GR on massively: For the greater good
By
Agonus,
Posted on: 2010-07-01 02:33 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
The ends never justify the means. They sometimes necessitate the means, which is a whole different ball of wax. Way too few people see or understand the distinction. It all comes down to the prices you're willing to pay versus those that are too high.|
Originally Posted by Agonus
The ends justify the means.
 I think you have it a little backwards. It's supposed to be Joker's unpredictability that makes him so dangerous and hard to catch. Still, if it comes down to it, Black Adam, or Deathstroke, or freaking Catman, or just some random officer or gang member with a gun should be able to take out the Joker. |
Also, see Joker Immunity.
Quote:
'Aye. That's the behind-the-scenes of the whole scenario.|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
The Batman vs Joker example isn't really a very good one, as the Joker is simply too popular for the writers to kill off, so they're stuck in a cycle of having to have Batman win most of the time, as it's a superhero comic, while also needing to have the Joker on the lose because readers like that situation - so Batman is going to keep on arresting the Joker and the Joker is going to keep on escaping over and over and over again - because that's what the readers want - Batman winning and the Joker on the lose.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SwellGuy
I haven't been reading comics lately but I can only judge the Joker by the original use of him in the comics which was captured quite well in the Dark Knight and his use in the 70s and 80s.
That Joker was smart and deadly and always ready with a means to kill someone he wanted dead. Now granted since it is a written fiction they can always set it up that way too so it gets a bit hard to do a what if on these guys. But I have to think in the Dark Knight his little gimicks like switching the hostages and his gang in the tower and pre-planning getting caught to kill the squealer is more than just being unpredictable. |
Tales of Judgment. Also here, instead of that other place.
good luck D.B.B.
Quote:
When I get there and find out, I'll let you know, 'k?
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
And at what point does the greater good become the greater evil?
 |
Tales of Judgment. Also here, instead of that other place.
good luck D.B.B.
Quote:
I'm sure Tyrant would say the same thing - although he crossed the line a long time ago |
Originally Posted by Agonus
When I get there and find out, I'll let you know, 'k?
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
That assumes that Batman is morally responsible for the Joker's actions. He's not, no matter how many times they do their dance. If you're going to go that route, Batman could equally well kill the staff at Arkham for not tranking the Joker into a coma when he is put away. They bear equal responsibility, no?|
Originally Posted by Agonus
Since then, they've kept turning the Joker's murderous tendencies up and up and up to the point that it makes Batman look bad for not killing the guy.
|
Personal morality aside, the real reason that Batman doesn't start by killing the Joker is because it would not stop there. That's a road that Bats knows that he can't ever take even one step down. And the Joker knows it too, which is why he keeps trying to get Bats to take that step.
Quote:
You have to say it in a deadpan, droning voice.
|
Originally Posted by HelinCarnate
The greater good
|
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
@GG
Going to make an absurd example. Its a for the greater good question and as i'm writing i'm not quite sure if I would. But here is the question.
Think of a world without Hitler. Suppose you or your character GG (I do remember that you have stated that your avatar GG is pretty much yourself, but i'll give the possibility of separate)...
Suppose you or your character was able to go back in time, maybe even to the first world war when Hitler was just a corporal, you had a chance to take down Hitler... would you have done so. Even if you took the guise of a soldier for the other side, would you have taken a rifle or anything.. aimed it at Hitler for a killing shot and pulled the trigger?
In the hope that the Nazi movement would be halted and maybe the second world war and Holocaust might never have happened.
Would you have pulled the trigger for this greater good to save 6 million from the death-camps and countless more who died on the battlefield?
(Ok, it may not have worked out, due to another major player... Stalin, but lets just think of Hitler? And Europe as we know it today would most likely have been different.)
It is a What If scenario, but thought I'd ask.
Lady Arete on Unionhandbook
My Excel Badge tool
Quote:
That example only works if you assume that everyone has their life worked out in advance, and that they'll always become the same person, no matter what happens.
|
Originally Posted by Lady Arete
@GG
Going to make an absurd example. Its a for the greater good question and as i'm writing i'm not quite sure if I would. But here is the question. Think of a world without Hitler. Suppose you or your character GG (I do remember that you have stated that your avatar GG is pretty much yourself, but i'll give the possibility of separate)... Suppose you or your character was able to go back in time, maybe even to the first world war when Hitler was just a corporal, you had a chance to take down Hitler... would you have done so. Even if you took the guise of a soldier for the other side, would you have taken a rifle or anything.. aimed it at Hitler for a killing shot and pulled the trigger? In the hope that the Nazi movement would be halted and maybe the second world war and Holocaust might never have happened. Would you have pulled the trigger for this greater good to save 6 million from the death-camps and countless more who died on the battlefield? (Ok, it may not have worked out, due to another major player... Stalin, but lets just think of Hitler? And Europe as we know it today would most likely have been different.) It is a What If scenario, but thought I'd ask. |
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
The distinction between justification and necessity is, in these times, crucial and frequently overlooked. A rough heuristic for the difference is that an action is justified when it has been determined in advance that, regardless of the outcome, the action is an appropriate response to the circumstances, while a necessary action can be shown as the path to the desired outcome only in hindsight.
For example: pursuit and questioning of a person closely matching the description and last known whereabouts of a criminal is justified even if that person does not turn out to be the criminal, because we wish for the police to pursue suspects: the consequences for being wrong are acceptable. However, coercing that person into confessing a crime is not justified, even if that person did turn out to be the criminal, and even if it can be proven that the coercion was the only way to conclusively apprehend the criminal, because we wish for the police not to coerce confessions: the consequences for being wrong are not acceptable.
Things get more complex when we consider the idea of a system that always makes correct decisions. If the Seers, through experimentation, have been shown to be completely accurate in predicting which citizens will and will not go on to commit crimes, are arrests based on that information justified?
Such experimentation would require the authorities to stand back and wait for someone already determined as likely to commit violent crime to actually commit a crime. The more evidence these experiments generate for the Seers' accuracy, the more the public - particularly victims of violent crime and their loved ones - would demand that the police stop sitting on their hands and start making arrests based on Seer evidence. Imagine the news reports: grieving family members shaking with outrage that the police knew that horrible person was going to kill their parent/child/spouse, the Seers told them so, and they did nothing...
It doesn't require a super-dictator to make people accept thought police.
PS: In this thread, many will be compelled to respond to a person acting as if they are incapable of nuanced moral reasoning.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Not addressed to me, but it does remind me of a movie I saw once: The Last Supper.|
Originally Posted by Lady Arete
@GG
Going to make an absurd example. Its a for the greater good question and as i'm writing i'm not quite sure if I would. But here is the question. Think of a world without Hitler. Suppose you or your character GG (I do remember that you have stated that your avatar GG is pretty much yourself, but i'll give the possibility of separate)... Suppose you or your character was able to go back in time, maybe even to the first world war when Hitler was just a corporal, you had a chance to take down Hitler... would you have done so. Even if you took the guise of a soldier for the other side, would you have taken a rifle or anything.. aimed it at Hitler for a killing shot and pulled the trigger? In the hope that the Nazi movement would be halted and maybe the second world war and Holocaust might never have happened. Would you have pulled the trigger for this greater good to save 6 million from the death-camps and countless more who died on the battlefield? (Ok, it may not have worked out, due to another major player... Stalin, but lets just think of Hitler? And Europe as we know it today would most likely have been different.) It is a What If scenario, but thought I'd ask. |
A bunch of intellectual liberals ask themselves the same question and decide that killing Hitler is a moral imperative. They then go on to start identifying potential Hitlers (mostly right-wing conservatives) and murdering them, reasoning that it was their moral duty to do so. Finally, through sheer luck they manage to lure in their white whale, an arch-conservative radio commentator.
Wanting to relish the act, they put the question to him: Would he kill Hitler? Expecting, of course, that he would say yes and justify them. Instead, he says no, that he'd try talking Hitler out of his bad attitudes and actions first, preferring reason to violence. Hearing this from their arch-enemy shakes the murder circle to the core and they decide they have to stop.
Unfortunately for them, by this point the commentator starts putting together all the little clues and realizes what he's into. He promptly decides to self-defense them out of existence.
I found it to be a very entertaining examination of the philosophy of ends and means.
Quote:
Batman's taken the burden on himself to thwart the Joker's schemes. The Joker's been depicted as having made it -personal- with Batman. Bruce knows this. Bruce also knows how homicidal the Joker is. And he also knows that when he catches the Joker and gets him put in Arkham, the Joker will get out again and kill again. |
Originally Posted by Starjammer
That assumes that Batman is morally responsible for the Joker's actions. He's not, no matter how many times they do their dance.
|
When Batman stops at having the Joker go through Arkham's revolving door, he is partially responsible for what happens when the Joker gets out and kills again to get Batman's attention. Batman -could- stop the cycle, saving the lives of the people the Joker will kill the next time he gets out, but Bruce doesn't do it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Starjammer
If you're going to go that route, Batman could equally well kill the staff at Arkham for not tranking the Joker into a coma when he is put away. They bear equal responsibility, no?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Starjammer
Personal morality aside, the real reason that Batman doesn't start by killing the Joker is because it would not stop there. That's a road that Bats knows that he can't ever take even one step down. And the Joker knows it too, which is why he keeps trying to get Bats to take that step.
|
Tales of Judgment. Also here, instead of that other place.
good luck D.B.B.
Quote:
not sure if you planned it this way, but this note can be taken to mean two very different things, both of which have already come to pass.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
PS: In this thread, many will be compelled to respond to a person acting as if they are incapable of nuanced moral reasoning.
|
Quote:
You're kidding, right? Bruce Wayne has billions of dollars and the most influential name in Gotham. If his goal was to clean up the city, he could do so with endowments and bought elections.|
Originally Posted by Agonus
BS. Someone with Batman's iron, hell, adamantium will is stronger than that. I find it hard to believe that a guy with the willpower and determination that Bruce has been repeatedly shown to have would crack under that scenario.
|
No, the reason that Bruce Wayne puts on the suit and takes matters into his own hands is because it's an outlet for his own rage, frustration and survivor's guilt. He didn't create Batman to be a symbol so much as a means by which to not get killed doing it. He is not an emotionally healthy person and he's the first to admit that. Which is the whole reason for Batman's code in the first place. Bruce knows that taking the power of life and death is the line he can't cross for the sake of his own sanity.
On the subject of guilt... Batman may feel guilty for what the Joker does but guilty feelings do not equal responsibility. Lots of people feel guilty for things that they are not responsible for. Batman is also smart enough to know that, which is why he'll never allow himself to use it as an excuse.
Quote:
He does do that, last I knew anyway. But there's some goofy explanation, don't remember if it's been implied or outright stated, for Gotham being so thoroughly corrupted that it doesn't seem like he gets an edge.
|
Originally Posted by Starjammer
You're kidding, right? Bruce Wayne has billions of dollars and the most influential name in Gotham. If his goal was to clean up the city, he could do so with endowments and bought elections.
... |
Tales of Judgment. Also here, instead of that other place.
good luck D.B.B.
Yeah. Yeah. You hear the talk. And yeah, Batman would be doing everyone a favor.
But then what? He's become what he hates. And not only that, he's doing it without any authority to do it. So what happens? He gets sent to prison for murder.
No. It's not Batman's fault, that the Joker has killed to many. It's the juries, lawyers, judges fault, for letting him be found guilty due to insanity (which really, for Batman's rogue gallery, most of them are, and thusly how they can be sent to an insane asylum...and thusly escape), instead of any of them saying "Forget this, give him the death penalty."
Even in the comics, for all the characters that say "You should just kill him" would turn around and say "You're a murderer and should be put in jail" the very next minute.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
He may go through the motions. But he does not bring his full mind and will to bear on the problems from that perspective, the way he does as Batman.|
Originally Posted by Agonus
He does do that, last I knew anyway. But there's some goofy explanation, don't remember if it's been implied or outright stated, for Gotham being so thoroughly corrupted that it doesn't seem like he gets an edge.
|
One reason, as stated above, is because public action would distract from his personal crusade as Batman.
Another is that Bruce Wayne is not to be taken too seriously, so people will ignore him. Again in service to Batman's existence.
Bruce's rationalization is that Batman is the optimum solution. But in truth it's his chosen solution. And on some level, it's a selfish choice.
And Bruce will not kill in pursuit of his own selfish ends. And he knows better than to try justifying it.
anyone remember magog in kingdom come? this convo reminds me of that.
Quote:
Yup. Bruce is rich. The richest in Gotham. There are however, other rich people in Gotham.|
Originally Posted by Starjammer
You're kidding, right? Bruce Wayne has billions of dollars and the most influential name in Gotham. If his goal was to clean up the city, he could do so with endowments and bought elections.
No, the reason that Bruce Wayne puts on the suit and takes matters into his own hands is because it's an outlet for his own rage, frustration and survivor's guilt. He didn't create Batman to be a symbol so much as a means by which to not get killed doing it. He is not an emotionally healthy person and he's the first to admit that. Which is the whole reason for Batman's code in the first place. Bruce knows that taking the power of life and death is the line he can't cross for the sake of his own sanity. On the subject of guilt... Batman may feel guilty for what the Joker does but guilty feelings do not equal responsibility. Lots of people feel guilty for things that they are not responsible for. Batman is also smart enough to know that, which is why he'll never allow himself to use it as an excuse. |
Bruce also can't go about bribing cops to be good, while rich criminals can bribe cops to be corrupt.
Batman is not judge, jury and executioner.
And him having an iron will means nothing.
He kills the Joker. Coutless lives are saved. What about the other insane killers out there?
That's why it wouldn't stop. He makes that choice for Joker, why isn't he killing all those other mass murdering psychos?
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
On the subject of removing Hitler, that was explored in the game Command and Conquer: Red Alert.
Einstein made a time machine and went back in time, erasing Hitler from existence during his college days(I think). The result was still World War 2...only Stalin lead the Russians against the rest of the world and Germany became an Ally of the US and England.
It didn't really stop the war, just changed one of the major players. Although it did save a lot of Jewish lives I think.
Quote:
Didja like how GG refused the answer the question?|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Quote:
|
Yeah, she'll never answer a question like that, because she knows that it'll make her look like the hypocryte she is.
[ ProTip: The banner is a link to art refs!! | The Khellection | The HBAS Repository | Brute Guides (4/16/10) | How To Post An Image - A Quick Guide ]
Biggest Troll on the forums? I'll give you a hint:
Quote:
It's an invalid question, because it assumes that your path in life is fixed and would always play out the same way over and over again - it dosen't allow for Corporal Hitler being 3 minutes late one day and missing a bus he actually caught, taking the next one instead, and ending up sitting opposite a gorgeous Jewish girl that he falls totally in love with.|
Originally Posted by Kheldarn
Didja like how GG refused the answer the question?
Yeah, she'll never answer a question like that, because she knows that it'll make her look like the hypocryte she is. |
It assumes that every second of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year of someone's life would always play out exactly the same way every time - that everyone's just a robot going through the motions, with no free will at all, and no element of chance or randomness in their life at all.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
I think this conversation really does emphasize why we players would want/need Heroes, Vigilantes, Rogues and Villains in the game. Certainly, a Vigilante would have no problem putting a bullet into the Joker's head. A Rogue might not either for similar reasoning. If a Villain did it then its to get rid of competition.
Would a Hero do it? That's the long, messy argument, and might well have long-term ramifications. Of course, there's a difference between being executioner (ie, you are legally authorized by the governing powers with the appropriate jurisdiction and likely have a ton of strings/controls/accountability attached) and being a murderer (killing with no such license). That's the difference between a SWAT officer, an actual executioner on death row and the Punisher, for instance.
Quote:
It's a, "What If?" question. Something that almost can't actually happen. Therefore, none of your evasion garbage matters.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
It's an invalid question, because it assumes that your path in life is fixed and would always play out the same way over and over again - it dosen't allow for Corporal Hitler being 3 minutes late one day and missing a bus he actually caught, taking the next one instead, and ending up sitting opposite a gorgeous Jewish girl that he falls totally in love with.
It assumes that every second of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year of someone's life would always play out exactly the same way every time - that everyone's just a robot going through the motions, with no free will at all, and no element of chance or randomness in their life at all. |
[ ProTip: The banner is a link to art refs!! | The Khellection | The HBAS Repository | Brute Guides (4/16/10) | How To Post An Image - A Quick Guide ]
Biggest Troll on the forums? I'll give you a hint:
"Merely throwing the Joker in a revolving door prison just stalls the Joker. It doesn't fix ANYTHING. That's part of why I hate the Joker's depiction in modern comics, he has WAAAY too high a body count for a schmuck with no powers. I don't buy that he hasn't pissed off -someone- by now who's more than willing to kill him."
Well we all know that if living in Gotham teaches you one thing, it's that you don't need super-powers to demolish buildings, commit crimes, create havoc, et al.
I know a lot of people feel that people that don't have powers (even those that use gadgets, like Batman's utility belt or Joker's trick weapons, or even some powered armor heroes/villains) shouldn't be on the same level of heroes who do have powers. To each their own, I suppose.
There are villains with powers who have tried to kill the Joker before, and they all failed. Some are dead. I can understand about invulnerable enemies, but most that have tried were standard when it came to their defenses. Sure, Iron Cross was super-strong, and you'd think he'd be invulnerable as well, but the Joker casually shot him in the head. A villain could come along that could melt tanks with his hands, but still be able to be knocked out with a well placed punch. Powered beings who don't have any special defenses when coming after the Joker deserve what they get. Still, some of the more powerful villains are downright afraid of him, and even Lex Luthor is smart to include the Joker in any villain group he creates, with Joker usually being the first one invited.
An alternate Lex Luthor refused to include the Joker in his Society Of Villains, and we all know what happened to him when he made that mistake.
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/index-anim.php
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
Can't come up with a name? Click the link!
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork