Comic Book Villains - Page 2

Lithp · 07-06-2010, 12:04 AM

Good & evil are not absolute. Let's take killing a human, for example.

Is it wrong to kill someone?

What if that someone is trying to kill you, a friend, or a relative? What if that someone is a maniacal dictator currently running a genocide? If you can think of ANY scenario that suddenly makes killing okay, then it's not absolutely evil.

As for the newest Batman movie--try not to get Topic Whiplash, by the way--I'd personally like to see mobster Penguin & realistic Poison Ivy.

Magus · 07-22-2010, 11:53 PM

Smells like bullshit, since they didn't even post a pic of the casting grid, but here we go with the latest Batman 3 villain rumor:

The Riddler verified by leaked casting grid, supposedly, maybe.

Still not sure where they'd go with the Riddler in the plot. Still think it needs a femme fatale villain in order to create any tension within Batman's character and psyche. But anyway, probably fake rumors ahoy!

tacticslion · 07-23-2010, 12:08 AM

Proceeding to threadjack!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithp

Good & evil are not absolute.

Um, no, they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithp

Let's take killing a human, for example.

Is it wrong to kill someone?

What if that someone is trying to kill you, a friend, or a relative? What if that someone is a maniacal dictator currently running a genocide? If you can think of ANY scenario that suddenly makes killing okay, then it's not absolutely evil.

What you are doing here, is confusing a certain action with its context. While some actions are inherently wrong, others depend on the context in which it is performed. Again, let's look at sex. Is sex wrong? No. In fact, it's a good, excellent thing, and a perfect way to express love and a desire for intimacy and closeness. Mix sex in the context of, say, non-consent, and suddenly what is a pure, good, and even holy act, becomes reprehensible, vile, and sullied.

In both the cases of sex and killing, the context is terribly, terribly important. Both require a large amount of responsibility on the part of the person who performs the action. One is highly desirable in the appropriate context in life, the other is good to avoid if at all possible. If it isn't possible to avoid it, then it isn't possible.

BACK ON SOME SEMBLANCE OF TOPIC

This is one of the things that make villains into villains: they perform many of their actions outside of the appropriate context or perform actions that never have an appropriate context. This is evil. Sometimes they think they have justifications, but they willfully harm the innocent with the guilty.

Lithp · 07-23-2010, 12:26 AM

If context matters, then it isn't absolute.

Quote:

a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.

Non consent is an exception. Self-defense or the defense of others is an exception. If "context" can exempt something that is ordinarily right/wrong, then the rightness/wrongness of that something is not an absolute.

Words. They have meanings.

tacticslion · 07-23-2010, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lithp

If context matters, then it isn't absolute.
...
Words. They have meanings.

Indeed. I agree. Words have meanings. You're conflating different things to make your point, however.

Killing, while terrible, isn't absolutely evil. Sex, while wonderful, isn't absolutely good. Good, however, is absolute. Evil is also absolute. Sex is an entire group of actions, not just one. One set of that group of actions - rape - is absolutely evil, and is not justifiable under any circumstances. Absolute. Context is irrelevant.

You identify "killing" and "sex" as a single action - neither are. Both are complex series of actions which have good and evil elements within their umbrella. The good and the evil, however, are themselves absolute (ex "self defense" and "rape"), even if the broader collective of various actions that can lead to "similar" results (i.e. "killing" and "sex") are not.

Anyway, I'm done with this for now. I'm exhausted, haven't slept much, and am probably not making my points clear. If I have time/remember, I might come back later. Sorry if I've been unclear.

Magus · 07-23-2010, 12:39 AM

Please, Socrates already covered all this, though I'm not sure what his final analysis was. Probably that there are absolutes of good and evil but also that they are probably unknowable. Also he liked to have sex with underage boys, like many Greeks. This is the conundrum of attempting to talk about philosophy! In a thread about comic books, no less!

Anyway, Batman beats people up which is torture but it's okay 'cause he's Batman. Also he uses the Dick Cheney defense of probably not causing any permanent damage, maybe. Really this is a definite moral minefield Batman is walking through here. They should introduce a character that he wants to torture but they have a weak heart and would have a heart attack and he'd be breaking his no-kill rule. This would create definite conflict in the plot!

Also the movie should have a batmobile that is not a tank.

EDIT: Actually I'm not sure if Batman really has any moral qualms about torturing people for information at all as he seems to have never brought it up, it's only the killing people thing.

The Sevenshot Kid · 07-23-2010, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tacticslion

Indeed. I agree. Words have meanings. You're conflating different things to make your point, however.

Killing, while terrible, isn't absolutely evil. Sex, while wonderful, isn't absolutely good. Good, however, is absolute. Evil is also absolute. Sex is an entire group of actions, not just one. One set of that group of actions - rape - is absolutely evil, and is not justifiable under any circumstances. Absolute. Context is irrelevant.

You identify "killing" and "sex" as a single action - neither are. Both are complex series of actions which have good and evil elements within their umbrella. The good and the evil, however, are themselves absolute (ex "self defense" and "rape"), even if the broader collective of various actions that can lead to "similar" results (i.e. "killing" and "sex") are not.

Anyway, I'm done with this for now. I'm exhausted, haven't slept much, and am probably not making my points clear. If I have time/remember, I might come back later. Sorry if I've been unclear.

I think I get what you're saying. Actions are open to interpretation while the concepts of good and evil, by their very nature, are absolute.

Lithp · 07-23-2010, 01:05 AM

Actually, assault is considerably different from torture. I don't think that Batman would torture people for information, but The Dark Knight showed him using harsh interrogation techniques. Although that was REALLY stretched by barricading the room & beating the crap out of Joker.

Anyway, I'm not sure about Socrates, but Aristotle had this idea that ethics was about being a good citizen, being happy, & finding a mean in everything you do. Almost everything. He said that some things don't admit to a mean like, coincidentally, murder.

The problem is, one would have to first define what good & evil are, which is kind of a bitch.

Magus · 07-23-2010, 01:19 AM

Batman's uses "enhanced interrogation tactics" and not torture, eh?

Oh, well, I'd trust Batman's use of torture over Tricky Dick Mark II's any day of the week, he's Batman!

Actually beating the crap out of Joker was torture by any stretch of the definition (well MOST people's definitions), that's why Gordon went "OH CRAP" and tried to break in to stop him. I'd say dropping Maroni was torture, too. I think those are the only cases of torture in the movies and they are possibly explained by Batman flipping out and almost breaking his rules completely because he's desperate. I kind of wish the moral quandary had been brought up there like it was for the phonetapping scene, which was overblown if you ask me. If you're going to comment on the political situation in America under Bush I think the torture would've been a better thing to talk about than the wiretapping.

Lithp · 07-23-2010, 01:26 AM

Like I said, REALLY stretched in The Dark Knight. I kinda forgot Moroni.

In his defense, though, both the Joker & Maroni technically had the ability to fight back. Additionally, he stopped when it became clear that he wasn't going to get information out of Maroni.

Perhaps I should rephrase it that Batman isn't SUPPOSED to use torture?

07-06-2010, 12:04 AM	#11
Lithp Boo Buddy Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 400	Good & evil are not absolute. Let's take killing a human, for example. Is it wrong to kill someone? What if that someone is trying to kill you, a friend, or a relative? What if that someone is a maniacal dictator currently running a genocide? If you can think of ANY scenario that suddenly makes killing okay, then it's not absolutely evil. As for the newest Batman movie--try not to get Topic Whiplash, by the way--I'd personally like to see mobster Penguin & realistic Poison Ivy. __________________ Great site, especially for RPers: http://degosroleplaying.aceboard.com/ (As you can see, the key to advertisement is subtlety.)

07-23-2010, 01:05 AM	#18
Lithp Boo Buddy Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 400	Actually, assault is considerably different from torture. I don't think that Batman would torture people for information, but The Dark Knight showed him using harsh interrogation techniques. Although that was REALLY stretched by barricading the room & beating the crap out of Joker. Anyway, I'm not sure about Socrates, but Aristotle had this idea that ethics was about being a good citizen, being happy, & finding a mean in everything you do. Almost everything. He said that some things don't admit to a mean like, coincidentally, murder. The problem is, one would have to first define what good & evil are, which is kind of a bitch. __________________ Great site, especially for RPers: http://degosroleplaying.aceboard.com/ (As you can see, the key to advertisement is subtlety.)

07-23-2010, 01:19 AM	#19
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Batman's uses "enhanced interrogation tactics" and not torture, eh? Oh, well, I'd trust Batman's use of torture over Tricky Dick Mark II's any day of the week, he's Batman! Actually beating the crap out of Joker was torture by any stretch of the definition (well MOST people's definitions), that's why Gordon went "OH CRAP" and tried to break in to stop him. I'd say dropping Maroni was torture, too. I think those are the only cases of torture in the movies and they are possibly explained by Batman flipping out and almost breaking his rules completely because he's desperate. I kind of wish the moral quandary had been brought up there like it was for the phonetapping scene, which was overblown if you ask me. If you're going to comment on the political situation in America under Bush I think the torture would've been a better thing to talk about than the wiretapping. Last edited by Magus; 07-23-2010 at 01:22 AM.

07-23-2010, 01:26 AM	#20
Lithp Boo Buddy Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 400	Like I said, REALLY stretched in The Dark Knight. I kinda forgot Moroni. In his defense, though, both the Joker & Maroni technically had the ability to fight back. Additionally, he stopped when it became clear that he wasn't going to get information out of Maroni. Perhaps I should rephrase it that Batman isn't SUPPOSED to use torture? __________________ Great site, especially for RPers: http://degosroleplaying.aceboard.com/ (As you can see, the key to advertisement is subtlety.)

07-22-2010, 11:53 PM	#12
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Smells like bullshit, since they didn't even post a pic of the casting grid, but here we go with the latest Batman 3 villain rumor: The Riddler verified by leaked casting grid, supposedly, maybe. Still not sure where they'd go with the Riddler in the plot. Still think it needs a femme fatale villain in order to create any tension within Batman's character and psyche. But anyway, probably fake rumors ahoy!

07-23-2010, 12:39 AM	#16
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Please, Socrates already covered all this, though I'm not sure what his final analysis was. Probably that there are absolutes of good and evil but also that they are probably unknowable. Also he liked to have sex with underage boys, like many Greeks. This is the conundrum of attempting to talk about philosophy! In a thread about comic books, no less! Anyway, Batman beats people up which is torture but it's okay 'cause he's Batman. Also he uses the Dick Cheney defense of probably not causing any permanent damage, maybe. Really this is a definite moral minefield Batman is walking through here. They should introduce a character that he wants to torture but they have a weak heart and would have a heart attack and he'd be breaking his no-kill rule. This would create definite conflict in the plot! Also the movie should have a batmobile that is not a tank. EDIT: Actually I'm not sure if Batman really has any moral qualms about torturing people for information at all as he seems to have never brought it up, it's only the killing people thing.