Should Superman Intervene?

Originally posted by Starrman
GAFE?

General Argument From Evil.

See Bbarr's thread by the same name.

Originally posted by Starrman
Let us take a theoretical position that Superman exists. Now although he is endowed with superhuman strength, the power of flight, x-ray eyes, near invulnerability etc. He does not act in the best interests of humans unless it is in a reactionary capacity. For example, someone fires a nuclear missile at America and he flies it into space where it detonat ...[text shortened]... he purpose of this thread and is god morally bound to intervene to stop future pain/strife etc.?

If Superman were to exist , and run around intervening in the affairs of the world ; would I be right in feeling morally obligated to stop him from doing so ?

Think of it , such boundless powers left unchecked . What if someday , by either social concensus or his own reasoning he decides to embark on a eugenic cleansing of all those with an IQ under 125 ? Or of all muslims ? Or just every 4th person at random to reduce the population ? Can I take the chance that he will always do "good" , because he has done "good" up until this point ? And that his idea of good will always be in lock-step with my ideas of good ? What if I don't want to take that chance that such unchecked power won't run amuck ? So isn't the villan Lex Luthor , actually a part of a check and balance system that keeps Sman from going too far ? Is the villan not a valuable part of an equation that maintains balance ?

Because he has appointed himself a judge of humanity. He sees fit to catch crooks, to stop murders, to save children in school buses from falling off bridges. Why does he act in such a manner if not because he views it as morally correct to do so? How can he say "You're going to jail for murder" if he doesn't hold with our moral codes?

I agree his interpretation and acceptance of morality was developed by his adopted, human parents, the Kents. But Superman is one of the fictional characters that could pretty much “do what they want” and aside from his own imposed ethics, there is nothing that he “must do”. He could very easily be the crook, the murderer, etc. Imagine for a second if Kal-El’s rocketship landed in the middle of a Ku Klux Klan camp and he was raised by Neo-Nazis? His interpretation of morality would have been shaped by those who raised him and whether or not it was inline with the majority of society would be a moot point.

Would Lois love him if he did not?

I think he would be going for much more prime hotties than Lois. Like Adriana Lima 😉

If god does not adhere to the code, who is he to say what is and isn't right and wrong? One rule for him, one for others.

It could be that way? Who knows? I mean mankind has defined morality so it makes sense for them and I think it makes sense too but who is to say we are right? Isn’t God above any code invented by his creations (namely us)?

We are talking about obligation, not forcing moral adherement.

In this circumstance, what is the real difference?

I wonder if you really would. If you had that power and you feel you are not obligated to humans, why would you even bother?

I think I would. I mean if I had the life of Superman, raised by compassionate parents who believed in mankind or better yet, my own upbringing who pretty much taught me the same thing I would care for mankind. It would be easy for me to do and fun. I don’t hate humanity. I love humanity and would try to fix everything I could while letting them have their independence.

Originally posted by Starrman
Let us take a theoretical position that Superman exists. Now although he is endowed with superhuman strength, the power of flight, x-ray eyes, near invulnerability etc. He does not act in the best interests of humans unless it is in a reactionary capacity. For example, someone fires a nuclear missile at America and he flies it into space where it detonat ...[text shortened]... he purpose of this thread and is god morally bound to intervene to stop future pain/strife etc.?

Avert world hunger, war, poverty, pollution, etc.? Are Superman's powers capable of eliminating capitalism? That's what he would have to do to take a pro-active approach to solving the problems. Any other approach would be just more reactionary measures which only treat the symptoms, rather than the disease.

Now assuming that Superman is a capitalist, the question then becomes: why does he feel obligated to help anyone at all? Why doesn't he just sell his services to the highest bidder?

The fact is that humanity now posesses the technological equivalent of Superman's powers within their own grasp. But is that technology used for the betterment of mankind, or is it used to generate a profit for the people who "own" that technology? If those owners were required to put the betterment of mankind ahead of their own pocketbooks, then we'd be well on the way toward solving the problems you mentioned.

Originally posted by rwingett
If those owners were required to put the betterment of mankind ahead of their own pocketbooks, then we'd be well on the way toward solving the problems you mentioned.

If those owners were subject to that regulation, they wouldn't have developed the technology in the first place, and they would stop developing new technology.

Name some great technologies that have arisen in non-capitalist states. Let's see...chopsticks is all I can think of.

While not everybody benefits under capitalism, nobody would have anything to benefit from under your system.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If those owners were subject to that regulation, they wouldn't have developed the technology in the first place, and they would stop developing new technology.

Name some great technologies that have arisen in non-capitalist states. Let's see...chopsticks is all I can think of.

While not everybody benefits under capitalism, nobody would have anything to benefit from under your system.

Ah, Dr. Scribbles, I thought you might not be able to resist taking that bait. And in only three minutes, too.

Capitalism has fulfilled its purpose. It has built up the means of production and created many wonderous labor saving technologies. I will not begrudge capitalism it accomplishments. But capitalism has become an intolerable burden on society, and now uses those technologies for distinctly, and increasingly, anti-social purposes. So, instead of using labor saving technology to lessen the amount of work required by everyone, it uses that technology to increase unemployment and drive down wages, while people who do have jobs are required to work longer and longer hours. Capitalism may have been required to get the technological ball rolling, but it is not required to sustain its momentum.

Originally posted by rwingett


Capitalism has fulfilled its purpose.

Can you point to the specific year when this took place, a year when capitalism was necessary one year earlier and a burden one year later?

How do you know that that year has already occurred?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Can you point to the specific year when this took place, a year when capitalism was necessary one year earlier and a burden one year later?

How do you know that that year has already occurred?

There was no specific year, silly. I suppose there must have been one, on second thought, but no one can say for sure when it occured. It was a gradual process.

But we know we have passed that threshhold because we currently have the ability to feed, house, clothe, and care for every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. But we do not because there is no profit to be made in doing so. Our world wide productive powers are such that we could end hunger, but instead millions are allowed to go hungry or starve. We could build adequate housing for everyone, but millions are allowed to go homeless. We could provide sufficient medicine for everyone, but millions are allowed to get sick and die from preventable diseases. The problem is not that we can't produce enough goods for eveyone. No, the problem is that the owners can't sell enough goods to make a profit.

The amount of prosperity we could have dwarfs the stunted level that capitalism is currently holding us to.

Originally posted by rwingett


But we know we have passed that threshhold because we currently have the ability to feed, house, clothe, and care for every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth.

One exception is caring for people, in a medical sense. We still do not have the ability to treat or cure several major and common afflictions, such as cancer and AIDS, so capitalism has not yet fulfilled the caring clause.

So, if the world's ability to care for people is one of your criteria for capitalism having fulfilled its usefullness, that time has not yet arrived.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
One exception is caring for people, in a medical sense. We still do not have the ability to treat or cure several major and common afflictions, such as cancer and AIDS, so capitalism has not yet fulfilled the caring clause.

So, if the world's ability to care for people is one of your criteria for capitalism having fulfilled its usefullness, that time has not yet arrived.

You are making the false assumption that medical advancements can only occur in a capitalist system. New medical research could be fully maintained, or substantially increased in a post-capitalist economy. Plus, the insatiable quest to increase profit margins has led to the lessening of the quality of health care to those who have it, and the decreased availibility to healthcare in general.

But I don't have the time to continue this debate any further at the moment. I have to go fulfill my obligations as a wage slave and make a profit for my corporate overlords. The fact that I am currently suffering from cold means nothing to them. Especially since I have to pay for my own health care.

Originally posted by rwingett
You are making the false assumption that medical advancements can only occur in a capitalist system.

I'm assuming nothing.

I am observing that your caring criterion has not been met.

Do you agree that your caring criterion has not been met?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
One exception is caring for people, in a medical sense. We still do not have the ability to treat or cure several major and common afflictions, such as cancer and AIDS, so capitalism has not yet fulfilled the caring clause.

So, if the world's ability to care for people is one of your criteria for capitalism having fulfilled its usefullness, that time has not yet arrived.

I completely agree with you Doc, socialism breeds lazyness. If there is no profit motive, why work at all? If all your needs are being taken care of, why not sit on the street corner smoking weed?

Originally posted by rwingett
There was no specific year, silly. I suppose there must have been one, on second thought, but no one can say for sure when it occured. It was a gradual process.

But we know we have passed that threshhold because we currently have the ability to feed, house, clothe, and care for every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. But we do not because ...[text shortened]... f prosperity we could have dwarfs the stunted level that capitalism is currently holding us to.

100% Captain. I remember the French dumping hundreds of tons
of perfectly good apples just to keep their prices high.

The other problem of course is the transit of money from our
society to theirs. It is easy to foget that money does not=resources
and only a fraction of the money in todays world is actually tangible.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
One exception is caring for people, in a medical sense. We still do not have the ability to treat or cure several major and common afflictions, such as cancer and AIDS, so capitalism has not yet fulfilled the caring clause.

So, if the world's ability to care for people is one of your criteria for capitalism having fulfilled its usefullness, that time has not yet arrived.

How many times more do you think the militaries budget is
to medicines? To the nearest million please.

Originally posted by rwingett
There was no specific year, silly. I suppose there must have been one, on second thought, but no one can say for sure when it occured. It was a gradual process.

But we know we have passed that threshhold because we currently have the ability to feed, house, clothe, and care for every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. But we do not because ...[text shortened]... f prosperity we could have dwarfs the stunted level that capitalism is currently holding us to.

Amen and although I think this has gotten off the topic of this thread, all of these are important points. For me, the idea and fantasy of the Superman character would be to level the playing field:

Eliminate all WOMD

End famine

Provide shelter

At least these three and I am sure many others are controlled by man and could be ended. As well as ending disease and what not well that could be pursued in a utopic society where profit wasn't the motivation. What if the most talented minds in the world had the unlimited resources at their disposal to work at these? What if they didn't have to go through the capital raising, bureaucratic bullsh!t and they would just be allowed to work, unhindered?

And what about the "pot smoking bum" who contributes nothing to society? So they should not be allowed the fundamental right of existence? A decent existence? I agree that those who contribute more should perhaps receive more of a benefit to their existence but to cast the bum into a poverty stricken exile (even if it is because they are lazy) isn't the answer.

I am not a socialist but I think Capitalism has spiraled out of control and for people to suffer, starve, and die because they cannot afford what they need is the ultimate evil.