the circumstances in his own way.

Originally posted by Deadline
I don't need to read it again you're missing the point. Vampires are considered to be dead because they lack something which keeps human beings alive, a soul. If a soul leaves a normal human being he dies, thats not the case with vampires but that doesn't mean they're dead. Vampires are alive they are just different. Robots and androids don't have souls either, are they dead?

You could have a lifeform that is a mass of gelatin. If its intelligent, has emotions and feels pain killing it is still murder.

Like I said before I personally wouldn't kill a vampire simply for being a vampire. It would have to pose a significant threat to society. The same goes for humans. I hold all sentient life equivilent. Personally I rather enjoy stories involving true homunculi as well.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I would say that it would be morally equivilent to kill a sentient non-human as it would be to kill a human being.

Which is my point.

Originally posted by Creshosk

Like I said before I personally wouldn't kill a vampire simply for being a vampire. It would have to pose a significant threat to society. The same goes for humans. I hold all sentient life equivilent. Personally I rather enjoy stories involving true homunculi as well.

Agreed, don't know about the last bit.

Originally posted by Deadline
Which is my point.

Agreed, don't know about the last bit.