tronvillain

I'm not sure that's such a bad definition, though it is extremely easy to misinterpret. The vital piece of that definition is "benefits him" (or her) since it can severely limit behavior as a result of factors such as empathy and guilt.

tronvillain

Oh, and Superman would destroy Spiderman, though I prefer Spiderman to Superman.

Daydreamer

I agree with you there tron - I also enjoy Spidey more so than Superman. My reasoning has always been that for Superman the battles are meaningless to him because there is no challege - why not do good if it comes at no price to you? Spiderman seems more humanistic, since he puts his life on the line, and often MJs as well, by his good work, yet he still does it. To top it all off, all of Metropolis save Luther loves Superman, while Spiderman's home (whose name I forget) is reviled by half the populace.

Eh, *reaches behind his ears and flips his geek switch to 'Off'*

Bane

I prefer Wolverine.

Valmorian

What I always thought was interesting about Superman was that here we have a superhero that has so MUCH power, that his responsibility rises as well.

So while Spiderman may feel obligated to stop, say, the Green Goblin, I've also enjoyed Superman because many of the issues he deals with are so much more difficult.

Are you obligated to do all you can to end famine when you have that sort of power? Should he step in and stop wars?

I like both, for different reasons..

Of course, I like the Watchmen and "The Dark Knight Returns" better.

PopeInTheWoods

New York City?

As for the power/responsibility relation, why doesn't Superman dig irrigation ditches in the desert, build masses of affordable housing, or take down oppressive leaders?

Andy

luvluv

"Well your definition of subjective morality is silly."

If you are referring to the definition that states a person "should do whatever benefits him that he can get away with" it is not my definition. It was offered by other atheist posters here. Again, if this does not apply to you, then the question is not addressed to you specifically (but of course you are welcome to comment).

"That's right, even you luvluv, and all your Christian friends. You just think you have objective morality."

(Most of my friends aren't Christians, by the way.) I admit that there is a significant amount of subjectivity in the morality of everyone, but that does not mean there is not an objective basis for morality, even if no one abides by it.

"So, MY subjective morality is better than, say a Christian's."

Unless, of course, that Christian's subjective morality is based on reason and compassion. It dilutes whatever strength your argument might have when you speak in absolutes. We both know that there are good and bad Christians and good and bad atheists. Some Christians would blow you clean out of the water morally, and some atheists could do the same to me.

And, if morality is really subjective how could your morality be "better" than anyone else's? Better relative to what exactly?

And for the record, Thor would beat down both Superman and Spiderman. Mjolnir is a bad mutha.

Pomp

luvluv,

But there are some of you out there ...

Why do I get the feeling this is addressed, in part, to me?

1) Do you think that a persons moral responsiblity changes with his power?

This certainly seems to be the case. Human beings do tend to expect more from those who have a greater ability to deliver, whether in an economic sense, an academic sense, a moral sense, or whatever. I'm appalled at some of the actions of the current administration, for example, and while I do assign a small share of responsibility to our legislators, and an even smaller share to each citizen (after all, in a representative republic such as this one, we are all responsible for the actions of our government), I certainly reserve the lion's share of the blame for those with the most power to directly affect the adminisration's actions: the president, VP, and members of the cabinet.

Many of you have suggested that morality has its basis in evolution. It has helped the individual survive because he has better opportunities to procreate within a community of norms than outside of it.

All right. Bear in mind that the evolutionary explanation is just that: an explanation. It explains why it was helpful to humans in the ancestral environment to have a sense of morality or justice and, thus, why we modern humans have such a sense. It is not a justification for any given moral system. "This behavior is right because it was selected for in the ancestral environment" is not a valid moral argument.

But doesn't great power change this situation?

To an extent, yes. You and I have been over this before. In order to be completely exempt from what we call morality, one would have to be both a) self-sufficient enough to never require the cooperation of others for either material or emotional well-being and b) dangerous enough to simultaneously fight all others and win. Below that extreme, of course, there is a sliding scale of sorts. The more powerful one is, the less dangerous the consequences of behaving immorally, because others have less opportunity to exact retribution for uncooperative behavior.

If morality has as its base only the survival of the individual, then can't an individual acquire enough power so that his morality can no longer interfere with his abillity to survive?

No one has said (or, at least, I have not said, nor have any of the other regulars here whose views I am familiar with) that morality has its base only in the survival of the individual. It would be closer to the truth to say that morality has its base in the survival and happiness of the individual. Yes, you are correct, an individual could, theoretically, acquire so much power so as to be untouchable by human retribution, but it is highly unlikely that such an individual would be happy, given that human beings are social primates, wired to desire the companionship of others.

By this definition, can any dictator do wrong? Can God ever be accused of doing something wrong? By definition, nothing he does can interfere with his survival.

Strictly speaking, I would say that an omnipotent dictator, or a deity, would indeed be doing "wrong" (in the sense that its actions are in violation of the social contract) if it were to, say, order a genocide, but that such a being has little material reason to care about compliance with the contract. It is certainly possible, however, that such a being might have non-material reasons for complying with the contract. If, for example, our dictator wishes to have friends, or to be loved by a partner, then (s)he had best behave in a socially acceptable fashion.

2) Do you think that the position that WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT OPPORTUNITY (FOR ONESELF) will ever be tolerated as an ethic?

Well, I certainly tolerate it, so I suppose the answer is "yes."

I mean despite the fact that, if there is no God, it must be true

Not necessarily. Familiarize yourself with some nontheistic objective moral philosophers.

...will it ever be accepted or widely practiced? Personally, I don't think it will ever be accepted as a moral basis whether it is true or not.

Why not?

3) Would you like to live in a society in which WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT OPPORTUNITY (FOR ONESELF) is the morality?

As near as I can tell, I already do. It is an observed fact that those with the most power (in the form of capital, connections, bloodline, or whatever) do indeed have the greatest opportunities.

A few more points:

1) Your two proposed moral statements are not necessarily opposed. The world we live in does seem to promote both statements as true: our most powerful citizens have the most and the best opportunities, but we also expect themost from them. I don't see any problem with this.

2) The form of self-interest practiced by the Green Goblin is not at all the enlightened self-interest we moral subjectivists normally speak of and is closer to what we normally call selfishness. I would refer you back to game theory: the player who cooperates (Spider-man, in this case) reaps the benefits. His heroism inspires cops to disobey orders to let him go free and a beautiful intelligent woman to love him. The player who refuses to cooperate (the Goblin, in this case) is, eventually, penalized for his defection from the social contract. His above average degree of power makes it more difficult to penalize him, but certainly not impossible. In fact, even if Spider-man does not manage to defeat him, we still see signs that he is not as happy as he could be adhering to the contract in, for example, his increasingly strained relationship with his son (I can never remember which is Harry and which is Norman...I need to hand in my geek badge), his need to lie to colleagues to hide his activities, etc.

3) I think that the notion that "with great power comes great responsibility" has very interesting implications for Xian morality. Essentially, if great power leads to great responsibility, then omnipotence leads to omniresponsibility. Spider-man wouldn't be considered a hero for long if, for example, he allowed a rape to progress because he didn't want to intefere with the rapist's free will.

4) This is unrelated to anything else I've said, but another interesting take on the idea of superheroes and responsibility is the character of Samaritan in Kurt Busiak's Astro City. Samaritan is, essentially, his world's equivalent of Superman. He flies, he's incredibly strong, he's all but indestructible, he has enhanced senses, etc. The problem is that he dreams of flying, which seems strange at first because, well, he can and does fly every day. His dream, however, is to just fly, to fly without constantly being interrupted by cries for help from around the world and having to race off to save someone else. All the guy wants is some tie to himself, and he's being driven out of hiss mind by his responsibility. This might make an interesting thread in itself. Ought Samaritan take it easy and, say, give himself a few hours a day to relax, even though it will inevitably lead to the deaths of countless others? Or should he turn himself into an emotional wreck, completely unable to enjoy life, for fear of shirking his responsibility?

Ray K

Look, it's very simple.

We're the Mary, and you're the Rhoda.