Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?

[Sindyr]

A perfect analogy is finding a guy with 10$.  You slip another 15$ in his pocket without asking his permission.

I dispute the perfection of that analogy, because it leaves out what makes the "kill them to save them" idea creepy and evil - that is, the violation of one of their fundamental rights under the excuse of helping them.  It is the perfect expression of the philosophy "the end justifies the means".

Given that, it is more akin to breaking into someones house to leave them $10. 

No, it's more akin to teleporting into their house a 10 dollar bill

Or stealing their identity in order to clear up their credit history. 

Only if ALL you did was clear up their credit history and in the process did NOT see any of their private details.

Or kidnapping them and subjecting them to experimental surgery that gives them super powers. 

I dispute *this* comparison entirely. This is in no way what I am suggesting.

Sure, you're arguably doing them a favor, but you're doing it in such a way that violates them.  I know I'd be pretty creeped out if any of those things happened, and I certainly wouldn't regard the perpetrator as a "hero".

I think that begs the question of is this a violation at all to being with?

Is it a violation to beam a 10 dollar bill into the middle of your house?
To wave a magic (or hacker) wand and make your bad credit disappear?

If the ONLY difference is that the person loses nothing and gains something at no cost, how can we say a violation has occurred at all?

Perhaps we still can, but I would like someone else to take the con side as I continue with the "pro" side.

[Sindyr]

That is, the violation of one of their fundamental rights under the excuse of helping them.

This seems a good place to point out that what are perceived as fundamental rights, or better to say, the fundamental goods, that a society holds dear, is to some extent culturally based.  In the West, we tend to view personal liberty and freedom as the highest good; if a trade off needs to be made, the trade off will almost always be one that maximizes personal liberty at the cost of something else. 

This is also a good place to point out that there may in fact exist absolute and fundamental rights regardless of what one society or another perceive, subscribe to, or approve of.  Debating the existence or content of actual fundamental and absolute rights is probably beyond the scope of not only this thread but this forum and indeed even this website, but I thought that while everyone was talking about moral relativism, someone should pipe up and point out the possibility that morality and ethics, and certain values, are not "relative" or "shades of grey" but absolute and black and white.

And given that possibility, it becomes interesting to play in a game reflecting that, with heroes being heroes, villains being villains, good and evil, right and wrong, and nary the twain shall meet.  A world where the choices aren't always simple, but there is usually a "right" one.

Now I can't imagine many of the vocal posters reacting happily to the above thoughts, but I thought someone should play devils advocate and point out the possibility and utility to Capes and storytelling of absolute morality.

[Tuxboy]

I know other people saw Batman when you said this, but the "rest of the group" part gave me a nice image in my mind of 6 panels, all laid out on the page around a single thought balloon connected to each panel, with each panel showing a different member of the Justice League reaching into a lead vault (although Flash's "lead vault" is probably just a sock under his bed).

Beautiful image...I like that, especially Flash searching through the pizza boxes and dirty plates to find "that" sock *L*

[Tuxboy]

.  I love Midnighter's speech after they singlehandedly topple a dictatorship and slaughter its troops:  Yes, I'd say it's extremely likely you can expect this sort of behavior again in the very near future.  The 21st century is a bad time to be a bastard, children.  And he's dressed all in black leather.  Now that is a cool supervillain.  That's the kind of megalomaniac I want looking out for me.

I think you can tell from my sig I agree with that sentiment ;)

Can't say I think of The Authority in terms of "heroes & villains", I always saw them as a group of concerned individuals that had just had enough of the world's hypocrisy and corruption, but a group of individuals with the power to do something about it.

The whole "hero" and "villain" labels are a bit wonky, anyway.  They really just mean "someone who does most of the important things right" and "someone who does most of the important things wrong," and what that leaves wonderfully, enjoyably up in the air are the questions of "What is right?  What is wrong?  What are the important things?"

Its the whole black and white thing, the exploration of what is good and what is evil that I find interesting when gaming. I enjoy looking at those boundaries.

For me "The End justifies the Means" is the ultimate morality question.

In a game are we justified in slaughtering a entire village of orcs because some of them may grow up to become hostile? If real life is the death of one man worth saving the lives of many, are the deaths of 1000 worth saving the lives of 100000, 999 worth 1000? Where does the line fall? Historically were the bombing of Dresden or the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan morally acceptable? Was sacrificing those civilian lives to shorten the war the ultimate in "The End justifies the Means"?

I'm well aware that there are people that don't feel comfortable dealing with that kind of moral ambiguity, but for me I enjoy gaming in the "real world" with "real world" questions and challenges.

That is, the violation of one of their fundamental rights under the excuse of helping them.

This seems a good place to point out that what are perceived as fundamental rights, or better to say, the fundamental goods, that a society holds dear, is to some extent culturally based.  In the West, we tend to view personal liberty and freedom as the highest good; if a trade off needs to be made, the trade off will almost always be one that maximizes personal liberty at the cost of something else. 

This is also a good place to point out that there may in fact exist absolute and fundamental rights regardless of what one society or another perceive, subscribe to, or approve of.  Debating the existence or content of actual fundamental and absolute rights is probably beyond the scope of not only this thread but this forum and indeed even this website, but I thought that while everyone was talking about moral relativism, someone should pipe up and point out the possibility that morality and ethics, and certain values, are not "relative" or "shades of grey" but absolute and black and white.

The possibility of absolutes does indeed exist, and while some aspects of morality may be shared across cultures, given human nature, it in practice is much more fluid than that, and imposing a rigid black and white structure on people that do not share your belief system is doomed to failure or worse, outright hostility as demonstrated by, historically, The Cold War, and currently by the continuing religiously driven conflicts around the world.

[Hans]

This is also a good place to point out that there may in fact exist absolute and fundamental rights regardless of what one society or another perceive, subscribe to, or approve of.  Debating the existence or content of actual fundamental and absolute rights is probably beyond the scope of not only this thread but this forum and indeed even this website, but I thought that while everyone was talking about moral relativism, someone should pipe up and point out the possibility that morality and ethics, and certain values, are not "relative" or "shades of grey" but absolute and black and white.

I personally have no problem.  In my real-life, I do believe in a set of fundamental and absolute moral values that apply universally.  As you say, this is not the place to debate it.  My point was simply to point out that what a SOCIETY believes is heroic or villainous may be very different from society to society.  Whether that society is right or wrong by some higher standard is a separate question; in fact, it is a question that can be explored through role-playing characters in that society..

[Sindyr]

Hans and Tux - Good points all.

Would love to game with you guys.  Unfortunately, am never able to go to conventions. :(