What kind of moral code do you expect from a hero, /co/?
being able to kill some fucker to save millions.
>inb4 killing is wrong
>>81405583
Killing based on math is the road to arbitrary murder. You can make the case against just about anyone, especially anyone in power.
To be beyond reproach, one has to go through the law, not replace it.
Seeing that justice is served is another problem.
>>81405583
If this was real life I'd be saying that a hero should never have to kill when they don't have to. But considering that in fictionland, prisons are always made of wet tissue paper, then yeah - the hero should totally be killing more guys.
>>81405637
There wouldn't be a problem with it if the heroes were allowed to be smart, but they're not. They're allowed to be strong, which means they can solve any problem they can punch, literally or figuratively.
The law exists within reason, super heroes, and the like, exist without it. Of what value is the law in the face of Doomsday, or even Joker? How often has the law helped Spider-Man get anything done instead of hinder him? The entire brainless clusterfuck of Civil War happened because some gaggle of morons attempted to legislate against vigilantism in a world filled with people who can shrug off bullets and punch holes in walls. Your conception of law has no place in that fantasy realm, and any attempts to introduce it produces farce.
>>81405637
> To be beyond reproach, one has to go through the law, not replace it
Yet there are plenty of things backed by laws that are immoral as fuck, including murder under certain circumstances. Your logic is flawed.
>>81405548
Basically, I don't give a fuck. So long as he seems heroic and noble within the confines of the story, then he is, go figure, a hero. Different stories make different kinds of moral codes shine.
>>81405548
For them to represent unachievable ideals
>>81405637
>To be beyond reproach, one has to go through the law, not replace it.
But they're many laws that are in itself unfair and immoral. In psychology, Kohlberg even explains that in the final stage of moral development that while laws are necessary a highly moral person that is 100% for justice must disobey and protest certain laws.
Granted though this idea works better with more obviously immoral laws, like say Jim Crow Laws, murdering a specific person for the greater good is much more complicated because we can all agree that murder itself is an immoral action an the law to prevent is very much moral and necessary. But you can also make the argument that saving the life of a killer and putting the general public in danger can also be considered immoral in itself. In my opinion think it depends on how powerful the person is and if prison sufficiently block him away from society. If it's the case like the Joker were Arkham is not doing enough to prevent him escaping and kills hundreds regularly then the death penalty might actually be the more moral option in this certain case.
>>81405637
Any government will shoot down an unresponsive aircraft that intrude into their airspace, just to be sure. And if there's say, a deadly pandemic, an infected person would be shot if they even approach quarantine lines.
And we aren't even starting on military action. Truth is, supers are beyond law, one way or another. Some might be benevolent, some might be not. But nobody but other supers have power to hold the accountable. Each of them is their own king and standing army.
Don't be a dick.
Unless you really, really have to.
>>81405548
Glasses kid really needs to up his game, his Dad is fucking Billy's mom till she goes blind and he isn't able to use that? Really?
>>81405548
that redheas seems pretty hot through
I'm not gonna say moral code is irrelevant, but I am gonna say a hero can have just about any moral code and still be a hero.
Their personal code is more important. Above all they have to be a person of action and conviction. Beyond that, just roll the dice and see how the cards come up and hope to get a jackpot.
>>81406211
>implying it's just his dad
He should follow the law, but using it for justice, like bending it or using loopholes, a mix of streetsmart and courthouse shark.
>>81405548
There can't be any crime if there isn't any people. Kill everyone.
>>81405548
Hot.
i need more stuff in that style.
Someone recommend me stuff
>>81405801
Not really. Don't go on other people's property uninvited and steal shit. Don't put other people in a position where force is required to preserve their wellbeing. It's pretty straightforward, you commit crime that harms others then expect to be harmed back.
>>81406443
NTR with the bully's mom? Or "Well son get used to hating Billy all the time now because you're going to be brothers."
A consistent one, leaning on the side of public good. He can kill anybody he wants, or he can avoid killing anybody, but if a story requires a hero to break their moral code, have it be a major issue for the hero. If, for example, the Punisher kills an innocent, give him an arc of questioning himself, since he's done everything within his power to prevent killing an innocent on his rampages beforehand.
So long as a hero does what they believe is right, isn't attempting to establish a NWO or something that will mess with the people they intend to protect, and has their moral codes respected by whoever writes for them, they're good in my book.
>>81406379
>This post is 100% Judge Death approved
don't steal
don't ask for rewards
don't kill
find the possible in impossible
>>81405548
Depends on the hero.
>>81405548
Murderous villains should be killed. Killing a killer doesn't make a hero "just like them". The difference is clear and simple. Villains kill for pleasure or other selfish reasons. A hero who kills a villain, does so to keep the peace and protect others who would otherwise become victims.
The justice system is flawed. If a vigilante exists, it's because the law is inefficient and ineffective against certain threats. This also means that the prison system is flawed. It becomes a revolving door for murderers who continue to kill in a perpetual cycle. Kill the villain, end the cycle.
>>81405583
What if they kill humans to save millions of ants?
>>81409918
But in death the soul is unbound, free to wander, or at least allowed to shift position
In their unspeakable ire, they will curse you, their souls will fall upon you, and the suffering of their victims shall be remembered
>>81407333
I think he means the artstyle.
>>81405637
Law doesn't dictate morality, it is ideally informed by it.
>>81410271
Dogs and cats, cows and sheep, pigs, goats, chickens, no, none of these things matter
>>81405548
None. I want a good story.
>>81405548
Her foot's on backwards
This triggers me
>Muh kill kode
>Muh above the law supers makes killing wrong!
What kind of shithole state/country do people live in that doesn't have self defense or defense of another laws? You shoot a guy trying to murder someone else, and any reasonable state will allow it because of defense of another clauses.
>>81405760
The only way you can actually justify killing any villain would be to get sanction.
Of cours any mode will have problems in this.
But if there is a death sentence on the Joker out to be executed by any sanctioned individual (including a list of vigilantes) by any measure as he is a public threat, the hero would be free to do so. He has no obligation as a free agent, but has gotten official sanction which is a far better justification than "because I say so".
>>81406027
The question here being how the fuck nobody ever took him behind the shed in Arkham.
Batman does the right thing in theory, but plot dictates that his attempts are completely futile.
That's why I think there has to be a way you can have the president or anyone take the hero aside and tell him to just kill the fucker already. And if they have to get the UN to declare the Joker a state in his own right and sanction an intervention.
Actually, this might be the only way for states to interact with supers of sufficient strength and independence effectively.
By declaring them not people but states or state-like entities which can be acted upon as though they were states.
>>81410517
Of course. But only from societal sanction can you actually circumvent the "no better than them" that results from ultimately arbitrary killing.
Being the hero right now does not make you above normal people or beyond failure. You need more than a man's momentous decision to kill a person.
You are nameless, faceless. Beyond the reach of the law as a super hero. So you have to submit to it in order to receive a sanction not just your own.
Of course it's not perfect, but it comes closest to a good plan.
>>81405583
>I don't believe in the slippery slope
>>81405583
>>inb4 killing is wrong
It is and we all should stand for the opposite of it: gnodab
>>81405583
Killing is wrong
You are an inspiration for good and the youth, all you are doing is inspiring people to murder.
A real hero knows how to defuse a situation non violently
>>81405548
I expect a hero to not derive his morality from the law.
I expect a hero to not just go after "supervillains" and lower class criminals and go after rich criminals.
>no good r34 of PBF
>>81414106
that's actually funny
If a villain is about to die and I don't stop him from dying, is it murder, and is it wrong?
>>81414430
yes.
no.
>>81405548
I expect unforgiving justice!
No mercy, for every evil a man has done, let him suffer. If a man is a killer and a danger to others, a man who cannot coexist with normal society, then his death is necessary.
Judge Dredd pretty much nailed it. Punisher and Azrael have the right idea too. Man, I miss Jean-Paul.
>>81415302
>Judge Dredd pretty much nailed it
From death's door I call thee forth!
>>81415302
Your childish revanchism and concepts of good and evil make me laugh, boy.
>>81418011
>kills planets out of spite because they're a sore loser
