A Survey: What would your Super Heroic Moral Code be?

Looks like I missed the party. Kinda' want to jump in, but I don't know what #7 and #9 were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

I'll agree with what Venture said with the presumption of a secret identity. I mean, what does a plant creature or a demon care about such a thing?

Haha, wow, I'm the only one who'd the tell newbie hero to stop being a hero.

To me, "less experienced, less efficient" means they don't know what they're getting into and are likely to get overwhelmed and killed. If I was a superhero I'd be out to protect people and for me that also means keeping people from getting into life-threatening situations. I couldn't in good conscience let someone try to be a hero when I fear they would just get themselves killed.

Answered the survey, but as usual, my responses and rationale would have killed the "other" text boxes

1. "Acceptable to kill a criminal"

When it comes to using lethal force, I look toward my faith's "just war" reasonings, which I've had to study in my time as a soldier, and then look at how that applies to law enforcement and society in general. In that philosophy, all people should strive for peace and never act out of hatred, but evil should not remain unchecked. There will be a time to kill.

The "just war" rationale isn't a blanket statement. Even if the cause is just and evil needs checked, the "just war" doctrine requires me to also limit my actions by the governing authority's right to define the rules of engagement. Applying that to law enforcement it means that my decision to kill would be based on my belief in the justice cause and curbed by the local laws' use of lethal force.

For example, Most US states that I'm familiar with give the person the right to use lethal force in self defense under certain conditions (usually under the threat of loss of life, sexual assault, kidnapping, and serious bodily injury). They also usually allow others to act on behalf of a person in a situation that would give them that right. If the cause is just and the incident allows, I would not hesitate to use lethal force.

Some US states allow lethal force for things more minor-- like property offenses (home intrusion or even home vandalism in Texas). While the local laws would permit lethal force in something as minor as a property offense, I would not, as property offenses do not constitute a "just cause" in my belief. Property can be replaced, a human life cannot. Similarly, while I know what the survey-writer meant by "sexual crime." there are states that still have unchallenged laws on the books defined in ways that impact two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes (often directed toward people of a minority sexual orientation) as sexual crimes.... which obviously should not constitute lethal force if acted against at all.

In a state where no lethal force is ever allowed by a non-sanctioned entity, I would like to comply, but would also consider the legitimacy of the governing authority (does it reflect the will of the people, respect human rights, etc) and whether another authority exists. If, for example, a local warlord made such a prohibition, but another country's "peacekeepers" were there- or another rebel force that better represents a legitimate claim- I would seek to work under their consideration.

Then again, If I *absolutely* believed that a gross injustice would be done if I didn't act, and I the governing authority was truly legitimate, I'd probably act and either exile myself from the nation or use the incident to crusade for changes to the law- as inflexible laws that permit gross injustice are as worthy of a heroic crusade as beating up baddies in an alleyway.


---------------------

4. Essentially "Would you be willing to die to prevent a tragedy?"

Coming up with a "number" is a bit challenging. While my first response would be "yes, no matter the size..." I have to wonder-- if I was investigating... say... a possible bombing plot... that may or may not happen, but could affect thousands, and on the way there I encounter a moment where my sacrifice would CERTAINLY save a dozen lives- would I save those few at the risk of letting a possible but not certain bombing go forward? What if that person that I could save was someone notable-- someone who, by his deed and celebrity, would better the lives of tens of thousands if he lived?

I remember an old Marvel "What if..." comic (What if Doom had become a hero) where Mephisto offers to free Doom's town in exchange for either his own soul, or the soul of his beloved. Doom's ambition and belief that the world should not be deprived the good that he could bring leads him to lose his wife. He spends much of the rest of his life obsessed with saving her soul due to his moment of weakness. If you ARE going to let others die in your stead, be sure you can really LIVE with that knowledge... It isn't something I can put a number on...

Of course, keep in mind that this IS merely a more absolute version of what we ask of our soldiers, police, and many other public servants all the time. Sure, they don't KNOW when or if a lethal round is incoming, but they also don't KNOW with any certainty that their action will actually save or better the lives of others. You hope it won't be in vain and that your leaders have asked you to take the risk for grave and virtuous reasons, but you have no certainty. Which is harder: acting with the certainty that your sacrifice has will benefit others or acting with very real risk that your loss will bring no tangible benefit to anyone. You just HOPE it will.




-----------------------------

6. Dangerous Criminal that's often escapes.

My "other" answer here was rather elaborate, but here goes:

- In some states, law enforcement officers are allowed to use lethal force on someone without waiting to actually witness them using lethal force, if that person is considered armed and a substantial risk to the public (often the "armed and dangerous" term that's overused on TV). The rationale is that this person poses a greater immediate threat to society than the risk of killing a person that's still presumed innocent. They don't need to wait to see the gun or see some dangerous action. If they see him, and see the clean shot, they can opt to take it. There's no need for them to risk their own lives further to preseve the target's life, though they certainly can.

The iconic "especially dangerous criminal" is easily categorized this way. Thus, killing such an "especially dangerous criminal" while he's a fugitive would be legal and forgivable.

- HOWEVER- this is when the guy's a fugitive, an escapee, or hasn't been caught yet. When you arrest someone, you assume responsibility for him and his well-being... or some other legal agency has. There are very potent reasons why society would want that protective custody and extemely harmful ramifications if society should ever begin to lose faith in the safety of detention prior to conviction. I would never condone killing a prisoner... no matter how likely it is that he'd break out. (This would also prohibit me from forced chemical/physical/psychic programming or torture)

I'd put rather lethal mechanics in place to help pursue him, should he escape... I'd make the prisoner believe that the only reason he's alive is because of that protective cover-- and that, should he opt to leave it-- he wouldn't be granted it ever again, and would never escape his pursuers. He would be hunted. If he opts to leave that protection, there would be no leave granted. If he stays in that protective custody, and society judges him and doesn not sentence him to the penalty of death while under their custody, neither should I.

...whether I'd go so far as give him "opportunities to escape" that were nothing more than lethal traps... well... gray areas get dark quickly.

Hmm... Chase's response is very interesting to read through. It's much more... I want to say introspective, but let's go with "logical" than what I'd have gone with. Then again, I haven't experienced anything of the sort, nor do I have any idea what it would be like, so it's likely I'm just plain wrong.

My problem stems from my rather severe inability to put myself into a specific story and draw empathy from the hypothetical situation. I used to be able to, but I've developed such a strong habit of NOT identifying with my characters, it's difficult to think otherwise. "Figure it out when it happens" doesn't feel like a legitimate response. I know what specific characters I've made would do, but then I know why I made them like they are. I don't know what I'd do, because putting myself in a fictional story is pretty much the worse offence I can commit as a writer.

I guess, if I were to stick with Sam as the character who comes the closest to me personally, then killing an enemy would not register as much of a big deal at all. It's the sort of thing you try not to do, especially if you know you can avoid it, but it's also the kind of thing you wouldn't think twice about doing if it would make things simpler, easier or more straightforward. In essence, as long as bad guys have no chance to kill you, there's no reason to kill them. Once they become capable of killing you even theoretically, then you kill them right back.

This tends to make for an interesting character to write for. Sam would be the kind of guy who looks creepy on the outside and comes off as cold and impassionate, but who will seem like a harmless enough fellow when you don't go poking and prodding him. Not at all aggressive, not really violent, mostly silent, he'll fight with his bare hands against people with knives and guns and mostly just beat them up. You know - a weird but kind-hearted hero. However, because of what he is (and it's too complex to waste time with), he undergoes a VERY sharp step from "just leave me alone" to "I must act" and it's pretty much a complete about-face. He would go from a docile, safe person to an incredibly dangerous, highly aggressive... Killer, basically, who dismisses all regard for his enemies from that point on. Whatever is his motivation for action is the only thing which matters. Everything else is meat.

That's really the only one I wanted to address, as it's the only one I have any semblance of "self" into. All the others are descriptions of other made-up people's reactions. The others are interesting, but they "depend."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Hypothetically speaking:

If they do anything other than immediately surrender when the superhero arrests them then lethal force is justified. They shouldn't be given any chances to put an innocent in harms way while they attempt to resist or escape.

If they make a habit of escaping after they surrender to the authorities I see no problem with surgically amputating their arms and legs. Human pillows can't dig escape tunnels.