Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
My ex-husband, who is a big comic book buff, forwarded me this article at work, which I thought raised some interesting moral and ethical questions. So naturally, I brought it here to discuss.
Superheroes no more: Column
A little girl named Laura was sent home with a note because she had brought a Wonder Woman lunchbox to school.
In the letter addressed to Laura’s parents, the school explained:
“The dress code we have established requests that the children not bring violent images into the building in any fashion — on their clothing (including shoes and socks), backpacks and lunchboxes. We have defined ‘violent characters’ as those who solve problems using violence. Superheroes certainly fall into that category.”
The author goes on to point out that this category includes the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus Christ, among others.
That’s because violence is a tool. It’s not a good tool — in the moral sense — nor is it a bad tool. Surgery to save a life is laudable. Surgery to inflict pain is torture. A hammer can smash in someone’s skull, or it can build a house. To say that all kinds of violence are equally bad isn’t high-minded morality; it is amoral nihilism wrapped in a kind of gauzy, brain dead, sanctimony.
I have to admit to finding this explanation and the logic behind it concise and brilliant.
The article then discusses real-life heroics, as opposed to comic book, mentioning the three train passengers from Amsterdam to Paris who disarmed a would-be terrorist, and contrasting it with the violent slaying of Kevin Joseph Sutherland while dozens of people watched and did nothing.
If you know anything about superheroes, the underlying morality is pretty much everything. Supervillains use their powers for evil ends. Superheroes use theirs to protect the vulnerable and uphold the good. Teaching kids that there’s no difference between the two is the very opposite of moral education.
It reminds me of William F. Buckley’s famous retort to those who claimed there was no moral distinction between the United States and the Soviet Union. If you have one man who pushes old ladies in front of oncoming buses, Buckley explained, and you have another man who pushes old ladies out of the way of oncoming buses, it simply will not do to describe them both as the sorts of men who push old ladies around.
A country, and a civilization, that actively chooses to render such distinctions meaningless has lost the confidence to sustain itself.
I'm sure my opinion of the subject is obvious. Some people say, "Violence is never the answer." I say, "Depends on what the question was."
Discuss.
Superheroes no more: Column
A little girl named Laura was sent home with a note because she had brought a Wonder Woman lunchbox to school.
In the letter addressed to Laura’s parents, the school explained:
“The dress code we have established requests that the children not bring violent images into the building in any fashion — on their clothing (including shoes and socks), backpacks and lunchboxes. We have defined ‘violent characters’ as those who solve problems using violence. Superheroes certainly fall into that category.”
The author goes on to point out that this category includes the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus Christ, among others.
That’s because violence is a tool. It’s not a good tool — in the moral sense — nor is it a bad tool. Surgery to save a life is laudable. Surgery to inflict pain is torture. A hammer can smash in someone’s skull, or it can build a house. To say that all kinds of violence are equally bad isn’t high-minded morality; it is amoral nihilism wrapped in a kind of gauzy, brain dead, sanctimony.
I have to admit to finding this explanation and the logic behind it concise and brilliant.
The article then discusses real-life heroics, as opposed to comic book, mentioning the three train passengers from Amsterdam to Paris who disarmed a would-be terrorist, and contrasting it with the violent slaying of Kevin Joseph Sutherland while dozens of people watched and did nothing.
If you know anything about superheroes, the underlying morality is pretty much everything. Supervillains use their powers for evil ends. Superheroes use theirs to protect the vulnerable and uphold the good. Teaching kids that there’s no difference between the two is the very opposite of moral education.
It reminds me of William F. Buckley’s famous retort to those who claimed there was no moral distinction between the United States and the Soviet Union. If you have one man who pushes old ladies in front of oncoming buses, Buckley explained, and you have another man who pushes old ladies out of the way of oncoming buses, it simply will not do to describe them both as the sorts of men who push old ladies around.
A country, and a civilization, that actively chooses to render such distinctions meaningless has lost the confidence to sustain itself.
I'm sure my opinion of the subject is obvious. Some people say, "Violence is never the answer." I say, "Depends on what the question was."
Discuss.